|
The state planning office considers the proposed Sussex County land-use plan a work in progress – even after more than a year in the process. The latest edition of the plan does not pass muster.
“But, we are almost there,” said Robert Wheatley, chairman of the planning and zoning commission.
At the top of the state’s list of concerns are density, better delineations of growth zones and more incentives to direct development toward growth zones and away from Level 4 areas – those areas not slated to receive state services or infrastructure funding.
“Essentially, the entire unincorporated area of the county is a growth area of a minimum density of two dwelling units per acre; density can only go up from there,” wrote Connie Holland, director of the Office of State Planning, in the state’s latest response to the plan.
The five pages of recommendations are a far cry from the 12 certification issues and 60 pages of recommendations noted by the state on the original version of the plan.
And the county has been given another six months to make changes – the second deadline extension. The plan was supposed to be finished by the end of 2007 – and then by April 30.
County Administrator David Baker said the process should take about 60 days. County officials feel they have a set of measures to address the state’s concerns, which will drive up the number of proposed ordinances in the comprehensive plan beyond the original number of 23.
“We’ll have 30 or 35 ordinances by the time we are done,” said Lawrence Lank, director of planning and zoning.
The state’s concerns
Holland outlined five specific certification issues that have not been addressed in an April 23 letter to the county.
State planners contend the plan does not contain a clear strategy detailing future growth and development patterns – a key section to the land-use plan.
“The state does not agree that the county has properly integrated the plan elements to delineate a predictable future growth pattern,” Holland wrote.
In addition, state planners want the county to develop strategies to direct development to growth areas, using tools such as an adequate public facilities ordinance and incentives.
“Until the county completes this very basic type of planning analysis, it is not possible for the state to evaluate the true impact of the land-use plan and the intention of the county regarding growth management,” Holland wrote.
“The plan does not clearly identify how growth will be directed into the appropriate investment levels of the strategies for state policies and spending,” she continued.
Holland noted that 45 percent of all lots approved in the county since 2001 have been in Level 4 areas, where the state has no plans to provide infrastructure or services to new residents.
“Clearly, we need to coordinate our efforts more effectively for the benefit of all state taxpayers. Unfortunately, this plan does not provide us the predictability needed to do so,” Holland wrote.
Other certification issues contained in the letter were:
• Passage of a source-water protection ordinance.
(Action on that measure is pending before county council.)
• Inclusion of a natural areas
(County staff is working on developing a map.)
County measures
County officials said they have a list of proposals to add to the plan to address the state’s concerns that would direct growth to appropriate areas.
Sussex County Planning and Zoning voted Wednesday, April 30, to support a package of changes, which need to be approved by county council and added to a final version of the comprehensive plan.
Included in the package are:
• Offering partial building permit rebates for Energy Star certified projects in developing areas.
• Adding to the density bonus program up to six units per acre for cluster developments in town centers. Developers would pay a fee for increased density and the money would be used to purchase open space.
• Expedited county and state review for projects that attain Green Community Certification in the environmentally sensitive developing area.
Richard Kautz, county land-use planner, said the measures, among others already included in the plan, were added as a bundle to address the state’s concerns. “Instead of disincentives, our goal was to develop a set of incentives to direct growth to developing areas or town centers,” he said.
Commissioner Michael Johnson was quick to point out that some towns, especially those in the Cape Region, have questioned the policy of directing growth to town centers. He expressed concern with increasing density as an incentive to develop in growth zones that are in the environmentally sensitive developing area. He asked fellow commissioners for guidance.
“We are focusing growth where the state says they want it, and obviously not everyone is on board,” Wheatley said. “I don’t know what the answer is.”
Commissioners agreed that town officials need to be part of the discussion process. “But there needs to a more compelling reason other than we just don’t want it [development],” he said.
The key to unlock the plan is a set of proposed ordinances. Wheatley said the goal is to work on the ordinances during an 18-month period once the plan is adopted. “We are committed to get on it,” he said. “We can’t string this out for five years. I’m confident this is going to get done.”
The county’s consultant will prepare the ordinances and release them in sets of three or four.
Contact Ron MacArthur at ronm@capegazette.com
|
