County Council focus on C-1 Zoning

By Sam Harvey
Staff Reporter

Council members first discussed the ordinance, which would close the existing Commercial (C-1) district and create the new CR-1 zoning designation, last May. They returned to it at the April 11 council meeting, but eventually deferred, leaving the record open for written comments until the county Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Commission has a chance to comment.

There was some debate over how long to leave the record open, leading County Administrator Bob Stickels to jab at the ordinance’s already senior status — “Until November,” he jokingly recommended.

Concerns over the amount of residential development that has been taking place on C-1 lands first prompted council to attack the fundamental zoning issue. As it stands, property owners can build up to 12 residential units per acre on C-1 lands, by right.

That wouldn’t change — any existing lands zoned C-1 would be grandfathered. However, with adoption of the ordinance at hand, the county would not zone any more C-1 land.

The CR-1 zoning district, by way of contrast, would not permit any residential development, by right — but property owners could pursue residential development via the conditional-use process. From county code, conditional uses are “generally of a public or semipublic character and are essential and desirable for the general convenience and welfare…”

However, as Citizens Coalition President Mike Tyler argued, developers had abused the conditional-use process over the years, providing little proof that their projects contributed to that general convenience and welfare. “I’m not sure whether 20 condominiums serve the need of a community (like) a barbershop or bakery, or things of that nature,” Tyler pointed out.

As drafted, ordinance would give council the authority to approve up to 20 units per acre, through the conditional-use process, on CR-1 lands. From within county government itself, engineers raised concerns over this potential for increased density.

P&Z Director Lawrence Lank read a letter from Director of Utility Planning John Ashman: “The engineering department has concerns … the South Coastal area planning study has cost $388,959, the North Coastal planning area study has cost $671,366 … numerous hours and dollars have been spent to provide these plans to Sussex County,,” he said.

According to Ashman, conditional-use approvals in the 20-unit-per-acre neighborhood could render these plans obsolete. “None of these plans has been prepared using 20 unit per acre densities that are mentioned in this ordinance amendment,” he wrote. “The engineering department believes … that approval of this ordinance amendment would seriously affect existing wastewater collection, transmission and treatment facilities.”

Land-use watchdog Mable Granke of Lewes said the CR-1 district could provide council a wonderful opportunity to incorporate some apartment-over-the-shop type affordable housing. Council Member George Cole warned her that there were no guarantees the CR-1 ordinance would actually foster such mixed use — it could permit 100-percent residential development, he said.

“That’s why I’m asking for a very careful look and coordination,” Granke replied. “Even if it’s around town centers and developing zones, you need to know where you want it to be, and think about if it’s sustainable. “Some towns can’t sustain any additional density now — some can, and want it, and court it,” she said.

Granke said council also needed to take a serious look at how the ordinance would tie in with other recently-adopted land-use initiatives, like the Moderately Priced Housing Unit (MPHU) program and Cluster Density Trade.

With the county preparing to take up another five-year update to the Comprehensive Plan, Granke suggested there was no better time to bring all these initiatives together.

In other business, council considered an ordinance that would reduce the number of off-street parking spaces required for multifamily residences, but deferred on that as well (again, waiting for comments from the P&Z).

And council briefly broached the possibility of applying a bonus density for cash (for open-space preservation) element to conditional-use and change-of-zone processes. Cole objected strongly, as with the CDT, and his colleagues agreed that the matter should be placed on the back burner, at least until after the Comprehensive Plan update.