Sussex P&Z recommends approval of rental ordinance

With a 3-2 vote, the Sussex County Planning & Zoning Commission has recommended approval of the amended ordinance outlining the county’s affordable rental program.

Commission Chairman Bob Wheatley and commissioners Holly Wingate and Bruce Mears voted in favor of the ordinance. They agreed the action was a good first step in an effort to provide more affordable housing options.

Commissioners Kim Hoey Stevenson and Keller Hopkins, who voted against the ordinance, read long statements outlining their reasons for voting against it.

Wingate’s motion included several recommended changes to the ordinance to be considered by Sussex County Council for a final vote.

Those include the addition of commercial zones as appropriate locations for development; a reduction from 50% to 30% for required open space; a change in the setbacks to 50 feet for buildings built at 42 feet and a setback of 100 feet for 52-foot buildings; and a change in the DART bus route proximity requirement to allow developers to obtain written confirmation from DART that a bus route would serve the development within three years of approval of the final site plan.

Sussex County Council's public hearing will take place during its Tuesday, June 28 meeting.

Stevenson: Not the solution

Hoey Stevenson said the proposed ordinance would do little to resolve the affordable housing problem.

“While I agree that there is a need for more workforce and affordable housing in the eastern part of the county, and I appreciate the effort put into this ordinance, I see this as doing little to resolve the actual problems of affordable rental housing in the county. In fact, it could actually exacerbate other problems that already exist,” she said.

She said for every three units the program would create of affordable housing, it would create another seven units of market-rate housing. “Those seven units, and indeed the entire 10 units, would contribute to the already overburdened road system of the county and create more congestion and dangerous situations,” she said.

“The by-rights feature that is said to be needed to make this ordinance work could allow high-density apartment buildings to be built within otherwise low-density housing areas, without allowing for input from those people already living in those areas,” she said.

The main incentive in the ordinance is a provision that up to 12 units per acre is considered a by-right permitted use in all residential districts within the coastal, town center and developing areas. Public hearings before the commission and county council would not be required. Developers would only have to submit site plans for the commission's review.

Hoey Stevenson said the areas where this type of development would be allowed are too broad and would encompass most of the county.

“An apartment building could crop up almost anywhere under this ordinance. Keeping it within the town center areas and/or possibly creating a new designation on the comprehensive plan maps could keep this type of high density closer to already developed areas where there would be possibilities for walking, biking and using public transportation on a more regular basis,” she said.

Hoey Stevenson said there are other actions county officials could take, such as garage apartments, allowing dormitory-style housing and more support for nonprofit agencies building workforce housing.

She said the county could also create incentives such as waivers on height restrictions to allow companies to provide housing on top of new business construction and up-zone areas where there is already affordable housing developments so more of that housing could be built as infill.

“The support of tiny homes, land-lease manufactured housing and even year-round campground options could provide more equitable, faster and broader relief for the problems we face in the workforce housing arena,” she said.

Hopkins: Public relations action

Hopkins said the ordinance was an improvement but called it nothing more than a public relations action for the county. “It’s hard to make chicken salad from chicken manure,” he said. “We can do better.”

Hopkins said he can’t understand why it’s taken 14 years for county officials to take action to rectify the affordable housing shortage, which was first identified in 2008 with the passage of the original ordinance. “It's amazing it took 10 years to recognize the failure and another four years to come up with a partial solution and one with no home ownership option,” he said.

He said the lack of county action has had its biggest impact on hardworking, middle-class residents of the county. “Despite complaints we get, the problem is not overdevelopment, but there is not enough development across the economic spectrum,” he said.

A housing study commissioned by county council found that 50% of working families can afford homes costing $250,000 or less. “And there aren’t many of those in the county,” Hopkins said.

“County government is part of the problem and not the catalyst for a solution. Poor planning by the county has created the situation we are in today,” he said.

He said the housing study noted the problem has been exacerbated by county ordinances restricting multifamily housing options.

How many parcels?

Hopkins had requested additional information from county planning & zoning staff on how many parcels would be eligible for multifamily/apartment construction to take advantage of the incentives in the program.

Under the proposed ordinance, only parcels in county-designated growth zones – coastal areas, town centers and developing areas – near DART bus routes would be eligible.

At the commission's May 26 meeting, Sussex County Planning & Zoning Director Jamie Whitehouse provided a list of eligible undeveloped parcels and acreage to the commission.

There are 2,521 parcels ranging in size from less than 1 acre to greater than 100 acres. Whitehouse said of that total, there are about 170 parcels greater than 5 acres, and 100 of those parcels are greater than 10 acres, where multifamily rental housing could be built.

Also in the ordinance

The affordable units would be available to qualified renters whose annual income is 80% or less of the county's average median income.

Other regulations include: At least 30% of the units must be set aside as affordable units as defined by the ordinance; density up to 12 units per acre; open space of 50%; 100-foot perimeter buffers; connection to central water and sewer service; within one-half mile of a DART bus stop; building height limit of 52 feet, which is 10 feet higher than what is allowed today; interconnectivity to any adjacent commercially zoned properties; sidewalks on all streets with connectivity to surrounding sidewalks; walking and biking trails must be interconnected and are permitted within the buffer area.