I feel blindsided by Sussex County's proposed Master Planned Zoning ordinance. MPZ is a new district that, after a much simpler front-end approval process, would give massive flexibility to big developers to reign over large developments of 200-plus acres for 20 years or longer.
The MPZ ordinance draft begins with the great purpose and intent:
- Walkable, bikeable and pedestrian-friendly, economically viable, professional, commercial and mixed-use neighborhood
- Superior in design to a standard residential subdivision, commercial site plan or combination of both
- Preserve and enhance the natural landscape and buffer the development from adverse external influences.
Who would not love such a community?
The problem is that the ordinance departs quickly from its stated purpose and intent. It creates numerous issues and loopholes for exploitations and litigations.
For one, it was shocking that MPZ, while allowing 12 units per acre, requires only 10% open space. As if that is not bad enough, if public lands are included in the MPZ, the public lands could count toward the 10% requirement.
Can you picture what a 10% open space for 200-plus acres looks like? In comparison, cluster subdivisions with two units per acre require 30%, but developers often claim to preserve 50% open space. While workforce housing developers are given the gift to build up to 12 units per acre with 50% open space, they, in return, have to allocate 25% of the units at lower rental rates to satisfy the Sussex County Rental Program. So why should the big developers be allowed to pack huge parcels with 12 units per acre, preserving only 10% as open space?
Vince Robertson, the county's assistant attorney, has presented the MPZ to county council and planning & zoning at least four times since December 2022. I never heard him mention the 10% minimum open-space requirement. Worse yet, the two different sample site plans he included in his presentations show about 30% open space, misleading the public into believing that is what an MPZ would look like.
It takes reading the 17-page ordinance draft to discover the meager 10% open-space requirement, which will destroy Sussex’s natural landscape and environmental assets like nothing else we have seen.
This is one of the many problems in this ordinance. Why can't the public rely on county officials and lawyers to protect and preserve the future?
Office of State Planning Coordination and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control reviewed the ordinance draft and gave many comments, but P&Z largely ignored them, especially environmental comments. Also, in conflict with their comments not to permit MPZ in AR-1 or where land should be preserved, P&Z recommended expanding MPZ areas to virtually anywhere in Sussex.
This massive destruction machine is mocking Sussex residents working on reviewing the county's subdivision design criteria to preserve trees, wetlands, buffers, etc. I can picture bulldozers ready to roar to mow down any large vacant lands.
Please try to understand the destructive impact of the Master Planned Zoning ordinance and send your comments to pandz@sussexcountyde.gov by 4:30 p.m., Tuesday, Oct. 31.
-
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.
