Recently, Sussex County Councilman Mark Schaeffer wrote a letter to the editor stating that in making their decision to deny a landowner’s application for a change in the county comprehensive plan future land-use map, his colleagues on county council did not understand the underlying issue and what was being requested. We think otherwise. This council, and many before it, have clearly understood the issues and determined to keep the parcels low density.
We commend council for its decision. The issue of whether the land in question should be maintained as low density or be permitted to develop as high-density commercial has been debated by various county councils since before the turn of the century. The results of these debates have been consistent over the decades; the land best serves the county, the economy and the environment by remaining low density. Vote after vote to change these parcels' designation have been pushed by development interests – local and out of state – and time after time, every sitting county council has denied these applications.
The issue has been decided. It does not need to be debated again. Strikingly, while Schaeffer's letter is pushing for higher-density development on these isolated individual parcels, he emphatically states in the same letter: “Making land-use decisions piecemeal is not planning.” You can't have it both ways.
It is time to move on! Schaeffer's letter says: “As I have stated for years, we need a plan for Route 1 north of Nassau. We have no progressive, cohesive plan. We need one. With full public participation.” SARG couldn't agree more, and since all of the Route 1 corridor north of Five Points is in Schaeffer's district, no one is in a better position to seize the moment, take the lead and advocate for the development of such a plan with his council colleagues. When that happens, SARG will strongly support such an effort.