220 Delaware Street
New Castle, Delaware 19720
(302) 322-9804
DRAFT
The New Castle City’s Planning Commission Meeting took place on November 28, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. in the City of New Castle’s Town Hall.

Members Present: James Steele, Chairman
George Freebery
Richard Mendelsohn
Jane Miller
Dr. John Norsworthy
Elliott Tatum
Mary Davis
Thomas Wilson

Staff Present: Jackie Seneschal

Chairman Steele called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Roll call was taken.

Minutes – A motion to accept the minutes of the 10/24/05 meeting was made, seconded and passed unanimously.

PLUS Report on Parkway Gravel – The Chair gave the floor to Ms. Seneschal who reviewed her memo to the Planning Commission dated 11/28/05 concerning the Parkway Gravel Rezoning Request and the PLUS Review. (Members of the Planning Commission received a copy of the memo and the PLUS Review by the State.) In the memo she recommends a technical review of the project by a technical review committee composed of Jeff Bergstrom, David Skupien (or new city manager), Dave Athey, Chip Patterson (or other representative of Municipal Services) and herself. This committee would prepare a list of the City’s technical issues and meet with developers to learn their responses to the PLUS Review. The committee would report back to the Planning Commission at its 1/23/06 meeting. Mr. Wilson wanted to clarify that making a response would not represent the Planning Commission’s final decision. Ms. Seneschal advised that it would not. Ms. Davis and Mr. Wilson expressed concern about interpretation of the process. Mr. Wilson added he feels a public meeting is needed as it will impact everyone in New Castle. The Chair informed a public meeting will be scheduled before 1/23/06; it is a part of the plan that Ms. Seneschal has prepared. We would be talking about a February/March vote before the Planning Commission. (Lengthy discussion took place about statistics and the types of information the Planning Commission want answers to can be directed to the technical review committee so they can provide the Planning Commission with what they need to make a decision.)
A representative for Parkway Gravel said they prefer that the zoning rules currently in effect remain in effect and apply to this project. Their concern is that this process will get dragged out for an extended period of time, which they prefer not to happen. They are prepared to meet with KCI and the public to answer any questions/concerns. The project will take place over a period of 4-5 years to sell all the units. The property is currently zoned industrial and is fully approved for a 450,000 square foot industrial park so in the absence of this residential project, then Parkway would take advantage of development rights they have and proceed with the industrial park. The alternative is a single-family subdivision. Mr. Wilson asked why they changed from industrial to a housing community. The response was that there has been an increase in demand for residential versus industrial property. It is an economic decision.
The Chair said this meeting was not advertised as a voting meeting on this property. The letter requesting rezoning was received by the City of New Castle on 8/31/05, but did not get to Council. It was brought to my attention this past week, but did not get from Council to the Planning Commission for consideration of rezoning of this property. Because of the FOIA we have to postpone a vote until our December meeting or after we have received answers to our questions. The Chair tabled this item until we send this to Council.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
November 28, 2005
Page 2

Parkway Gravel does not feel an amendment to the City’s zoning code is necessary. They agree with the spirit of what is being suggested, they don’t agree with the process being suggested by KCI. Ms. Seneschal said she would like to receive any information from Parkway Gravel be formally submitted in writing that includes responses to issues raised by PLUS as well as information you think the Planning Commission will need to make their decision. At that time she can review it and distribute it to other staff people and they can submit written comments back to the Planning Commission. She wants to make sure information available to KCI is made available to the other people involved with making the decision. Parkway Gravel informed they could have their responses prepared in ten (10) days. Ms. Seneschal informed that the Code sets a 40-day time limit for the Planning Commission’s recommendation; would the Chair be willing for that 40-day time limit to begin at the time you make that written submission?
Parkway Gravel felt the time limit began when they made their presentation to the Planning Commission in September. They would like to make sure the process continues to move forward.
The applicant is not willing to agree to an extension of the review period and would like to see the Planning Commission make a decision in a timeframe that is closer to the 40 days. No action could take place until after it goes through the PLUS process. The report was received from PLUS on 11/14/05. Parkway Gravel is looking to set a schedule that is to everyone’s satisfaction.
Ms. Miller feels we should adopt Ms. Senescal’s plan to create a technical review committee.
(A brief discussion took place about when the 40-day time frame begins.) Anything that is to be on the Planning Commission agenda should be submitted two weeks in advance. In order for it to be considered by the Planning Commission in December the responses would need to be submitted by 12/5/05. Perhaps measuring of the 40 days could begin on the date of submission. The Planning Commission would have to make a decision at the December meeting or have a special meeting in January.
Ms. Miller made a motion that no decision be made by the Planning Commission until the technical review committee provides answers to the questions in PLUS and also questions the Planning Commission has.
Mr. Wilson expressed concern we are setting a date for the 40-day requirement before the committee is set. Ms. Seneschal said the 40-day time line comes from the zoning ordinance and has to do with the date the application is submitted. The letter was submitted on 8/31/05. The information required by the PLUS process that was supposed to be submitted with the application is the issue. To go beyond the 40 days, it would be best if we had the concurrence of the applicant on whatever schedule is adopted.
The Chair suggested sending Ms. Seneschal’s information to Council for their comments and to tell them what the process will be and invite them to submit questions they would like to see addressed. Ms. Seneschal advised the ordinance says you need to take action in a given period of time.
Mr. Wilson asked if the Planning Commission needs to agree or disagree. She said ‘no’ that it says you have to make a recommendation to City Council. His statement is that ‘action’ could be a review by the technical review committee. Ms. Seneschal looked at the language of the ordinance and said it could be interpreted that way. (Brief discussion about a recommendation to City Council took place.)
Ms. Seneschal informed if they get all of the written information from Parkway Gravel by early next week we should be able to get that information to Planning Commission members in time for the December meeting. You won’t need to do anything at the December meeting. It you

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
November 28, 2005
Page 3

have any questions you want answers to, let us know at the December meeting and they will get something back to Planning Commission members in writing in early January. At the January meeting you will recommend approval, disapproval, or something else based on the information you have in front of you at that point. Mr. Wilson said he would like a legal answer to his question of ‘requesting an action’ and that should put us within our 40 days.
Parkway Gravel said in Ms. Seneschal’s report it states the applicant will pay for any fees and expenses associated with the review process and would like to agree on a cap or to get an idea of the amount. Ms. Seneschal does not know the costs involved.
A motion was made to send the report to Council and let them know what we are doing, form the committee and around 12/19/05 we will have comments back from them and be able to vote on it at our January meeting. Mr. Wilson feels that if we plan on having the public’s involvement plus answers to all of these questions, January is an unreasonable time.
Ms. Seneschal will clarify with the city attorney what is involved with that report and recommendation. Mr. Mendelsohn asked at what point the public will be exposed to this. Her understanding from the city attorney is that any meetings the technical review committee holds would be public meetings, but would not be meetings for public comment. The public is free to submit comments to the Planning Commission throughout the process. The 1/23/06 meeting would be advertised saying the applicant is going to make his presentation and the technical review committee will review their findings and the public will be able to raise issues. From that meeting you will decide whether you can make a recommendation up or down or if there is something else you want to recommend to City Council.
The Chair will send the documentation to City Council. No motion will be necessary.
(Concern about adequate notification to the public was raised by a member of the audience; lengthy discussion about notification methods took place.)
The Chair informed our next meeting will be 12/19/05 and it will be publicized. The primary item on the agenda will be Parkway Gravel. Comments from the technical review committee meeting on 1/10/06 needs to be forwarded to the Planning Commission in time for everyone to read and get answers to any other concerns before our 1/23/06 meeting.

Create Ordinance Permitting the Collection of Impact Fees in New Development – The Chair informed the Planning Commission had received a request from Council asking us to look at impact fees on new developments. (He read aloud a letter dated 10/31/05 from Council President Bill Blest.) Ms. Seneschal explained that an impact fee must be rationally linked to the impact created by a particular development and the demonstrated need for capital improvements pursuant to a capital improvement program, i.e., only to be used for buildings, to build things or to make new major capital purchases such as a fire truck or police vehicle. They cannot be used to pay for salaries or existing problems. They must be used to the benefit of the people who pay them as they are a fee, not a tax. (A lengthy discussion concerning impact fees took place.) In New Castle the Trustees are not part of the City budget, nor are the capital items that they fund. Fire Chief Bill Simpson said in the County development code there is a provision for funding private corporations’ capital budgets so the Trustees are in the same category as the

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
November 28, 2005
Page 4

fire department. The fire department has to have a way to get their money so you need to have a provision for funding private corporations. In addition, any fire department that serves the majority of an incorporated town, when there is an annexation it automatically gets that as part of the project. We have not exercised this option to date. Three fire companies actually protect the city of New Castle. You need to have a provision to fund three fire companies and they must be based exactly on what geographic part of improvements was made and fees collected.
(He provided additional information on the process involved to receive funds from impact fees.)
The Chair tabled this issue until our 12/19/05 meeting.

Review of 230-18 of the Zoning Code to Permit Private Clubs and Lodges Special Exceptions in R-3 Districts - The Chair read a letter from Council President Blest dated 11/10/05 sent to the Planning Commission requesting that we review and make recommendation(s) to Council regarding Section 230-18 of the Zoning Code. Specifically, permitting private clubs and lodges by special exception in the R-3 district. Mr. Jeff Bergstrom explained there are two clubs that were established in the 1940’s in areas that are now in R-3 districts. They need variances to do anything. He prepared an ordinance for Planning Commission’s review, district regulations for consideration of setbacks that impact the R-3 district, the sign ordinance and off-street parking regulations. Mr. Wilson asked why the existing properties can’t be rezoned to make the process simple. Mr. Bergstrom explained that spot zoning is problematic. An example is when the property owner is done with the property, would that property revert to residential use? (There are other reasons to consider a special exception, which Mr. Bergstrom reviewed.) Mr. Wilson asked if this would give other private clubs the ability to build in residential areas?
Mr. Bergstrom said they would have to appear before the Board of Adjustment and they would decide the impact on the residential environment. If you do nothing you have placed the club in a position to be shut out of increasing their group. The existing situation is unfair. (Discussion about this request took place. Concern was expressed about the future of the property, parking and if we allow the special exception whether we open up the possibility for more private clubs in residential areas.) Expansion of St. Anthony’s Club is at the forefront of this request. They would like to include a small area (vestibule) in front of the building. There has been no previous reason to address this issue. Ms. Seneschal said it is not unusual to have special exceptions in any ordinance. Mr. Wilson is concerned about including these two private clubs now in a residential area and if we include them into this will it open up all residential areas for private clubs. She said only those that are already zoned R-3. As a “special exception” if there is a particular problem the Board can either turn it down or place conditions on it that will address those concerns.
Mr. Wilson made a motion to amend Section 230-18 of the zoning code to include private clubs and lodges; Ms. Miller seconded the motion which passed unanimously.

DelDOT Report from 11/15/2005 – The Chair reviewed the report and informed that DelDOT is still open to comments. On 11/15/05 we (Mayor Klingmeyer, Dave Athey, Jackie Seneschal, Jim Steele, Jeff Bergstrom, Mary Davis, Dick Evans) met with DelDOT. Ms. Seneschal advised she drafted a letter to Secretary Hayward regarding issues of concern in New Castle. That letter would be most appropriate coming from City Council or being used as a basis for a meeting with the Secretary to get these projects moved along. The Chair and I also met with Heather Dunagan of WILMAPCO on 11/15/05 about the “safe routes to school project” which promotes walking to school. We are looking to use some money from this project for pedestrian projects providing access to schools. It is important to keep up the dialogue with DelDOT to let them know the City of New Castle needs some attention.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
November 28, 2005
Page 5

Yearly Planning Commission Chairman Election – Chairman Steele informed the group he would be stepping down at the end of the year. (A brief discussion took place amongst Commission members.) A motion was made to appoint Tom Wilson as Chairman and
Dr. Jack Norsworthy as Vice Chairman. Mr. Mendelsohn seconded the motion which was unanimously passed.

Adjournment – A motion to adjourn the meeting was made, seconded and passed. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.


Respectfully submitted,

Debbie Turner
Stenographer