|
|
|
The battle over how to handle land use redevelopment in the future rages on as the New Castle County Planning Board heard details of Councilman Robert Weiner’s ordinance on the matter Tuesday night at the New Castle County government complex.
Substitute 2 to 11-026, sponsored by Weiner (R-Brandywine Hundred West) found supporters and opponents who were equally passionate in their arguments for and against, respectively, for the legislation during the Planning Board’s public comment portion of the meeting.
But that is simply part of the record that the Planning Board will have to review as it eventually makes a final recommendation to New Castle County Council, board Chairman Victor Singer said. In essence, the Planning Board must now take into account three different ordinances on how to handle land use redevelopment.
The first, brief ordinance on redevelopment, sponsored by Councilman Timothy Sheldon (D-Pike Creek) was tabled and so was the more recent ordinance 11-020, authored by the Department of Land Use and co-sponsored by the Land Use Committee chairmen, Councilman Joseph Reda (D-Elsmere) and Councilman David Tackett (D-Christiana).
“Everybody’s ideas have been tossed on the table,” Singer said. “The ones that don’t make sense are laughed at and tossed out. The ones that make sense are [kept]. It’s a painful process.”
When asked by board member Victor Udo if he saw any room for compromise, Weiner said that was indeed possible. He simply wanted to obtain an opinion from the independent Planning Board as part of the process, particularly since he found had no luck obtaining comment from the Department of Land Use.
“You are our citizen board; you are our counter balance,” Weiner said. “I’m concerned about the counter balance in 020. We need to collaborate and work together.”
Weiner said his legislation would require the developer to pay his fair share when it comes to traffic improvements and would close what he sees as a loophole when it comes to so-called “paper redevelopments” – projects given bonuses that are in reality targeted for parcels never fully built out.
If adopted, Weiner’s ordinance will only allow built structures, half of which are being demolished, to qualify as ‘redevelopment
“Taxpayers should not have to bail out developers whose plans are not viable by allowing a redevelopment that ignores traffic concurrency,’” he said. “The current system invites developers to play games by having one use approved as a normal, major plan, and later doing something completely different as a minor plan that this board cannot even review.”
The battle over how to handle land use redevelopment in the future rages on as the New Castle County Planning Board heard details of Councilman Robert Weiner’s ordinance on the matter Tuesday night at the New Castle County government complex.
Substitute 2 to 11-026, sponsored by Weiner (R-Brandywine Hundred West) found supporters and opponents who were equally passionate in their arguments for and against, respectively, for the legislation during the Planning Board’s public comment portion of the meeting.
But that is simply part of the record that the Planning Board will have to review as it eventually makes a final recommendation to New Castle County Council, board Chairman Victor Singer said. In essence, the Planning Board must now take into account three different ordinances on how to handle land use redevelopment.
The first, brief ordinance on redevelopment, sponsored by Councilman Timothy Sheldon (D-Pike Creek) was tabled and so was the more recent ordinance 11-020, authored by the Department of Land Use and co-sponsored by the Land Use Committee chairmen, Councilman Joseph Reda (D-Elsmere) and Councilman David Tackett (D-Christiana).
“Everybody’s ideas have been tossed on the table,” Singer said. “The ones that don’t make sense are laughed at and tossed out. The ones that make sense are [kept]. It’s a painful process.”
When asked by board member Victor Udo if he saw any room for compromise, Weiner said that was indeed possible. He simply wanted to obtain an opinion from the independent Planning Board as part of the process, particularly since he found had no luck obtaining comment from the Department of Land Use.
“You are our citizen board; you are our counter balance,” Weiner said. “I’m concerned about the counter balance in 020. We need to collaborate and work together.”
Weiner said his legislation would require the developer to pay his fair share when it comes to traffic improvements and would close what he sees as a loophole when it comes to so-called “paper redevelopments” – projects given bonuses that are in reality targeted for parcels never fully built out.
If adopted, Weiner’s ordinance will only allow built structures, half of which are being demolished, to qualify as ‘redevelopment
“Taxpayers should not have to bail out developers whose plans are not viable by allowing a redevelopment that ignores traffic concurrency,’” he said. “The current system invites developers to play games by having one use approved as a normal, major plan, and later doing something completely different as a minor plan that this board cannot even review.”
But officials within County Executive Paul Clark’s administration believe they are on the right track with their ordinance, which officials say would ultimately give county residents plans conducive to the modern Unified Development Code. In short, redevelopment – even if only on paper – allows the county to obtain more favorable developments conducive to the quality of life for county residents, administration officials said.
And among the opponents of Weiner’s ordinance, Wilmington attorney Larry Tarabicos said Weiner’s legislation would have prevented him from seeing through such redevelopment projects as the Hockessin Athletic Center and the Christiana Mall. The former redeveloped an area that had been plagued by crime while the latter replaced the void left by Nordstrom with Lord & Taylor’s and Target, said Tarabicos, with Elzufon Austin Reardon Tarlov & Mondell, P.A.
Tarabicos also took issue with Weiner continuing to characterize his client DelleDonne & Associate’s proposal for Governor’s Square III as a redevelopment project in order to garner headlines. Governor's Square III is a green field that is not going forward as a redevelopment, he said for the record.
In his rebuttal, Weiner said his ordinance would not prevent redevelopment projects like the ones mentioned by Tarabicos. The legislation, if enacted, would simply require the developer to pay his fair share for any traffic improvements.
Jerome Heisler, chairman of the construction firm Reybold Group, was also among three people who opposed Weiner’s ordinance. Heisler believes the legislation, if enacted, would stymie redevelopment efforts.
“The projects I’m looking at could not be done under the proposed Weiner law,” Heisler said. “I’m trying to get The Pilot School done [in Brandywine, for instance].
“My father is an eloquent thinker. As he put, it’s stagnation through prohibition,” he added. “Everybody’s trying to stop everything through legislation.”
Mill Creek resident Peggy Shultz also opposes the Weiner legislation because the county has to be smart about its future growth.
“Our county is like a balloon,” she said. “Constrain it in one place and it will have to open in another place.”
But Weiner found support with seven speakers, including Milltown-Limestone Civic Alliance President William Franey and Civic League for New Castle County member Nancy Willing.
“The redevelopment ordinance in 2002 was enacted with the best intentions,” Franey said. “But developers too often are exempt from fees.”
Willing said it was wise for the Planning Board to methodically consider “all these moving parts” before making a final decision. Moreover, Council should read the Planning Board’s final report en total rather than take anyone’s word for it by way of briefing, she added.
Parkowski, Guerke & Swayze attorney Michael McDermott said Weiner's ordinance would bring a common sense approach to redevelopment by requiring meaningful examinations of traffic impact and infrastructure.
