According to Sussex County code, the cluster development sketch plan and preliminary plan of a cluster subdivision provides for a total environment and design which are superior, in the reasonable judgment of the planning commission. “Homes shall be clustered on the environmentally suitable portions of the tract, specifically those portions of the tract least encumbered by sensitive environmental features, including but not limited to wetlands, mature woodlands, waterways and other water bodies.”
The code says, “The cluster development plan will preserve the natural environment and any historic or archeological resources.” Furthermore, the code states “Removal of healthy mature trees shall be limited,” and “Scenic views that can be seen from within the tract should be preserved to the greatest extent possible.”
Twin Masts design deviates by cramming in many more homes than permitted in a standard subdivision, but it does not preserve. It does the opposite, clear-cutting mature woods in an “excellent groundwater recharge area,” and building on floodplains. The very first step of a developer’s plan as outlined Sussex code is to identify lands that should be preserved. First, areas worthy of preservation should be mapped, including wetlands, wooded areas, waterways, other water bodies and natural drainage areas. Then, other features that are important should be mapped, such as tree lines, scenic views, historic buildings and prime farmland.
Areas with the fewest important natural, scenic and historic features should be considered the “potential development,” and that is why cluster developments are allowed. They are allowed to cram many more homes than usual into a space in order to preserve “lands that should be preserved.” The next step in the developer’s planning, according to code, is to Identify developable areas. Next, the most appropriate locations for development should be chosen to minimize the impact to the most important features mapped in the first step.
With the Twin Masts plot plan, 36 lots/homes would be eliminated in the bottom right-hand side of the parcel if initial planning took into consideration natural drainage areas/excellent groundwater recharge and mature woods. Sixty-two lots/homes would be eliminated in the left-hand side of the parcel if initial planning took into consideration the flood plain.
This is 98 lots/homes that should not have been included in the initial plan, had the developer followed the first step of a developer’s plan as outlined in the code – to identify lands that should be preserved. First, areas worthy of preservation should be mapped, including wetlands, wooded areas, waterways, other water bodies and natural drainage areas. That leaves the developer with 151 homes in the potential development area. And yet, the developer in the application process realized that they could fit in four more parcels.
Ninety-eight homes is nearly 40% of 249 homes. The developer’s calculation is nearly 40% off! I trust the planning and zoning commission will make the right decision and deny this application in the present plot plan that has been submitted.
Heather R. Kingree
Milton
-
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.
