The New Castle City’s Planning Commission Meeting took place on October 23, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. in the City of New Castle’s Town Hall.
Members Present: Dr. Jack Norsworthy, Chairman
Jim Steele
George Freebery
Joe DiAngelo
Elliott Tatum
Melissa Pavone
Jane Miller
Member Absent: Thomas Wilson
Dr. Norsworthy called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Roll call was taken.
Approval of Minutes – Tabled until the next meeting.
Minor Sub-Division Twin Spans, Lot 7C – This project was tabled at last month’s meeting due to questions about ownership and the plot plan. Mr. David R. Sills (representing the Twin Spans project) informed ownership concerned a piece of property that is owned by the Mayor and is for the benefit of the two steel plants that used to be housed at Twin Spans Industrial Park. A question arose about whether ownership would revert to Twin Spans or stay with the Mayor. In order to move forward with the project they have shifted the building slightly to alleviate this issue and remove the sub-division component. A drawing was presented reflecting the change. Mr. Sills addressed Council’s questions concerning the railroad tracks, addition of square footage, traffic impact, drainage, sluice gates and the Buttonwood ditch. Mr. Douglas Lloyd, City Planner, reviewed 14 different issues he has concerning the previous plan submitted; he has not seen the plan presented this evening. His concerns were addressed accordingly and Mr. Sills added that they are typically addressed on construction documents. Mr. Bergstrom believes the Planning Commission needs to look at the project and decide if this site plan agrees with the intent of the zoning ordinance. Commission members expressed concern with not having received plans prior to the meeting. Mr. Sills commented they simply made changes to the previous plan that would be problematic. They would like to start the project within the month.
Mr. Lloyd provided a copy of his letter citing his concerns to Mr. Sills. Mr. Steele noted for the record that copies of Mr. Lloyd’s letter needed to be distributed to Planning Commission members prior to the meeting. Mr. Sills said they want to work together to accomplish everyone’s goals for this project. Ms. Miller stressed she wants to see the updated plans in writing so the Planning Commission knows what they are voting on.
Mr. DiAngelo stated that at the last Council meeting Mr. Harker (City Solicitor) indicated site plans didn’t need to take this course. Ms. Pavone asked if the Planning Commission would receive a letter from Mr. Harker informing of same. Mr. Sills clarified that sub-division plans have to go to Council but site plans come before the Planning Commission then through construction review, not Council. It has to come before the Planning Commission to ensure it meets zoning requirements. Mr. Steele made a motion to approve the plan; Mr. DiAngelo seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-2 with Commission members Freebery, Steele, DiAngelo and Tatum voting in favor and Commission members Pavone and Miller casting dissenting votes. Both dissenting votes were cast because according to zoning regulations the Planning Commission is to see whatever they are approving prior to approval. The site plan that was shown before us tonight had not been presented previously.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
October 23, 2006
Page 2
Discussion of Pre-Application Sub-Division/Land Development Plan for Riverbend –
Mr. Don Isken (representing Parkway Gravel) explained the process moving forward. It is a 210-unit residential, over-55 community that means certain federal regulations concerning the demographics of the people who reside in the community must be met. The property was approved for residential use by City Council in March 2006, now we’re going through the land development record plan approval process so we can go forward with getting the appropriate permits for construction of the project. Ms. Miller asked if there has been a compromise on the bypass road to direct traffic off of Route 9. Mr. Sills informed there has been no compromise and DelDOT has never come to them with any proposal to use this property for a bypass road. Ms. Miller wanted it noted for the record that she (and most of the Planning Commission) voted for this project with the provision for a bypass road. Mr. Isken described the project and its progress to date. All pertinent materials concerning this plan will be provided to the Planning Commission for their review prior to next month’s meeting. No further questions were raised. The project will be placed on the agenda for next month’s meeting.
Discussion of Item from City Council (Second Review of Proposed Ordinance (No. 443) for Public Notice that Originated from Suggestions of the Land Use Sub-Committee –
Dr. Norsworthy informed that at the last Council meeting there were problems brought up concerning this ordinance. They are returning the entire ordinance to the Planning Commission to make it more user-friendly. Mr. Blest was to send a letter providing more detail but nothing has been received to date. Mr. DiAngelo does not feel the ordinance is necessary. Anything that goes through the Board of Adjustment has to go through a notification process.
Ms. Pavone said the intent of this ordinance is for major changes requiring City action go before the Historic Area Commission and Board of Adjustment. The purpose was not to place an overburden on property owners. She was involved with drafting the ordinance while serving on the Land Use Sub-Committee. Mr. DiMondi feels most of the ordinance deals with normal building procedures. (Lengthy discussion about the ordinance’s language regarding who is to receive notification followed.) Mr. Lloyd offered that this is routine in most jurisdictions and is reasonable.
Paragraph C -- Commission members agreed that notification of “adjacent” properties are those properties on the front, rear and side. Mr. Lloyd suggested that owners of properties directly across the street be included. Ms. Pavone moved to recommend changing the language of the ordinance regarding notification to be revised to allow for written notification to property owners to the front, rear and sides of the property seeking an application per the ordinance and the Planning Commission refer to Mr. Lloyd and the City Solicitor to determine proposed language of the ordinance and the Planning Commission will review the language. Ms. Miller seconded the motion. A question was raised about notification of residents. It was felt this is a legal issue; the owner has to be notified and the resident should be notified. The motion was passed by unanimous vote.
Paragraph B – Ms. Pavone suggested asking the Land Use Sub-Committee to revise language in paragraph B to include action before the Historic Area Commission to provide clarification. Mr. Dick Evans cited personal experience with notification and suggested that adjacent property owners also be informed who they can approach about a project. (Discussion followed about possible means to address Mr. Evans’ concern.) Ms. Pavone made a motion to recommend that a letter be drawn up to include information that informs where (Historic Area Commission, Board of Adjustment) the action will be decided and when and be reviewed by Mr. Lloyd and the City Solicitor. Ms. Miller seconded the motion which passed by unanimous vote.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
October 23, 2006
Page 3
Mr. Steele questioned item III, stating that as part of the public notice the applicant shall be required to place an advertisement in the local newspaper. Commission members were in agreement to strike this language from the ordinance.
General Discussion
Dr. Norsworthy reported that he met with Council President Blest after the last Council meeting to speak with him about communications between the Planning Commission and City Council that would help improve our relationship with them. It was a productive meeting.
He reported there are planning and training events offered with reimbursement for fees if you are interested in attending.
2007 City Calendar is being finalized and we have been asked to review the Planning Commission’s duties as shown in the current calendar. It was decided not to expand on what is currently shown.
Comprehensive Plan – Dr. Norsworthy requested getting a copy of the plan. There are steps we can start acting on now and we should address action items at each meeting. Ms. Miller suggested making sure all Commission members have the same plan as there have been numerous drafts. Mr. DiAngelo feels that Council should provide some direction on what they want us to do and if we are going to be provided assistance by a planner. This communication should be in writing.
Checklist – We need to work on getting something approved to recommend to Council. He invited any Commission member to assist in putting this together. It will be a joint effort as
Mrs. Thomas is working on it also. Mr. DiAngelo added that having a checklist would have answered some of our concerns this evening.
Communication from City – Mr. Steele wants to receive hard copies of meeting minutes and not rely on email transmission. Dr. Norsworthy will speak with Mrs. Thomas.
Planning Commission Co-Chair – Mr. DiAngelo nominated Jim Steele as co-chair of the Planning Commission; Ms. Miller seconded the motion which passed by unanimous vote.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Freebery made a motion to adjourn the meeting; Mr. DiAngelo seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Debbie Turner
Stenographer
