| Author | Post |
|---|
tspong Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3357 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 18th, 2009 02:51 pm |
|
Copied below is a letter to the editor submitted to the Delaware State News. You can post your opinions by clicking on "Reply."
How interesting it is that we who testify before Levy Court and R.P.C. meetings are sworn in and placed under oath — no problem here; I sign everything I say.
However, lawyers, as "officers of the court," are not required to be sworn in and therefore not actually required to tell the truth.
Just as well for them, because under oath, the silver tongue of Pinocchio would cleave to the roof of his mouth.
Fred Allen Bass
Dover
|
Oracle Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 24th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 7 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 04:13 pm |
|
| I heard this project received RPC approval last night. Is that correct?
|
tspong Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3357 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 13th, 2009 06:10 pm |
|
What do you think?
From the Delaware State News:
Panel tables Leipsic development application
Kent Planning Commission desires further review of The Landings proposal
By Al Kemp
Delaware State News
DOVER — The Landings are still up in the air.
The Kent County Regional Planning Commission voted Thursday night to table a preliminary application by Tony Ashburn & Sons to build houses on 342 acres west of Leipsic outside the Growth Zone Overlay District.
During a public hearing a week earlier, the planning commissioners heard a succession of Leipsic residents speak against the project even though the proposed development lies outside their town’s corporate limits.
A decision was expected Thursday night, but after an executive session Commissioner Gene Thornton made a motion to table the application until Sept. 10 because further review of documents is needed, and legal concerns need to be addressed.
Mr. Ashburn’s counsel John Paradee contends that the application meets all requirements for preliminary approval, but the residents of Leipsic say their Town Charter gives them a voice in the decision-making process.
According to Chapter 2, Section 7-G of the Leipsic Comprehensive Plan, the town has no interest in future annexations but it is concerned about potential development of surrounding areas. The document designates a one-mile "area of concern" or Intergovernmental Coordination Area, and recommends that the town "enter into a memorandum of agreement with Kent County for reciprocal notification and coordination on land use and development activities within the Area of Concern."
One possible snag: Although the state approved the Leipsic Comprehensive Plan in November 2006, the town never entered into the specified agreement with Kent County.
In a letter to the Kent County Regional Planning Commission written on Tuesday, Leipsic Town Council Secretary Nancy Goodfellow asked that The Landings proposal be denied or tabled until the developer meets with town residents and addresses their concerns, which include pollution, highway traffic, flooding and possible failure of the proposed on-site septic system.
"The town of Leipsic requests that this project not be allowed to proceed forward, until the developer has obtained the consent of the town of Leipsic," the letter states.
Mr. Paradee has said he stands ready to meet with the town.
"He knows where to find us," Nancy Goodfellow said Thursday night.
The vote on the motion to table the application was 6-0, with Albert Holmes Jr. abstaining.
Staff writer Al Kemp may be reached at 741-8296 or akemp@newszap.com.
|
Oracle Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 24th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 7 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 8th, 2009 01:13 am |
|
| Thanks, HB. I respect and appreciate your perspective. Nice to know we can have an intelligent and enlightening discussion about the issues, even if we must agree to disagree. Regards.
|
Hartlyboy Member

|
Posted: Tue Jul 7th, 2009 10:44 pm |
|
Oracle wrote: My money says the housing boom in Kent County is not only dead, it is incapable of resuscitation.
From your lips to God's ear...
I know we are on opposite sides of the aisle on this subject, but it has been a pleasure exchanging views with you.
|
Oracle Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 24th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 7 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 7th, 2009 08:13 pm |
|
| Maybe. Maybe not. Remember that the County has a 5-year sunset requirement. If building out of the subdivision has not commenced within 5 years of final subdivision approval, the record plan gets expunged. It will be interesting to see what happens, indeed. My money says the housing boom in Kent County is not only dead, it is incapable of resuscitation.
|
rescue48 Member

|
Posted: Tue Jul 7th, 2009 08:02 pm |
|
| I would wager that 5 years from now if there were no further approvals, we would still be seeing the current lots being built upon and developments filled up.
|
Oracle Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 24th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 7 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 7th, 2009 07:29 pm |
|
You make some good points, HB.
You are correct about my reference to the number of approved lots in Kent County -- I was not counting those within municipalities. If you count the lots within municipalities, I believe the number is somewhere in the neighborhood of 19,000 lots. Again, many of those will sunset and never be built.
But here's the real kick in the pants -- had the Levy Court simply enacted impact fee surcharges (like the current surcharge for schools) for all infrastructure impacts (roads, fire, police, EMS, etc.), then all of the already-approved lots would be required to pay impact fees as part of the building permit process. As is stands now, the APFOs do not apply to the lots in question, and therefore, builders can continue to build for years and years without helping to offset the costs of their impacts on infrastructure. What is more, given the anti-development fervor now prevailing throughout Kent County, developers are avoiding Kent County like the plague. I'll bet there have not been any more than 2 new subdivision applications filed in Kent County over the past 12 months, and with all the hurdles the Levy Court has recently erected (and plans to continue erecting), I doubt we'll see much activity in that direction for years to come. That cannot be a good thing.
I'm all for making development pay up front for the impacts it will cause. I just fear that turning off the spicket as dramatically as the Levy Court has done will have devastatingly adverse consequences in the long run. Let's see where we are 5 years from now...
|
tspong Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3357 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 6th, 2009 03:59 pm |
|
What do you think?
From the Delaware State News:
Development near Leipsic worries some
Town officials, residents concerned about 130-home, 342-acre proposal
By Al Kemp
Delaware State News
LEIPSIC — A bitter battle that’s long been brewing between a builder and this bucolic bayside village may be headed for Kent County Levy Court for resolution.
The Kent County Regional Planning Commission will decide at its business meeting Thursday night whether to approve and send to Levy Court an application for a proposed housing development called The Landings west of Leipsic.
Tension between representatives for the builder and residents of the town grew visibly during a prolonged public hearing of the planning commission last Thursday night.
If given the go-ahead, Tony Ashburn and Sons will build more than 130 houses on a 342-acre tract bounded by the Leipsic River and Dyke Branch, and divided by Fast Landing Road (Del. 42) west of incorporated Leipsic. The builder’s legal counsel, John Paradee, urged the seven-member planning commission to send the application to Levy Court for approval.
"The commission’s decision must be based on the preliminary planning stage," said Mr. Paradee. "This application meets all the code requirements for preliminary plan approval."
Much of the opposition to the development stems from its proposed location in the midst of the vast and ecologically sensitive tidal marshlands of the upper Delaware Bay. Concerns include the proposed on-site septic system, road maintenance, pollution and the loss of fertile farmland.
Although the development lies west of incorporated Leipsic, the town’s government has insisted on participating in the process in accordance with the Leipsic Comprehensive Plan.
That plan, adopted in November 2006, institutes a one-mile area of influence or "Intergovernmental Coordination Area," said Nancy Goodfellow, a member of Leipsic Town Council.
Because of concern over the project’s environmental impact and its impact on the health and welfare of town residents, the Leipsic Planning & Zoning Commission voted on June 30 to oppose The Landings.
The commission is chaired by Nancy Goodfellow’s husband, Jay Goodfellow.
"The Leipsic Planning and Zoning Commission has held at least six meetings in the past year, and not once has a representative of Mr. Ashburn been present," Jay Goodfellow wrote in a letter to the county planning commission last week.
At the public hearing on Thursday, Commissioner Paul Davis asked whether the project’s engineers took into account recent studies on global warming and rising water in tributaries.
"The boundary lines on your site plan are going to change drastically with the rise of water," Mr. Davis told Mr. Paradee.
"It’s speculative to think about what global warming might mean to this project," Mr. Paradee responded.
Mr. Paradee reminded the commissioners of the December 2008 ruling by the Delaware Supreme Court that the Kent County Regional Planning Commission doesn’t have authority to deny applications outright.
Charles Hopkins, who lives on Fast Landing Road, was among those who spoke against The Landings at the public hearing.
"This is contrary to where the state and Kent County have been trying to go," he told the commissioners.
William Jacobson, also of Fast Landing Road, called the proposal "the opposite of smart growth," and asked whether the site plan’s 100-foot buffers allow for the rising sea level.
Mr. Jacobson showed slides of the tidal surge that swamped the Leipsic area during the floods of May 2008, and wondered whether Leipsic would join flood-ravaged Kitts Hummock and Bowers Beach, which he called "taxpayer burdens."
Leipsic is "a waterman’s town" with a character the residents want to maintain, Nancy Goodfellow said on Friday. She noted that 40 residents — from a population of about 220 — hold commercial fishing licenses. That would all change if The Landings project is approved.
"The town has no official record of what the developer is planning on doing," she said. "He knows we’re here. He’s just ignoring us."
Mr. Paradee maintained Thursday night that "we stand prepared to meet with the town."
He knows how to get there. He used to be the town solicitor.
Staff writer Al Kemp can be reached at 741-8296 or akemp@newszap.com.
|
Hartlyboy Member

|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 10:40 pm |
|
Oracle, you make good points and to some extent we are saying the same thing but from a different belief base.
Lets take the issue of how the developers are willing to pay for the costs they generate for the rest of us. If you were at the Landings hearing last Tuesday, you heard the developer was willing to pay $25 a lot for the additional EMS strain put on the County. That works out to a whopping $3000 for the whole subdivision! Onetime payment and I'm outta here. The improvements to the roads typical of your developer conscience is a turn lane in front of the development and DelDOT makes you put in a bike path or something major like that. Those 'improvements from the air look like a snake swallowed a pig. They are absolutely useless for the other residents who were there and now have the additional traffic on an inadequate Level 4 road -as in the Landings case.
I would challenge your estimate on the number of empty lots in Kent County. My numbers include the incorporated areas which have as many, if not more, open and approved as the County proper.
What I won't challenge is your assesment that many of the County's legal troubles were brought on by the inadequate review or knowledge of the County attorney who should know the rules well enough to dot all the i's so the developer lawyers don't have a nit-picking issue to base a lawsuit on. Sloppy prep work, - and that needs to be addressed as we go forward. Give the devil his due, I don't think Paradee ,if he was still working for the County, would have made the silly errors that allowed him to file the number of lawsuits that he did.
As for your contention that development is the salvation of the State and County, we'll agree to disagree. The reason we need the tax increases is because residential development doesn't pay for itself and never has. That's why successful jurisdictions have a better mix of land uses including industry which doesn't use as many services but pays higher taxes . In short, the process of overdevelopment caused the issues you propose to fix by pouring on more of the same.Last edited on Sun Jul 5th, 2009 05:07 am by Hartlyboy
|
Playing the Game Member

| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 04:29 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: Playing the Game wrote: Let me guess, you are an attorney for a developer...............................
|
Oracle Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 24th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 7 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 12:46 pm |
|
Your understanding of the Levy Court's role in the subdivision process is not entirely accurate. While you are correct that the Levy Court would hear an appeal from any denial by the RPC, the Levy Court (prior to the recent enactment of House Bill No. 205) would also review and approve applications for final record plan approval. It is this latter step which was eliminated by House Bill No. 205. And the reason this step was eliminated is simple. Because the review and approval of subdivision applications is a largely administrative, ministerial act (i.e., if the application satisfies all Code requirements, it must be approved), the Levy Court had no authority or discretion to deny such applications. Politically, the Levy Court was tired of voting to approve applications which some constituents wanted them to deny, so they simply extricated themselves from the process.
For this very same reason -- because the review and approval of subdivision applications is a largely administrative, ministerial act -- absent a "specific, articulable harm", unique from concerns of the general public, neighboring property owners typically do not have legal standing to challenge a subdivision application. See the Oceanport Industries and Citizens v. Smyrna cases on this point.
Your comment that "developers don't seem to think they should have to pay for any of the costs they generate for the rest of us" is also inaccurate. Most developers understand (and agree) that the projects they pursue ought to contemplate, incorporate, and pay for the impacts caused by their projects, via mechanisms like the surcharge upon building permits which goes to local school districts and the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances for central water, EMS, and roads. The impetus for most of the currently pending lawsuits is not substantive objections to the policies, but rather, procedural objections over how the ordinances were adopted and implemented (i.e., lack of notice to affected property owners and/or retroactive enforcement against projects already in the pipeline). It is the Levy Court's over-reaching and failure to follow proper procedures which has gotten them into so much trouble with the courts.
And finally, your numbers regarding the number of approved lots in Kent County are overstated. At most, there may be 12,000 approved lots in Kent County, and many of those will likely sunset or never be improved.
It may take a few more years for the general public to realize that growth and development are not bad words. After a couple more years of economic stagnation and property tax increases (which are inevitable, absent the revenues which the homebuilding industry once brought to Kent County), maybe people will remember that growth and development helps put food on the table and pay the bills.
|
Hartlyboy Member

|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 05:44 am |
|
Oracle wrote: I did not say the RPC is a rubber stamp. Clearly, they are not. But their discretion is limited. I suggest you read the East Lake Gardens, Delta Eta, and Ashburn case law decisions. Then, perhaps, we can have an informed discussion.
By the way, in case you missed it, the Levy Court has recently been removed from the subdivision approval process altogether. See House Bill No. 205, passed this Session.
Thanks for your concern about my lack of knowledge, but as someone who helped fight the Johnson Farm development, I'm painfully aware of the Ashburn victory at the Supreme Court. I'm not sure yet which other avenues we'll have to pursue when he starts up on that again.
As far as the Levy Court being out of the subdivision approval process, you are undoubtedly aware that they could only get involved with an RPC decision when the developer lost his case at that level and appealed. The impacted neighbors had no such chance at an appeal/relief under the existing law. Even when the RPC decisions were appealed, it was a good bet that the LC would reverse them and approve it over the objections of everyone but the developers. Of the less than a dozen rejections by the RPC over the past 5-6 years all but a very few (3?) were reversed by LC, so not having them in the loop is a loss but we still need to find better approaches to fighting overdevelopment, anyway.
The reversals at LC level and the hands off approach to overdevelopment lead to a change in the makeup of the LC and spawned some of the new ordinances to protect the 99.9% of Kent County residents who are not developers or wanna-bes. Of course, several of those new county laws protecting the general public are still being challenged by the developers who don't seem to think they should have to pay for any of the costs they generate for the rest of us.
For now, the recession is the only thing keeping the housing plague under control, but with the 10's of thousands of approved but unbuilt lots in the incorporated areas and county , that sword still hangs above us and if the economy approves in any way in the next few years , we'll see the battles heating up again. Maybe this Leipsic venture is an opening salvo....
|
Playing the Game Member

| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 02:15 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: Let me guess, you are an attorney for a developer...............................
|
Playing the Game Member

| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 01:12 am |
|
Last edited on Mon Jun 29th, 2009 02:16 am by Playing the Game
|
Oracle Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 24th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 7 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 03:02 pm |
|
I did not say the RPC is a rubber stamp. Clearly, they are not. But their discretion is limited. I suggest you read the East Lake Gardens, Delta Eta, and Ashburn case law decisions. Then, perhaps, we can have an informed discussion.
By the way, in case you missed it, the Levy Court has recently been removed from the subdivision approval process altogether. See House Bill No. 205, passed this Session.
|
Hartlyboy Member

|
Posted: Wed Jun 24th, 2009 05:57 pm |
|
| Hmm, so all the RPC is there for is to rubber stamp some developers wet dream to turn another 300 acres into lots of vinyl boxes? Maybe we can just do away with that step and hope the Levy Court can put enough reasonable conditions on you to protect the rest of the population which has to bear the cost.
|
Oracle Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 24th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 7 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 24th, 2009 02:54 pm |
|
| The Landings project is not a rezoning. It is a subdivision application which complies with all Code requirements, and therefore, the RPC does not have the discretion or authority to deny the application. At best, they can attach reasonable conditions upon approval. Read the Delaware Supreme Court's recent decision in the Ashburn case, and then you will have a better understanding of the law which governs these types of applications.
|
Hartlyboy Member

|
Posted: Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 04:53 pm |
|
| Are the developers at it again? Is this Ashburn again or some other outfit?
|
tspong Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3357 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 03:40 pm |
|
Copied below is a letter to the editor submitted to the Delaware State News. You can post your opinions by clicking on "Reply."
Well Lipsic, its that time of year again.
On July - 2 at 7:00 p.m. the Regional Planning Commission will hold a public hearing as to the re-zoneing of aprox. 344 acres of "Agriculture Conservation" to "Resdential Subdivision," just west of Lipsic on Rt 42.
Many thanks for the commissioners who turned it down last time.
Fred Allen Bass
Dover
|
 Current time is 10:37 am | |
|
|
|