Sussex County Council debates approach to development rules

A list of 20 recommendations to refocus housing development in Sussex County had county council debating Oct. 14 whether to begin with ideas that would take weeks to implement or some that could take years.

County Administrator Todd Lawson grouped the recommendations from the Sussex County Land-Use Reform Working Group into manageable, substantial and onerous categories, based on how difficult they may be to enact.

The proposals, which need county council approval, would shift growth toward areas where it already exists, promote creation of diverse housing types and protect natural resources and farmland.

Lawson told county council and county planning & zoning commission members the county could quickly enact some, such as protecting forests, encouraging naturalized landscaping and amending subdivision rules. A lot of work has already been done on those issues, he said.

Other recommendations could take many months or years to complete, and would be part of the county comprehensive land-use plan scheduled to be completed by the end of 2028.

Councilman Matt Lloyd said he heard recently there is a need for 19,700 housing units of all types by 2030. Creating zoning rules to satisfy demand is important because a tight inventory drives up the cost of housing and makes it unaffordable for many, he said.

The type of development is more important than the volume, Councilwoman Jane Gruenebaum said.

“Smart growth is about more than just building houses or building accommodation,” Gruenebaum said. “Smart growth takes in the totality of a community’s needs. They don’t just need houses, they also need schools, they need open spaces, etc., etc,, etc. They need clean water. They need jobs.” 

Work on the comprehensive plan is not expected to begin until next year, Lawson said. The last county comprehensive plan took about 22 months to complete by the end of 2018, said Vince Robertson, a county attorney.

Councilman Scott McCarron suggested beginning work soon on the next plan, while still pursuing changes recommended by the working group that Lawson said could be accomplished quickly.

“I think we can do both, within reason,” Gruenebaum said.

County officials plan to continue discussions about how to move forward with the 20 recommendations at a future meeting, but no date was set.

The most difficult, time-consuming and controversial proposals are a comprehensive overhaul of zoning and lowering density in rural areas.

Councilman John Rieley strongly opposes reducing housing density in AR-1, agricultural-residential, districts to one house per acre, down from the current limit of two per acre by right.

That change would reduce the value of farmland and prompt lengthy and expensive lawsuits against the county, which the county will lose, Rieley said. He said he backs incentives for growth in areas near where it exists.

Rieley said development is being driven by the market, and retirees are moving to the areas of the county they choose. He said property owners have the right to develop their land.

“There’s open space in that area and people are going to want to move there,” Rieley said.

“I don’t feel that my job is to accommodate or make room for the people who want to move here …,” Gruenebaum said. “My job is to help create the plans, the ordinances, the rules that make this the best place you could imagine to live.” 

There is pressure to change the direction of development that has burdened  the community, said Gruenebaum, who along with McCarron and Lloyd unseated incumbents last fall as they called for limits on growth.

“The public is fed up, really fed up, and our heads are on the chopping block, all of us, over the traffic situation, which is not getting better, " she said. “And all of the developments are going to make it worse and worse and worse.”