SPECIAL UTILITY COMMITTEE
A Special Utility Committee meeting was held on November 27, 2007 at 4:30 p.m. with Chairman Ruane presiding. Members present were Mr. McGiffin, Mr. Cregar, and Mr. Snaman. Members of Council present were Mr. Hogan and Mayor Carey (arrived at 4:39 p.m.).
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Snaman moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Cregar and unanimously carried.
Appendix B - Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 29 - Source Water
Protection Overlay Zone (SWPOZ), Section 29.7 - Tier III (Referred by City Council on October 22, 2007)
During the Regular Council Meeting of October 22, 2007, a public hearing was scheduled to consider the adoption of proposed zoning text amendments that would establish a Source Water Protection Overlay Zone (SWPOZ), which affects over 500 parcels within the City. It was noted that the proposed ordinance was reviewed by the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee during their meeting of October 9, 2007. Based on several comments and other discussions that occurred since the Planning Commission meeting on October 15, 2007, it was staff’s opinion that providing for an exemption may not be the best alternative to address impervious cover limitations and suggested the possibility of balancing important economic development factors with the protection of the recharge areas. Staff recommended that the proposed ordinance be referred to the Utility Committee and that a Public Hearing be rescheduled for January 14, 2008, to allow staff and the Utility Committee to work through these issues to bring forward an ordinance that addresses the concerns realistically. Members of City Council, during their meeting of October 22, 2007, deferred the public hearing for the proposed zoning text amendment and that the ordinance, amending Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 29 - Source Water Protection Overlay Zone (SWPOZ) of the Zoning Ordinance, be referred to the Utility Committee in order to reconsider protective land use policies to protect Dover’s excellent water recharge areas and its well-heads and to present a revised ordinance to City Council for public hearing on January 14, 2008.
During a Special Committee Meeting on November 6, 2007, members reviewed an alternative draft ordinance entitled “Wellhead Protection Only” due to the difficulty of members coming to a consensus regarding the excellent recharge areas at this time. Members were reminded that the State is requiring the City to adopt the Overlay Zone prior to the end of the year and it was felt by staff that the alternative may satisfy the requirement at this time. The committee recommended adoption of the alternative proposed ordinance, as amended, and that a public hearing be scheduled accordingly (public hearing set for November 26, 2007 at 7:30 p.m.). During their Regular Meeting of November 12, 2007, members of City Council accepted the committee’s recommendation. A public hearing was held on November 26, 2007 and Council adopted the alternative ordinance.
Members were provided Section 29.7 - Tier III, of Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 29 - Source Water Protection Overlay Zone (SWPOZ) of Appendix B - Zoning Ordinance, for their consideration.
Mr. Koenig, Public Services Manager, reviewed a presentation of the “Excellent Recharge Areas”, Section 29.7 - Tier III, of the Dover’s Source Water Protection Overlay Zone (Attachment #1).
Mrs. Townshend, Director of Planning and Inspections, provided members with a revised draft of Section 29.7 - Tier III, of the Dover’s Source Water Protection Overlay Zone (Attachment #2) and reviewed the proposed text amendment in detail.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Townshend explained that there are two (2) types of site plans that are received in the Planning Office. There are those that are very small, which can be reviewed administratively and those that require review by the Planning Commission. Rather than such a broad reference to Article 10, she suggested that Section 29.71 be amended by replacing the word “any” with “only” and elimination of the “as set forth in Article 10”.
Mr. Snaman moved to recommend that Section 29.71 be amended to read as follows: “29.71 Applicability. The impervious cover restrictions of this section shall apply only to activities requiring approval of the planning commission”. The motion was seconded by Mr. McGiffin and unanimously carried.
Mr. John Barndt, Program Manager for Source Water and Wellhead Protection Programs for the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), relayed concern regarding Section 29.72, as it relates to the stormwater and provided material (Delaware Ground-Water Recharge Design Manual - Supplement 1 and an Excerpt from NCC-UDC) with regards to this issue (Attachment #3). Mrs. Townshend requested that staff be provided the opportunity to review the material to develop appropriate language for Section 29.72.
At the request of Mrs. Townshend with regards to the change from 20 to 30 for impervious surface and 30 to 60 for impervious cover, as referenced in Section 29.72, Mr. Gregory Moore of Becker Morgan Group, representing Dover Downs and Delaware State University, stated that although it is felt that the change is better, he has not had the opportunity to evaluate the change. He is in the process of re-calculating all the holdings of Delaware State University and requested the opportunity to discuss the impacts with representatives.
Mr. Phil McGinnis, Kent County Association of Realtors, stated that having just received the information, he has not had the opportunity for a thorough review, although he stated that higher percentages would be preferred.
Mr. Moore advised members that, in the best interest of all parties, he would like the opportunity to introduce, as an incentive, Green Building possibilities and would like to share this information with staff. The Green Building design deals with site improvements and providing criteria for impervious surface, stormwater, and discharge. Mr. Moore noted that it is not just the percentages, but how to meet the criteria to get to the percentages. Responding, Mrs. Townshend indicated that this is, essentially, the entirety of Section 29.72.
Mr. McGiffin moved to recommend to defer Section 29.72 until the next meeting, seconded by Mr. Snaman and unanimously carried.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Townshend stated that the Kent Conservation District reviewed the proposed ordinance and sent a letter of support in October 2007. However, she stated that they have not had the opportunity to review any changes that have been made to the draft. Mrs. Townshend assured members that she will forward the final draft to Kent Conservation District and DNREC before the proposed ordinance is presented to City Council for consideration.
Referring to Section 29.77, Mr. Ruane relayed concern with nebulous words such as “desirable” and “consistent” since they are subjective and interpretive. He stated that if a waiver is to be permitted, there should be very specific requirements and criteria.
With regards to Section 29.710, Mr. Moore stated his support, explaining that residential property owners would not have a sophisticated engineer to assist them; therefore, although the Planning Commission review would not be required, it would be helpful for a homeowner to have clear direction of their abilities.
In response to Mr. McGiffin, Mrs. Townshend advised members that staff developed the language for paragraph (a) of Section 29.711 after meeting with interested parties yesterday; therefore, staff is not necessarily recommending the specific language, particularly the word “mitigation”, as it currently reads.
Mr. McGinnis stated that since the meaning of paragraph (a) of Section 29.711 is to compensate, he suggested that the word “compensation” replace “mitigation”. He relayed concern with the use of the City’s assessment of property due to many of these assessments being higher than the market value; therefore, an appraisal done by a qualified, certified appraiser would be preferred. Since the paragraph discusses a reduction of property rights, due to the reduction of impervious surface, Mr. McGinnis advised members that the property value could reduce. He questioned what change, if any, would be made to the assessed value. If it is the intent for the funds obtained through “payment-in-lieu” to be used towards the purchase of property, Mr. McGinnis suggested that the ordinance be specific in this regard.
Mr. Moore, on behalf of the Greater Dover Committee, explained his opposition to not allowing an exemption for the downtown area. He explained that the original design of downtown was based on a grid system that was intended to have full development similar to Loockerman Street. If you limit the redevelopment of those properties to 60% impervious, the result will be suburban, for a downtown that currently “feels” urban. This would be a serious change to Dover and would hinder the ability to redevelop any property in the downtown. It was his opinion that downtown Dover is an area that should be exempted without question.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Moore indicated that the downtown is an incentive area, explaining that incentives are offered for the redevelopment of downtown. He stated that by requiring developers to contribute to the City, to allow for the purchase of lands elsewhere, is a disincentive, which is against the attempts to revitalize the downtown.
Mr. John Paradee of Prickett, Jones, and Elliott,11 N. State Street, addressed members as a member of the Greater Dover Committee and relayed concurrence with the comments made by Mr. Moore. He stated that anything that increases the cost of redevelopment in the downtown area is a disincentive and is exactly counter to the efforts for the revitalization of downtown. Reminding members that these revitalization efforts have been difficult, Mr. Paradee explained that such a requirement would only make them more difficult. Also, as a Board Member of Kent General Hospital, he advised members that the proposal would have an effect on the hospital’s master plan and requested that representatives of the hospital be given the opportunity to review and reflect how the proposed ordinance may affect their Master Plan, which is an important part of downtown Dover.
In response to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Townshend indicated that since a Master Plan has been submitted by Kent General Hospital, they would fall under Section 29.79 of the proposed ordinance. She explained that since a Master Plan for the hospital has already been approved, and if they were to develop the land accordingly, they would not be subject to the proposed ordinance; however, if the hospital submitted a new or revised Master Plan, they would be subject to the requirements as stipulated in the proposed ordinance.
As a board member of the hospital and preparer of their Master Plan, Mr. Moore assured members that the 20-Year Master Plan will need to be updated. He explained the importance of allowing the hospital to maintain itself in its current location and develop to its fullest. If the City does not provide the hospital this ability, they will be challenged and possibly move to a suburban site.
Mrs. Townshend also referred to a letter received from Mr. David Braun of Braun Engineering regarding the imposition of the zone on the downtown area (Attachment #4), which was provided to members.
Mr. Snaman questioned the current percentage of impervious surface in the downtown area. He also questioned if the reservoir, where the hospital is located, remains healthy.
Mr. John Barndt, Program Manager for Source Water and Wellhead Protection Programs for the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), advised members that Dover is the first urban community to work on this issue and that DNREC is attempting to be sensitive to understanding that having an extreme urban environment and working with resource protection is a challenge. DNREC is concerned with a blanket exemption due to the precedent that would be set. Although DNREC is sensitive that consideration to this area is necessary, Mr. Barndt suggested that rather than a blanket exemption, a higher threshold be considered that would be acceptable and workable.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Barndt stated that although Delaware is one of a few states that actually has a state level source water rule, there are others that he could contact to determine how they addressed this issue. He relayed a willingness to work, on behalf of the City, on this issue and conduct research to determine what urban areas in other states that have this type of law are doing.
Mr. Cregar questioned the reasons why the City would not consider a total exemption for the downtown.
Due to time constraints and there being no objections, Mr. Ruane stated that members will defer further consideration of this matter. He requested that staff provide information regarding the various questions raised and information requested by members during their next meeting, including an opinion from the City Solicitor with regards to the affect of an exemption from these requirements for only part of the City.
Mr. Snaman moved that a Special Meeting be held on December 11, 2007 at 4:30 p.m. to continue review of the Tier 3, Excellent Recharge Areas (Section 29.7 of the proposed ordinance amendment), seconded by Mr. Cregar and unanimously carried.
Mr. Snaman moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Cregar and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 5:48 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Eugene B. Ruane
Chairman
EBR/TM/jg
S:ClerksOfficeAgendas&MinutesCommittee-Minutes200711-27-2007 SPECIAL UTILITY.wpd
Attachments
Attachment #1 - Presentation of the "Excellent Recharge Areas", Section 29.7 - Tier III, of the Dover's Source Water Protection Overlay Zone
Attachment #2 - Revised Draft Ordinance, Section 29.7 (Tier 3, Excellent Recharge Areas)
Attachment #3 - Stormwater Material (Delaware Ground-Water Recharge Design Manual - Supplement 1 and Excerpt from NCC-UDC)
Attachment #4 - Letter from Mr. David Braun of Braun Engineering, dated November 27, 2007