220 Delaware Street
New Castle, Delaware 19720
(302) 322-9804

The New Castle City’s Planning Commission Meeting took place on December 18, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. in the City of New Castle’s Town Hall.

Members Present:    Dr. Jack Norsworthy, Chairman
                                    Jim Steele, Co-Chairman
                                    Thomas Wilson
                                    George Freebery
                                    Joe DiAngelo
                                    Melissa Pavone

Members Absent:     Jane Miller
                                    Elliott Tatum

Staff Present: Douglas Lloyd, City Planner
                                    James F. Harker, City Solicitor
                                    Jeffrey Bergstrom, City Building Official

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

Approval of Minutes – Mr. Steele made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 27, 2006 meeting.  Mr. DiAngelo seconded the motion which was  approved by unanimous vote. 

Minor Sub-Division - Centerpoint, Parcel 21-013.00-030 – Mark Ziegler of McBride and Ziegler, briefed members on the status of this project to date.  The main issue concerning this sub-division is the reason for the sub-division. 
Mr. Paul McConnell, owner of the site, said it is to separate the pond from the balance of the property.  He has no interest in rezoning.  (Brief discussion followed.)  Mr. DiAngelo made a motion to accept the minor sub-division, Centerpoint.  Mr. Steele seconded the motion.  The motion was passed by unanimous vote. 

Major Sub-Division – Preliminary Approval for Riverbend – Mr. Don Isken (representing Parkway Gravel) stated that this is a continuation of last month’s meeting.  He wishes to renew the discussion started last month concerning the letter (11/22/06) composed by URS, a consulting firm hired by the city of New Castle, that cites their concerns about this project.  Most of these concerns have already been raised, discussed and agreed to between the developer and the city; therefore, he does not feel they should be a subject of discussion.  He stated that from their interpretation of applicable codes and regulations it is their
understanding that their plan is entirely code-compliant.  They do not plan on seeking any variances from the applicable codes and regulations of the city of New Castle.  As was discussed at the last meeting, it was the will of the City Council that the streets in this sub-division be private.  (Discussion followed about
private streets versus public streets.  Topics included street width, sidewalks, parking and safety of residents in the community.)  Mr. Wilson and Ms. Pavone met with Messrs. (Jeff) Bergstrom and Lloyd regarding code issues the project might not meet.  Ms. Pavone questioned the lack of sidewalks in the community. 


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
December 18, 2006
Page 2

Mr. Isken responded that since the streets are going to be private the requirements for such things as sidewalks, street widths and curbing are not applicable.  Mr. Wilson asked if our city code is what we use for all roads in the city.  Mr. Harker would like to obtain a list of what might be considered a code violation and prepare an opinion from his office to determine what is and is not required.  His understanding of the current sub-division law is that there is no provision for standards regarding private streets. (Lengthy discussion followed.)  Mr. Wilson suggested looking into creating zoning for privately-owned streets, 55 and over projects, and communities that are self-sufficient and then use this community as a model.  He added that it is our responsibility not to go outside the comprehensive plan. Mr. Harker said there is a provision in the zoning code under land development that allows developers, Planning Commission and City Council to modify certain density, setback, lot size and other requirements to promote certain standards.  It is not a separate zoning classification.  It is applicable to all R1 to R3 residential districts.  (Note: Boothhurst is the only development built under this provision.)  (Discussion about deed restrictions followed.) 
Dr. Norsworthy asked Mr. Isken if the response letter he spoke of at our last meeting had been prepared.  It was noted that a draft had been prepared. 
Mr. Lloyd said that they operate within the defined process of the plan review in the sub-division regulations and that his position on concerns contained in the URS letter has not changed.  The major issue is whether or not the decision by City Council to make all streets private requires the builder to build them to city standards.  Mr. Harker will provide an opinion on this matter.  Ms. Pavone reminded Mr. Isken that he needs to provide another plan that shows the walking trail and open space labeled and it has not been received to date.  A plan will be provided for review.  Mr. Isken said that a formal response letter to the URS comment letter will also be provided before the next Planning Commission meeting.  Also, he and Messrs. Harker and Bergstrom and engineering
consultants will meet to discuss whether or not private streets allows us to deviate in some way in the requirements of the city code as it relates to street width and curbing.  Ms. Pavone made a motion to table this issue until the next Planning Commission meeting; Mr. Steele seconded the motion.  The motion to table was passed by unanimous vote. 

Referral from Council on Discussion of Ordinance #446 Amending the Zoning Code to Require that Municipal Services Commission provide a Sign-Off on Plans Prior to the City Issuing Building Permits – This item is being removed from the agenda this evening.  

Discussion on Proposed Ordinance #444 Amending the New Castle City Zoning Code, Grandfathering any Building Lot Conformity to the Amended Code of 1968 in Regard to Front Yard Setbacks if They Adhered to the Code Requirements in Place at Their Time of Construction – Mr. John DiMondi sponsored this ordinance and addressed Commission members.  It has been in place for some time but


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
December 18, 2006
Page 3

when the new housing amendment codes were passed in 2003 it made a number of buildings non-compliant that didn’t have a 30-foot setback.  Washington Park and VanDyke Village were built with 25-foot setbacks which was the code at the time.  Anyone applying for a building permit even for a rear addition which didn’t add to the non-conformity in the front had to appear before the Board of Adjust-
ment.  It is felt that this is unfair.  This is a housekeeping issue.  As long as residents don’t add to the non-conformity in the front and their side and other setbacks are in place they can apply for a building permit and not have to adhere to the 30-foot setback as long as they were in compliance when they were built.  The Mayor added that the expense of appearing before the Board of Adjustment is unnecessary.  Mr. Bergstrom said that they are finding that many lots are undersized for the zoning district making the lot also non-conforming.  He requested direction from counsel.  Mr. Harker said lot size is different in terms of how the lot size may affect an addition on the rear of the property.  (Discussion followed about lot size.)  Mr. Wilson made a motion that we recommend to council to approve Ordinance #444 with the condition of the city code enforcement officer’s recommendations if the subdivision was built by
April 15, 1968 or built to a subdivision that was recorded and approved by that date and adheres to the 25-foot primary setback.  Mr. DiAngelo seconded the motion.  The motion was approved unanimously to recommend Ordinance #444 to City Council.

General Discussion
None.

Action Plan Progress and Review and Planning Checklist
Dr. Norsworthy informed that these topics were not on Council’s agenda last month.  We hope to have an opinion next month. 

Adjournment – Mr. DiAngelo made a motion to adjourn the meeting;
Ms. Pavone seconded the motion.  The motion was passed unanimously. 
The next Planning Commission Meeting is scheduled for January 22, 2007. The meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

Debbie Turner
Stenographer