DRAFT
The New Castle City’s Planning Commission Meeting took place on July 24, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. in the City of New Castle’s Town Hall.
Members Present: Thomas Wilson, Chairman
Jack Norsworthy, Co-Chairman
Jim Steele
George Freebery
Melissa Pavonne
Joe DiAngelo
Jane Miller
Member Absent: Elliott Tatum
Mr. Wilson called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Roll call was taken. The minutes for the last meeting were not distributed for this meeting. This situation will be remedied in time for the next meeting.
Comprehensive Plan Discussion for 2008 – Mr. Edward J. O’Donnell, Senior Policy Advisor at the University of Delaware, was introduced and invited to inform what they could offer and why. This is a result of a request from City Council. (There was a brief discussion amongst Planning Commission members concerning why other options are being explored. This subject will be brought up more extensively in General Discussion.) Mr. O’Donnell distributed information packs to Commission members and explained its contents. Currently they are engaged in about fifteen towns (in Delaware) doing comprehensive plan updates. They utilize graduate students as part of their program. He informed that there is currently $40,000 remaining in the Livable Delaware funding pool. Maximum grants are $10,000, usually awarded on a first come, first serve basis. He suggested applying for a grant to assist in updating the City’s plan. The contact person is Herb Enden of the Delaware State Planning Office. He then explained the process used to prepare a comprehensive plan. Part of that process is to identify what things have occurred over the last five years that you might want to change. Examples are transportation, annexation, and vision of the town. After the comprehensive plan is certified you should be submitting a report to the State on a yearly basis. This helps to identify any problems you might be having with State agencies or others. Mr. Steele confirmed that KCI works with this Commission to prepare this report. Pricing and staffing is the final step and he believes they are competitive. He advised that most updates take about six months to complete.
The Chair asked about the feasibility of waiting until January 2007 to begin the process. The plan would not go into effect until January 2008. (Discussion followed about grant monies.)
Mr. O’Donnell said the last plan the University worked on in New Castle was November 1998. It is cited in the city’s 2003 plan as a foundation. After 1998 House Bill 255 went into effect. It was a State requirement for comprehensive plans in municipalities with specific criteria.
Mr. DiAngelo commented that there were a number of good ideas in the 1998 plan, but they were not carried out. Things need to be fund-driven. Mr. Steele added there have been ongoing problems with downtown parking problems that have been identified. We need to get some of these projects in the budget and develop a dialogue with Council to make progress. (Discussion about other services the University provides took place.) Mr. O’Donnell concluded by offering an exploratory meeting if the city would like to pursue their services.
Jennifer Leister, a Planner with the New Castle County Department of Land Use, was introduced. She informed that New Castle County is meeting with all municipalities to discuss informally your concerns. New Castle County is in the process of updating its Comprehensive
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 24, 2006
Page 2
Plan 2007. As a result of a meeting in December 2005 between Ms. Seneschal, Mr. Steele,
Mr. Charles Baker and Mr. Dave Culver (Department of Land Use), two issues of concern were raised. One is the gateway along Route 9 that is owned by the County and the appearance as you enter the town. The second was annexation. She is checking tonight on those issues as well as any feedback she can take back to the County. As part of our updated plan the County is going to send municipalities copies of land development proposals that are happening within your areas of concern or along your boundaries. Secondly, as part of the comprehensive plan we will actually show your current future land use plan and zoning map as part of ours and identifying what the areas of concern are.
The Chair expressed concern about trash along Route 9 coming into the city, boats being parked along the highway, the median strips are not being maintained, and traffic flow.
Ms. Miller is concerned about pollution. There are environmental problems, traffic problems, and quality of life problems. There are no plans to address these issues.
(Ms. Leister explained traffic impact studies, State v. County.) The Chair asked what resources the city has available to them from the County to assist in cleaning up the water front.
Ms. Leister advised that they have a redevelopment fund through their Redevelopment Office. Ms. Miller raised the possibility of issuance of bonds. The Mayor asked why the County doesn’t have a plan for making access to the river below New Castle. It would help provide recreation for the population in the lower county. Ms. Leister will take the recommendation back to her office.
Ms. Pavonne asked about the County’s plans in terms of commercial development and upgrading of existing commercial centers. Ms. Leister said they are working on this currently and are writing a plan. Their goal is to make better use of these areas to enhance the community. Ms. Pavonne was concerned with how well they serve the community along with their appearance. Ms. Leister stated this has been a big concern with the County as they prepare design guidelines. She added they are identifying the objectives of design guidelines, but not offering those guidelines at this time.
The Chair asked if Ms. Leister would be our primary contact should there be additional comments or suggestions. She informed she would be the primary contact.
Council President Bill Blest asked who would be the person in the County to speak with concerning closing a street. Ms. Leister suggested going directly to the State.
Land Use Sub-Committee Recommendations – The Chair distributed copies of recommendations suggested by the Land Use Sub-Committee to the Commission. He does not feel there are any suggestions presented that we are not already doing or have already done. He added that we are more enforcement dysfunctional than procedure dysfunctional. Council has requested our opinion on these recommendations. Ms. Pavonne questioned what is required to be submitted by an applicant before an application can be reviewed. The Chair said he met with Jeff Bergstrom recently and there is a checklist, but it is not being enforced. The applicant should submit this form with their application/drawings so we know the proper people have seen the paperwork. A copy of this paperwork and checklist should also be mailed to all Commission members in a timely manner before our meeting. (Ms. Pavonne said that in the Code it is stated that information should be submitted 15 days prior.) Mr. Steele informed that this checklist was on the agenda last month and no one from the Land Use Sub-Committee was present. We discussed the checklist and procedures with the Commission and Mr. Bergstrom and he feels they have been straightened out. The Chair said that once we start enforcing this
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 24, 2006
Page 3
process we may find the need to change something. The Chair will prepare a letter for Council with our recommendation to use what is currently in place and to reinforce same. He will see Mr. Bergstrom to obtain a copy of the finished version of the checklist to share with the Commission. Mr. DiAngelo suggested that we include on the checklist those items the Land Use Sub-Committee suggested that are not currently on the checklist. The Chair asked
Ms. Cathie Thomas, City Manager, to determine why the checklist is not currently being utilized. (Further discussion about the checklist followed.) Ms. Pavonne suggested making sure it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She also feels that more discussion is needed on the fees charged to applicants to cover expenses. Mr. Dick Evans suggested that after the checklist is finished that it be put in the newspaper. The Chair said that when he receives the minutes he provides a copy to Earl. He would like to see them published exactly as prepared. (Additional discussion took place about distribution of the minutes of the last meeting that included the procedure used to distribute minutes.) Mr. Norsworthy feels we need to follow up on items in our minutes are being done to ensure we keep moving forward. The Chair reminded everyone that we have a new City Manager and retirements in the City office that have lent to some problems. Ms. Miller suggested that these problems are not the responsibility of the Planning Commission, rather it is the City’s responsibility. Ms. Thomas feels it would be helpful to the City to have the Planning Commission follow up with us. Ms. Miller suggested that a fax be sent out two weeks before the next meeting with follow-up issues. The Mayor feels the problems we are experiencing are temporary. Ms. Thomas added that when your agenda is posted if you see something on it that you don’t have information on within 15 days of your meeting, you can follow up on it or it won’t be on the agenda. She asked if there is a schedule that we produce and distribute that shows all the meeting dates of the Planning Commission, then backs up from that whatever the timeframe is that we need something. Mr. Bergstrom informed that we do not have such a document. She suggested creating this document to show deadlines for submittal of all materials so that it may be considered at a Planning Commission meeting.
General Discussion – The Chair informed that the Commission has submitted a budget request and we have not had a response to date. He also noted that our professional planner’s name has been removed from the latest City update. One of the reasons she was stopped from attending our meetings was because we were over budget. As a committee we had asked to charge applicants with fees (a suggestion from the Land Use Sub-Committee). He approached Ms. Thomas about this and she informed there is already a law in place requiring the applicant to pay fees, including those that include special reports that aid the Planning Commission in rendering a decision relevant to any application. If these fees had been applied we might not have seen a budget override. He suggested that Council go back and collect those fees and if that takes place, how much money is involved. If we do that why can’t we have KCI as our professional planner? He also asked for a copy of the contract that Council has with KCI. He feels that KCI has done a great service for this Commission and City. The Mayor appoints the Planning Commission so it would it be in Council’s interest for the City to allow us to operate within the budget but not tell us who we operate with. Council President Bill Blest addressed the Commission. Council had several budget hearings and no one from the Planning Commission attended, which is not required. We looked at what was spent over the last several years and the projects. We have talked about recouping some of the fees involved with Riverbend but he did not know the status. The Council controls the budget and we have to look
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 24, 2006
Page 4
at everything to ensure a balanced budget. He described the type of controls set up in the City prior to the City Manager to schedule Ms. Jackie Seneschal’s (KCI) time. We want to make sure we use her time appropriately. He felt they should look at other firms that we can use. It was not the intent of Council to deprive the Planning Commission of a planner. (Lengthy discussion about where fees have been charged and the Planning Commission’s budget as well as what body has the authority to select a planner took place.) Council President Blest will research who is authorized to select a planner for the Planning Commission. The Chair supported Ms. Seneschal’s work and believes the Planning Commission is functioning better due to her expertise. Council President Blest said he had spoken to Ms. Seneschal about budget issues and keeping costs down, but there continued to be budget overrides.
Mr. Bill Simpson, East Third Street, fire chief and member of the Riverbend Technical Committee that reviewed all the technical concerns that came up stated that this technical process was very costly. At that time I asked the developer if they would be willing to pay for part of the process and they responded that they were willing. No one approached the developer or gave them a bill. He proposed a bill be determined.
Mr. DiAngelo asked Ms. Thomas if an application will be submitted for grant money. She responded that she will submit an application immediately. She proposed a Project Review Committee that would take place during the day. The idea would be to have one representative from all stakeholders in the City to help with the communication situation.
Mr. Evans asked for clarification of who will handle billing for planning fees. The Chair said the planner would be responsible for submitting a bill for a particular project to the City and put it in the minutes to provide a paper trail. Then the City would bill the applicant. Mr. Evans expressed concern over what mechanism will be used to implement this. The Chair is questioning this also. Ms. Thomas said we do charge fees to applicants to cover part of the process, in some cases it may cover the whole process. Some other more complex things, bills we incur for the City Solicitor, planner, City Engineer and so on could possibly be recouped. This could be the first project of the Project Review Committee. We could look at the Code and try and determine what the applicant would expect to be included in their application fee. She would also like to put together a list for the applicants and get that approved by Council so they are also in concurrence with what is being billed is in accordance with Code and that it is outside what the City anticipated would be covered by the fee that the applicant has already paid. Mr. DiMondi said they are currently charging for inspection and engineering services that are required under Code. (Discussion about fees being charged to applicants and collected followed.)
Mr. DiMondi advised to have something in writing before charging people for various services. Mr. Simpson said the Riverbend project was an exceptional project. You may have an additional budget request that will come out of the fees collected by the City from the contractor. (Discussion then centered on how to estimate costs.)
Mr. Steele distributed a draft of our five-year action plan. Ms. Thomas has the final copy of the action plan. Mr. DiAngelo suggested reviewing the action plan and discussing it at our next meeting.
The Chair asked the Mayor to fill Mary Davis’ position on the Planning Commission. She resigned two months ago.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 24, 2006
Page 5
Adjournment – Mr. DiAngelo made a motion to adjourn. The motion was seconded and the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Debbie Turner
Stenographer
Stenographer
