Non-Route 24 drivers shouldn’t have say in Belle Mead, Atlantic Fields
Residents around Route 24 had suffered traffic woes before DelDOT tore up the roads and caused more inconvenience, but they put up with it for years thinking that it would eventually bring relief.
Now they are riled up against Belle Mead and Atlantic Fields because they know what’s coming if they are approved: years of construction traffic, followed by years of road expansion with flaggers and cones! Atlantic Fields will become a traffic magnet.
Will these be the last of approvals on Route 24? No! They will be used as a justification for more development. There is no relief for residents along Route 24.
About five years ago, a Realtor told a neighbor who was selling her house that buyers would pay $20,000-plus more for not having to drive on Route 24! It is getting worse.
The support voice of those who don’t regularly use Route 24 should not carry weight in these applications. Here is what the Chancery Court said on the Steen v. Sussex County Council of 1989:
The plaintiff argued there is no record evidence in opposition to plaintiff's application, that county council based its decision on layman opinion and unsubstantiated fears, and that the offering of opinion only does not constitute probative or substantial evidence.
The fact that opponents to Mr. Steen's application did not present expert testimony regarding the proposed use, however, is not controlling. Council could consider "the evidence submitted by the persons most familiar with the neighborhood insofar as it bears on the objective factors important to the future of the area affected by the proposed use." Anderson v. Peden, 284 Or. 313, 587 P.2d 59 (1978). See also Sears v. Levy Court of Kent County, Del.Ch., C.A. No. 465-K, Berger, V.C. (Sept. 15, 1986).
Plaintiff has not made any showing from which the court could reasonably conclude that county council's denial of Mr. Steen's application was arbitrary and capricious; that is, not reasonably related to the public health, safety or welfare. The record before council was sufficient (if somewhat sparse) and council's findings of fact in denying the conditional-use permit indicate that it considered the appropriate factors in reaching its decision.
Defendant is therefore entitled to dismissal of plaintiff's challenge to the denial of a conditional-use permit.
Each county council member is elected to make decisions – hopefully sound decisions to steer the county for the future and current residents’ quality of life.
-
A letter to the editor expresses a reader's opinion and, as such, is not reflective of the editorial opinions of this newspaper.
To submit a letter to the editor for publishing, send an email to viewpoints@capegazette.com. All letters are considered at the discretion of the newsroom and published as space allows. Due to the large volume of submissions, we cannot acknowledge receipt of each submission. Letters must include a phone number and address for verification. Keep letters to 400 words or fewer. We reserve the right to edit for content or length. Letters should be responsive to issues addressed in the Cape Gazette rather than content from other publications or media. Letters should focus on local issues, not national topics or personalities. Only one letter per author will be published every 30 days regarding a particular topic. Authors may submit a second letter within that time period if it pertains to a different issue. Letters may not be critical of personalities or specific businesses. Criticism of public figures is permissible. Endorsement letters for political candidates are no longer accepted. Letters must be the author’s original work, and may not be generated by artificial intelligence tools. Templates, form letters and letters containing language similar to other submissions will not be published.
