|
County writes clearer definition
According to the county’s proposed amendment to the existing ordinance, open space is defined as:
“Those land areas within residential subdivisions or developments which have a bona fide purpose to provide active and/or passive recreational opportunities, maintain land in a predominately undeveloped or natural state, promote conservation, protect wildlife or serve as a buffer between residential and nonresidential areas and/or commercial and noncommercial areas.”
Over the past few months Sussex County officials and their legal staff have been crafting an amended open-space ordinance.
As the public dissects the ordinance word by word, the inevitable debate over what should stay and what should go has begun.
But, Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman Robert Wheatley issued the following warning during a Thursday, Nov. 16 public hearing: “We need to take caution that we do too much and end up with nothing. We need to start somewhere,” he said.
Sussex planners need a clearer definition of open space – what can be included and what cannot be included in calculations – because subdivisions and developments are required to provide open space based on density and subdivision types.
County council will have a public hearing on the amended ordinance at 1:30 p.m., Tuesday, Dec. 2, in council chambers in the county administration building, Georgetown.
As groups and individuals weigh in on the ordinance, county officials will have to address concerns and decide if changes are merited. It’s not an easy task; take wetlands, for example.
Environmentalists want all wetlands – tidal and nontidal – to be excluded from all open-space computations. Most developers want to include wetlands when computing the percentage of open space in a development. The ordinance excludes tidal wetlands and is silent on nontidal wetlands.
In addition, environmentalists want more protection with the mandatory inclusion of designated wildlife areas within open-space areas.
Developers want less regulation and to include stormwater management areas, including ponds, some streets, indoor recreation areas and all wetlands in open-space calculations.
What’s in and what’s out
Under the proposed amendment, the following can be included in the calculation of open space:
• Recreational facilities including swimming pools, game courts, play areas and walking and bike paths not on the state rights-of-way.
• Ponds of safe recreational value that do not allow the use of motorized craft.
• Buffers and forested areas.
• Areas protected by perpetual conservation easements.
• Areas providing scenic vistas and wildlife corridors.
• Sidewalks not located within street rights-of-way.
• Safe zones under the source-water protection ordinance.
• Spray-irrigation areas, but not areas used for rapid infiltration basins.
The following are excluded from open space calculations:
• Land area within designated lot lines.
• Building footprints.
• Most impervious surfaces, including streets, parking and loading areas, and sidewalks with street rights-of-way.
• Stormwater management facility areas.
• Tidal wetlands.
• Sewer, water, gas or electric utilities facilities, including lagoons.
• Landscaped buffer strips in manufactured home parks.
Comments on ordinance
Roger Gross, an engineer with Merestone Construction in Rehoboth Beach, cautioned commissioners to reconsider including stormwater management areas as open space.
He said there is a move away from large ponds toward more passive, green technology methods to treat stormwater.
He said many of these areas could be used for recreational purposes. “If we are penalized, we will not want to focus on these technologies,” he said. “We want to move away from the big ponds.”
Commission Chairman Robert Wheatley agreed that the county should encourage the use of new stormwater management technology and commissioners support the use of alternatives other than large stormwater management ponds. “Many of these large ponds serve no purpose. Ninety-five percent are a just a big hole,” he said.
Gross wanted to make it clear that even some of the ponds should be included as open space. “There are trails around many ponds and they are used as recreational facilities. There are examples of poor ponds, but not all ponds should be discounted,” he said.
Wheatley said some ponds could fit in under the proposed ordinance if they “demonstrate safe recreational value.”
Gross said that language presented ambiguity left open to interpretation.
Carol Bason, representing the Center for the Inland Bays, said the ordinance was the most important section in county code to help protect and restore the Inland Bays.
It should contain a mandatory provision that all designated open space contains a certain percentage set aside as natural lands or conservation open space. In addition, she said, impervious surfaces should not exceed 15 percent of the recreational area within open spaces and nontidal wetlands should be added to areas excluded from open space calculations.
Kevin Burdette of McCrone Inc. asked why buffers were excluded from open-space calculations only in manufactured home parks. “I’m not sure that’s what you wanted,” he said.
“We will research that one,” Wheatley said.
Commissioners may provide suggestions for alterations to the amendment based on comments and letters they have received before passing on a final recommendation to county council.
|
