Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Is he spending his time here?

Because we need to be . That's funny.

Nice friend to have. With the best friend

Good evening. Welcome to the September 16th meeting in the Georgetown Planning Council. I'm going to call the meeting to order. Our first order of business is approval of the minutes from August 19th. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Is there a second? motion second all in favor say aye aye motion carried our next order of business is a public hearing it's ordinance number 2026-06 discussion review and recommendation regarding the ordinance proposing amendments to the zoning code chapter 230 regarding the deletion of a permitted use cottage housing development and the regulation thereof in the ur1 zoning district ryan you want to introduce the

sure so this zoning amendment so actually it's technically an amendment to the zoning ordinance as well as an amendment to the subdivision of land ordinance and essentially it is repealing the provisions for cottage housing developments in the ur1 district as was mentioned it also repeals that an amendment that was made to the subdivision of land code regarding how lotting is permitted and approved regarding cottage housing. And there is a third section. Let me just pull this up here. There is a third section that regards the status of applications and pending projects. We could choose to read it in total, but essentially it, and Mr. Willard, please add anything that I've missed, but essentially there's two paragraphs. The first paragraph is a determination that the one cottage housing project that has been deemed administratively complete is presently in review, may proceed and is not, is not affected by this repeal or any proposed ordinance and then there's a second paragraph that says i'll just read it as of august 10th 2026 no other applicants or projects have submitted preliminary site plan applications to the town pursuant to zoning code inter alia chapter 230-207 209 and 211 The aforementioned suspension of administrative review of any new preliminary site plan applications received after August 10th, 2026 for cottage housing projects shall remain in effect until final disposition of this ordinance or until such time as it may be altered by council. So this section three is not actually changing any part of any code. It's essentially a statement as to the disposition of certain

Any questions for Brian before we open this up for public comment?

Mr. Chair, I did just want to mention also for the record that there are, that we had received five written public comments that were attached to the agenda. They can be read aloud or they can be merely referenced as to their opinions. Two were, I guess, technically against the recommending the ordinance and three were for the ordinance.

All right. And for the interest of time, we'll just accept that summary. I believe commission members had an opportunity to read those in their packages. So now we're going to open this up for public comment. Before we want to begin, I want to clarify what we're talking about this evening. We are considering whether or not to repeal the current cottage housing ordinance. We're not considering any specific project. And we're not discussing the merits of cottage housing. We're specifically talking about the request to repeal this particular ordinance. So when you come forward, please state your name and address for the record. Please direct your comments to the commission as a whole. Keep your comments under three minutes. Out of respect for other members of the public as well as the other applicants, we have a number of other items on our agenda this evening. So to be fair to all, we want to move this process along as quickly as possible. So if anyone who would like to speak for or against may take the podium.

Good evening. I'm John Peterson of 304 North Bedford Street. Georgetown is in a housing crisis. Our median income is about $49,000. The median home price is about $340,000. More than 80% of households in Georgetown cannot afford a median priced house. That means that people who keep the town running teachers medical assistance retail workers young families seniors on fixed incomes are being priced out of their own community Cottage housing is one of the few tools Georgetown has to create homes that ordinary residents can actually afford if you repeal it that tool disappears The town charter requires this commission to give counsel an independent fact-based recommendation So the question is simple. What evidence shows cottage housing is harming Georgetown? There is none. Nothing in the record shows any injury, any problem, or any reason to eliminate it. Some people have said we need to repeal this ordinance because of new state laws. State laws are not forcing Georgetown to do anything. Repeal is simply a choice some people want to do. Georgetown still decides what kind of homes are allowed here. And some supporters of repeal have said they would pause future cottage housing proposals. Pause is a code word. What they mean is that if the ordinance is repealed, no one can submit a cottage housing project at all. That isn't a pause, it's elimination. The town can study housing anytime with the ordinance still in place. The commission is being asked to endorse a political decision without evidence. That is not planning, and it will make our housing crisis worse at the very moment we need more attainable homes, not fewer. Thank you.

My name is Adam Wachowski. I live at 200 South Bedford Street. I'd like everyone to recall the PAC Town Council meetings filled with concerned residents when this ordinance was an agenda item for the Town Council. This ordinance had little to no support from the residents of this town. Despite this, it was supported by our former mayor and pushed through speedily. Today is our opportunity to right these wrongs and for the people of Georgetown to have their voice heard. Personally do not understand why as a town we want to race to the bottom Affordable housing is a serious issue in Sussex County But if we look at what Georgetown has to offer as far as economic opportunity it paints a much different story than our neighbors Georgetown is fortunate enough to have two car dealerships aloft others at the airport professional offices and County jobs These are not the entry level in retail, restaurant industry, or seasonal positions that are found in the beach community. Georgetown should be looking to attract those who work in our community, not the housing solution for the beach community's limited economic opportunities. Today we can make Georgetown a great place to live and work. The homes this ordinance allows are not at all in the character of this town. Georgetown is a historic town with limited room for future development Let's be smart about the future development and make sure it fits and complements the town. There is a place for these types of homes. I just do not believe Georgetown is that with its historic charm. In addition to these being in contrast to the existing homes of Georgetown, the proposed homes in the cottage market have all been marketed as units for rent, not for sale. Let's build a community of homeowners, giving our fellow Delawareans a chance at home ownership, not enriching developers with more for-rent properties. Thank you very much.

Good evening, council people, attorney for the council. I'd like to read my comments, but I also would like for you to know that I have a letter from a Stephen Chappas that he handed me, Brian. He's also resisting this concept. And also, I have copies of the hundred or so signatures on the petitions that went around town for people who, so I'll give those to you now before I get involved with my comments.

Thank you.

I want to say that you have an opportunity to reverse your prior vote on this ordinance. which in my opinion was based on misinformation and threatening circumstances. Specifically, at the time this was under discussion, SB 23 and HB 450 had not been passed. However, the prior administration decided that it was important to say, quote, ahead of the curve. Knowing that the passage of SB 23 was imminent, ironically, at the same time, the town expressed its own opposition to SB 23, as did so many other municipalities. Not only has SB 23 taken away the local ability to determine the housing needs of our town, This law undermines the local process by which land use and zoning are determined by removing public hearings, prescribing housing types, defining density, and eliminating the crucial aspect of discretionary approval from the local municipality. In fact, it would, in my opinion, eliminate the need for a planning council. Also, not surprisingly, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the Home Builders Association of Delaware lobbied very hard for the approval of this legislation. Thus, it provides developers with the sole discretion over land use, something we should not embrace. It is understood that the request to repeal this ordinance does not affect the approval of the Little Living's proposed 20 homes. However, we are given the opportunity to pause the approval of any future proposals so as to determine the full extent of the existing housing stock. How much affordable housing currently exists? Where should it be located? What would the true need be for more and what type best suits the character of our town and the economic needs of our residents? How do we ensure that our comprehensive plan updates reflect the zoning and land use measures that support reasonable development? Repealing this ordinance is required in order to ensure that the town has the ability to determine its land use and zoning needs without interference from the developers, the state, and opportunists. I just wanted you to know that the Lewis Planning Commission voted Wednesday to recommend a moratorium on all major subdivisions. So they're taking the approach that several other municipalities. They're pulling back. They're saying, let's pause this. Let's have a reasonable approach to the issues, study it, and come up with recommendations that meet our town needs. And that's what I'm also supporting. Thank you for your time. Do you want this, Brian, or you have it all read?

I have.

I'm so happy that I'm coming after the naysayers, so it's easy for me to give you guys my common sense approach. About five years ago, we had a comprehensive plan, 2021, we did. It was like about 336 pages or whatever it is, somewhere around 108. There were recommendations made by that comprehensive plan that we do need affordable housing. My question to you intelligent people is, in the last five years, how many of those got implemented or how many anybody looked at it? I voted for this ordinance. The only reason was I've been coming for five years to the council and everybody, say, you have a housing problem. You've got to increase the density. You've got to give me some place. I'm not getting in Cinderbury to build it. I'm talking about Kimmytown. Give me all of the boonies somewhere. Somewhere you have to increase the density. There is no magic. No builder is going to come out and start building houses. The place over here on East Market Street, I looked at that a lot about 10 years ago. It's not cost effective. They got free land. They got free money from the state. That's how they can do that. Dundrack will take you through the loops. I've gone through these processes. I have built houses in here. I had about 20 affordable housing in this town. So I know what affordable housing is and how difficult it is to maintain. To have people to live for $500 to $800, $900, you cannot afford it more than that for the people who are working in the chicken farms and everything else. It's like $30,000, $40,000 they're making a year. Two of them cannot afford a minimum thing what he just told you. This is our $350,000. That's what the average cost of the house is. So if there is some affordable housing, you're going to repeal it and not let that build. And in the last five years, in the last comprehensive plan, when you said that we need it in the last five years, you haven't done a damn thing about it. Not a single house. in that affordable housing category. So I'm just letting you common sense think about it. If you want these people not to crowd, you've got to give them a place to live. If you're going to give a place to live, increase the density. You figure it out. Before you repeal it, give me something saying that, OK, this is what I'm going to replace it with. And I talked to the sponsor of the bill of SB23. He's not asking to do all the stuff she was scaring you with. He just said that you got to build some houses. If you're not going to do it, and you haven't done it in the past, then we will force you to do it. So if you do it, and we were recommended to be that we are ahead of the curve by him, by the sponsor of SB23. And all of them basically saying, you've got to do something about it. I don't care whether you repeal it. I don't care whether you keep this housing or not. Sooner or later, somebody is going to understand that to make more housing, you've got to do density, and you've got to make some rules. The rules which is already in the books, you're going to take it off, and you're not replacing it with anything substantial.

Thank you.

Good evening. I'm Judson Malone, the Executive Director of Springboard Delaware. I asked the Planning Commission to recommend against Ordinance 2026-06. The town proposes reviewing its entire zoning code in light of new state housing laws, but its rationale never explains why that requires eliminating cottage housing first. Georgetown adopted this ordinance last December. It permits smaller homes, greater density, rental and ownership options, and it's subject to development standards. Senate Bill 23 expressly identifies cottage housing among the housing types that local affordable housing plans must accommodate. It recognizes qualifying reform communities have already undertaken. House Bill 450 advances housing diversity and greater density in designated growth areas. Neither law requires Georgetown to repeal cottage housing before reviewing the rest of its code. The repeals clauses in the ordinance identify no specific statutory conflict requiring elimination of this permitted use. They offer no explanation of why targeted amendments would not be adequate or why a broader review cannot proceed while cottage housing remains available. Instead, the recitals promise future consideration by a committee making non-minding recommendations. They provide no commitment that cottage housing will return and no deadline for a replacement. That leaves Georgetown exchanging an existing housing opportunity for an uncertain future process. The town is invoking laws intended to expand housing choices to justify taking one away. Before recommending repeal, this commission should demand an answer. What specific problem does removing cottage housing solve and how does its removal advance the housing legislation cited as the reason for this action? Naming those laws does not establish that connection. If particular standards need improvement, identify them and amend them. If other parts of town zoning code need reform, undertake that work. Neither task requires withdrawing this permitted use. Please recommend against Ordinance 202606, preserve cottage housing while the town completes this broader review and require a specific evidence-based justification for any proposed restrictions. Thank you.

I'm Maria Hammond. I live at 507 North Bedford Street. I don't know how many people in this room live in Georgetown, were born in Georgetown. I know a lot of, I'll say suits, probably work in Georgetown. I know Mr. Willard does. So I know that there are a lot of people in here that may represent the people that want these projects to move forward. Those people are getting paid to move those projects forward. We're not, the people on this side of the room that have been speaking aren't. The people on this side of the room live here. I was born and I've been raised in Georgetown, two and a half miles from that circle. My husband as well and his whole family, my family, farmers, et cetera. It's not that we don't want people to have a place to live, we do. But Georgetown is crowded enough. We have enough slumlords in Georgetown. We have enough people in Georgetown that can't get their tenants to take care of their property. If you go down Bramhall Street, there's a set of gray apartments that sit back off the curve. It's unbelievable what they're allowed to do. And you wanna put whatever it is out there by the cheer center, 100 and some little houses out there. Just imagine if you were 80 years old, That chair apartment is what you can afford at this time in your life, and you're out there living in a nice, quiet area. The walking trail back there was closed for a while. I think Shell Brothers put it up. It was closed for a while because of drug problems back there and prostitution, whatever was back there. They put the gate across. You couldn't walk back there without running into something like that. Now you wanna put all of those houses back there, or let all of those houses go back there, and those people aren't gonna be able to sit outside in their little gazebo anymore because of the foot traffic. They don't walk out to the road and around the property. They will walk through the property. I know, because I had to put up a fence around my property for that reason. And this past week, on the other side of my fence, we had to ask a lady and her gentleman friend to leave. Last year, they had to move out a bed back there that they had put in there for business. This week, we found somebody's little soda can and a lighter and all their drug paraphernalia on the other side of my fence. So this is what you're encouraging because of the foot traffic that we have in town. Pallet Village is back there. It's a lot of foot traffic, a lot of visitors that stand outside the gate, a lot of traffic through that community. There's a field on the corner. They don't walk around that road. They cut through the field. they break into people's properties warehouses etc they live underneath people's houses i'm not saying that's who these houses are going to be for but when we got married my husband worked three jobs and i worked to get our first house we didn't ask somebody to give it to us we didn't ask our parents for financial help and people are working hard but they can't quite make it. But does it have to be on Main Street or behind the cheer center where people in their retirement years want to live? I don't think so. I think these people need to take it back to their own town. Why aren't they doing it in their own town? And people come here and say, oh, I love the town. I own this property and I own this property. Okay, congratulations, you own property and you love Georgetown. Join the club, we all own property and love Georgetown. But the Cinderberry Village, that's older retirement people. I'm sorry, but they wanted to put a road through there so people could cut through. And somebody saw that that was not good for the people that lived there. So just think about the other people that live here and see that this isn't good for us.

Good evening. I'm Sue Barlow. I live at 703 East Laurel Street Extended. And I really want this ordinance repealed. I had a long speech here, but someone else has said everything I agree with. And I just wanted to point out that we are the only municipality in this state who has allowed these townhouses. Everybody else has voted against them. We're the only ones who allowed it. There are plenty of other housing going up. We have several current housing projects that are now being built. We have more in the planning process. We do not and I just read an article that both our state senators in Washington declares that $250,000 to $350,000 homes is their definition of affordable housing. I think we have enough affordable housing in the pipeline already. We do not need these tiny cottage houses. I really wish you would vote to repeal this ordinance and I think we ought to take the same path that Lewis has taken and put a moratorium on all further building until we do find out what this SB 23 is going to force us to do or not force us to do. But it's my understanding we don't have to do anything for SB 23 until we work on our comprehensive plan. And that is only five. That's five years away. So we have plenty of time to work on an ordinance and a housing plan that does not include tiny little 500 square foot cottages. Thank you.

My name is Wanda Burton. I live at 405 North Beverly Street. I feel like I stand up here all the time and fight for Georgetown. Georgetown's not what it used to be. It's never gonna be that again. But I remember a teacher telling me that was in a different school district that they were tippled to death when we put in low rent housing because they lost a lot of the students they didn't want. If we're gonna put 124 houses, say there's 150 people, do they care about the town of Georgetown? Or they just want some place cheap to live? People that have lived here for years and years, we care about this town. And we're getting a really stinky reputation. The Pallet Village, those other cottages that they're putting in, We're giving a reputation. I actually had someone say to me, I said, I live in Georgetown. She said, I'm sorry. I mean, this is what our town has come to. We don't need this. We don't need, and who is this going to help? People of Georgetown? How are they going to decide who gets these houses? Who can pay for them? That's how it's going to be. And there's still going to be people that can't afford them. So what about them? We can't take care of everybody. We have to take care of our home first. And it feels like our home is being taken away from us. You see all the for sale signs in Georgetown now. People are moving out if they can afford to. And it's a shame. It's a shame that we've done this to our town. Thank you. I hope you repeal it. Definitely. Thank you.

Anybody else who would like to speak? Anybody online? I will call the public hearing to a close and we'll move into commissioner discussion. Before we get to a motion, I'd like to share some thoughts of what I believe. I understand the town was trying to be proactive when they passed the cottage housing ordinance at a time when we were thinking that the town was going to force us to make changes to our plan. Unfortunately, the state is making us make changes to our plan that are much more extensive than what we thought of with this ordinance. In the future, our housing plan will have to include cottage communities of some type, but it also requires a mix of other types of housing that we have not thought of yet. So to leave this portion of that mix in our code before we figure out the total mix, we could throw out the balance of housing in this town. We're already on the precipice of not having a fair balance of high-end, medium, and low-end homes in this town. So the question isn't about whether or not cottage housing is a good thing or a bad thing. It's about what we need to do for the town of Georgetown today. um so if you looked in the package for tonight's meeting brian put in a map of all the properties that could currently be considered for cottage housing under the current ordinance and it is a significant amount of property in this town so putting a pause on where we're at repealing this zoning that the Council has a plan that if they repeal this zoning they're going to develop a working group to consider the overall mix of housing and come up with a true affordable housing plan that meets the state's requirements and but doesn't burden us today. Like a couple of people said, we're the only town in the state that has this type of housing. Other municipalities like Lewis are trying to figure out where to go. So they're talking about moratoriums. Lewis actually voted on a moratorium. I think that's what we should, we should be taking a similar approach, approving this ordinance to

other commissioners have thoughts or comments or so i feel that the ad hoc committee from the town council has not adequately explained how our ordinance does not it's not substantiated how our ordinance is not supported by the senate bill 450 and 23. i feel that they need to go back to the drawing board and figure out how our ordinance does not support this, I am not in favor of repeal.

I sat through the first, I guess, hearing over this ordinance, and it seemed to me there was a lot of support for it at that point, and the Planning Commission at that point in time went forward and unanimously approved the Cottage House ordinance. I then understand it went to council, council approved it as well. I don't understand what has really changed to make us repeal an ordinance that everybody on the planning commission and council was happy with. So I am not in favor of repealing the ordinance.

So what changed is since that, ordinance was approved, the state approved two laws that totally dictate the way that towns approve housing going forward. We are required to have a mix of housing that includes cottage housing, but it includes other things. So until we figure out what the correct mix for this town is, we should not be opening all this land on that map to this one particular type of housing.

I'm sorry, we can't see the map of the all land.

Can you, anyway, you can pull that up.

It is attached to the agenda, but I'll .

I've heard what everyone said over here. I too am from Georgetown, born, raised, graduated, all those things. I'm not so sure that I have the same testimonial as some people. I have family members that lived in houses across the, down the street from where Naomi's Stuff Shop was. They weren't called tiny houses, so I'm a little confused that when they got started being called cottages, because that's what I was used to seeing people live in. And do I want to see Georgetown filled with, as she was saying, people walking and all that? No, of course not, but I thought that we said that if these houses were built, there was recommendations that there had to be parameters up so that it would not become that. So I'm not in favor of the repeal if it's not gonna make sure we, I don't think they're a bad idea. However, if we do go forward, I just wanna make sure we have some parameters, but I thought That's what we said before, but I'm not in favor of the repeal.

I am in favor of pausing. I think we need to step back and look at what we have now, take some time, take a lot more time, and thought this is a major decision. A lot of houses that I don't think at this time we need that many, especially by the cheer center. So I'm just thinking that we need to step back and take a breath and have a group work on a good plan that makes sense for Georgetown.

Can I share the map? Sure. So this map, it's maybe a little hard to see. So basically, I just ran an analysis of properties that were over an acre that were zoned UR1. So I didn't take any analysis about how actually buildable a lot is. This was just sort of a pure arithmetic, basically. So it's these properties that are red hashed. They have a hashed red here. So let me just show you the key here. The hashed here is lots over one acre, and then these ones in purple are, which were previously on our map as RPCs, so Residential Planning Communities. However, some of them have expired over time, and they are generally not always, but occasionally over your one zoning areas. So which may also permit them as well. So it's it's some of these properties you see here. And again, no, no analysis about whether, you know, are there wetlands, are there suitable soils, is there existing development there, are there covenants, restrictions, et cetera. So, again, that was just to, again, get a sense of that.

Okay, open for other comments or a motion.

I'm making a motion that we recommend that the town council approve the proposed amendments to the town of Georgetown zoning code known as ordinance 2026-06 as presented.

Do you have a motion? Is there a second?

Mr. Okay, I'll wait for a second. I have a comment.

Okay. She made a motion to approve the ordinance, which would repeal the prior ordinance.

What's that? What's that?

She asked for clarification of what was said.

If I may, so we have to be very specific in our wording here. That's why there was a comment upon, I know we keep talking about the ordinance of repealing an ordinance, but truly we're just talking about Ordinance 2026-06. It has much of the effect of a repeal, though it does other things. So we're just trying to be as very specific as possible. Correct.

So there is a motion to approve the ordinance that's been proposed. Is there a second? Hearing no second, is there a different

sorry there's no there's no second so the motion dies so are there any other motions thank you i'd also like to just say briefly that any motion can also have conditions so that the commission has the opportunity to provide any specific direction or conditions to approval, denial, recommendation, one way or the other. So that is open to the commission.

Well, I feel things should stay as they stand, go back to the ad hoc committee, and they need to come back with something for us.

The motion, Mr. Chair, if I can, is it gonna be either a motion to recommend, you're just making a recommended council, to recommend you approve the ordinance, which is to appeal among a few other things, or you can make a motion that you don't approve the ordinance.

Correct.

And you can put conditions on that, but it's either you approve it or you don't.

Correct.

And the motion to approve it has been made, but there was no second, so that died.

That is correct. So I opened the floor for another motion, if someone chooses to make a different motion.

So I'm going to make a motion to recommend that the town council deny the proposed amendment to the town of Georgetown zoning code known as ordinance 2026-06 with the condition that the town council overhead hot committee

There's a motion. Is there a second?

I'll second that motion. Again, I feel that we need more explanation from the town council as to why what I feel is a very well written ordinance is no longer applicable.

there is a motion and a second to recommend denying the ordinance we will take a roll call vote commissioner weaver before you before you do the roll call can i just remind the commissioners to when you vote on it state the reasons why you're voting the way you are and you can refer to the content of the motion or add whatever you want commissioner weaver so i'm in agreement of this motion

again i feel that we need more explanation and i do not feel that this ordinance should be tabled at this time and repealed commissioner roach i agree with the recommendation of denying for some of the same reasons i want to know more about what we can do to make this a better condition for the town commissioner allen i say yes to deny the reason

Mr. Locates.

I do not support the motion, and my reason is that we need a comprehensive plan, not a piecemeal plan for our town.

And I vote no as well for the same reason. The state law changed the housing picture in this town, and we need a comprehensive plan. But unfortunately, the motion was approved. Moving on. Next order of business is historic review, case number 2026-22, Susan's Boutique, an application by Susan's Boutique LLC to make alterations to a building requiring historic review. The property is located at 128 East Market Street. Would the applicant like to take the podium?

Still in the water.

Susan's.

Hello. Good evening. Hello. Good evening. My name is Judith Martinez. I'm here to represent our family business under Susan's Boutique.

Can you speak up a little bit?

Yeah, sure. No problem. I'm sorry. Are you able to hear me now?

Yes.

Okay. No problem. All right. My name is Judith Martinez. I'm here representing our business, Susan's Boutique. My mom Susan is actually right over here in this corner. Truth be told, forgive me if this presentation is a little informal. I was just aware of this a little bit earlier today. But essentially, we would like to offer a plan to, God willing, be able to extend our business upwards. We've been looking to see if we can expand for quite a while. We've been in the business for over 21 years. We feel like the 3,000 square foot building that we fortunately have right here on 128 East Marcus Street, we were previously, forgive me, on 110 North Race Street for 15 years, moved over here in 2019. So this will be 21 years in business entirely. We feel like the 3,000 square foot building that we currently do have is no longer... big enough essentially we do fortunately have plenty of inventory in our shop and we want to be able to provide a little bit more of a comfortable environment a little bit more of an experience to our customers in fact i see quite a few faces familiar faces that have been to our shop as well and if you've ever been to the shop you know it's it's a little snug we have plenty of inventory you know We're happy to help anybody out that's willing to come out and give us a shot. But again, we want to make our people a little bit more comfortable, essentially, and be able to have more fitting rooms, be able to provide just more room for everybody to sit down and be able to do what we do on a daily basis, which is essentially selling formal wear to the public you know bridal quinceanera baptism communions you know we've been a part of the community for such a long time we've seen little ones grow up get older get married and now they're bringing their kids over to us which has been lovely to see over again the 21 years we've been open but the building that we currently have now is just getting a little too small for us so we wanted to see again the possibilities of being being able to extend that upwards okay

So is it going to be brick? What materials are being used?

Yeah, so we currently still have yet to have our architects send over the materials that will be used. But essentially, what we currently have is a CMU building. So the exterior is brick up at the front and the side CMU block. We just essentially want to extend that up. also as well as a window to be able to provide a nice view, one, for the town, two, that way we can show what we have as well and be able to display it nicely. We have already, I'm sure you guys have seen our window displays. Givens Flowers is a beautiful example as well of a nice window display, but we would just like to extend it upwards. But yes, the building is brick currently, and it will just be an extension of that.

You have same brick going up?

Yes, ma'am. Yes. And in fact, this color that is currently there, that used to be our previous color. It was like a charcoal. Now, currently, we have like about a beige tone that actually matches the family courthouse right next to us as well. So that will be also updated for you guys as well.

OK. You have a really nice store. It's a nice addition to Georgetown.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that.

Any questions for the applicant? Is there a motion?

I make a motion to approve the proposed alterations in the historic district as presented.

Is there a second?

I'll second that. I think it's awesome that you're offering these kinds of services and expanding your business. Wonderful for Georgetown. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

All right, we'll take a roll call vote. Commissioner Weaver?

Yes.

Commissioner Roach? Yes. Commissioner Allen? Yes. Commissioner Locates? Yes. And I'm voting yes as well. I'm glad that you're able to stay downtown and service this community.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate that.

okay the next order of business is case number 20 26-18 a minor variation determination for action to seek office of planning state coordination and concurrence before the planning commission acts upon a petition for annexation um the um yeah delmarva christian high school if the applicant would like to take the podium

Good evening, Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Mark Davidson. I'm Vice President and Principal Land Planner with Pannoni Associates. I'm here tonight appearing on behalf of Delmarva Christian Schools concerning case number 202618. So by way of a brief background, Delmarva Christian School was formed back in 1999 for the purpose of providing quality education within a Christ-centered learning environment. Its mission and institutional purposes are reflected in its continued commitment to Christian education, academic growth, and service to students and families throughout Sussex County and the surrounding region. As enrollment and program needs have increased, Delmarva Christian Schools has pursued the orderly expansion and consolidation of its Georgetown campus so that its early learning, pre-kindergarten, elementary, middle school, and high school programs can ultimately be served within a coordinated campus setting. Currently, the existing Georgetown campus serves the high school program while the early learning center pre-kindergarten through eighth grade programming have historically operated from the Eagle's Nest campus outside of Milton, Delaware. The long-term campus expansion is intended to support a more unified educational setting in Georgetown and to align land use, zoning, access, utilities, and campus planning with the school's institutional needs. So the subject, The subject property this evening was acquired by Delmar Recursion Schools on October 14, 2025. It was recorded, deed book 6392, page 8. The parcel is therefore now under the same institution of ownership as the adjoining campus property and is being brought forward as part of this application to establish consistency between ownership municipal jurisdiction, future land use designation, and proposed ED education zoning district. The subject property is identified as tax mat 13520-2601. It's located at 21825 Zora Road. The parcel contains approximately 1.15 acres. And again, it's owned by the Delmarva Christian Schools now. The applicant requests as a minor variation to the Town of Georgetown's comprehensive plan, the future land use map. The requested amendment would redesignate the property from rural agricultural single family residential to institutional and utilities. That designation will correspond with the proposed ED education district zoning in the parcels physically and functional relationship to the adjoining Delmarva Christian School campus. The request is submitted in connection with the parcels voluntary annexation into the town. The purpose is to bring the parcels jurisdiction future land use designation, proposed zoning and campus related functions into a consistent municipal planning framework. The application does not seek to establish a new institutional development pattern in an unrelated area. It concerns a single small parcel adjoining associated with an existing educational campus. So under the minor variation, there's some basis for the determination. The town's application requires that we satisfy these three minor variation conditions, the first one being unique circumstance and no precedent. The parcels are small. remnant property owned by Delmarva Christian Schools and physically and functionally associated with the existing school campus. The property is substantially surrounded by municipal and institutional development and is being considered for annexation to eliminate an isolated unincorporated parcel or enclave. Those facts are specific to this parcel because approval would not establish a general entitlement for unrelated properties in the vicinity to receive the same future land use designation or zoning. So condition number two is minor in size and effect. The application affects one parcel containing approximately 1.15 acres. The requested amendment does not alter the town's overall growth strategy, infrastructure planning assumptions, population projections, or established development patterns. And that the change aligns the parcel with the adjoining educational campus and therefore has limited planning effect consistent with the character and the scale of a minor variation. And the last condition three is adjacent compatibility and no change in development pattern. The subject parcel directly adjoins and is intended to function with the existing Delmarva Christian Campus. And that the proposed institutional utility designation and ED zoning would extend the institutional framework already present on the adjoining property. And you can see by this map where we're showing the site, Currently Delmarva Christian surrounds this entire parcel on three sides with Zora Road being the frontage road of this parcel. And so the application materials demonstrate that case 202618 is a limited parcel specific comprehensive plan adjustment associated with the orderly annexation of the small parcel into the town. The property size, ownership, location, relationship to the established educational campus distinguishes it from other lands and supports a finding that the request is unique and non-precedential. The approximate 1.15 acre amendment is minor in scale and does not change the town's overall growth strategy and development pattern. The requested institutional and utilities designation of proposed ED zonings are compatible with the adjoining school property and provide consistency among future land use zoning jurisdiction and tenant campus function. So annexation would also eliminate fragmented jurisdiction for the parcel and allow municipal service and land use matters to be addressed. So for these reasons, and I will before I end here, this is the existing site that I have up here on the screen. If you recall, there used to be a house. It was an older house sitting on there. The school tried to save that house. We did some inspections. It was a solid frame house. except that there was things living in the wall that couldn't be tolerated. Based on that, they ended up, after purchasing the house, they ended up raising the house. So it is now, I believe, maybe the existing storage building is still there. But the immediate need for the school is to possibly extend their existing athletic fields at this time. As you know, the school has created 100,000 plus expansion of that existing school, and they're under construction right now. playing fields within that campus had to be shifted around the site so this one acre will add to some of the existing playing fields so with that the delmarva christian school respectfully requests that the planning commission determine that the application qualifies as a minor variation and recommend favorable consideration of the requested future land use map amendment and related voluntary annexation petition subject to the town's remaining procedures and approvals And with that, that's my presentation of the questions you might have.

Question. When is the school going to be finished? Is it going to be open next year? Fall of 2027. Good.

So just to make sure commission's clear what's being asked here, we're not being asked to approve the rezoning or the annexation. It's just, is this a minor variation to our plan so that it fast tracks the whole process? Sure.

I'd like to make a motion that we approve the request to determine this comprehensive plan amendment application a minor variation as presented.

I have a motion. Is there a second?

I will second the motion.

I have a motion to second. Take a roll call vote. Commissioner Weaver?

Yes.

Commissioner Roach? Yes. Commissioner Allen? Yes. Commissioner Locates? Yes. And I'm a yes as well.

Great. Thank you.

Okay, next on the agenda is case number 2026-12, an application by Christiana Care Health Systems for the preliminary plan review and approval of a 44,093 square foot medical building development on three parcels totaling 6.06 acres located at 20769 DuPont Boulevard and 41 Bramhall Street Zone Highway Commercial. The applicant would like to take the podium.

Sure, good evening. Thank you for having us tonight. My name is Doug Azar. I'm a senior vice president at Christiana Care. Many others, or a few others at least, from ChristianaCare or supporting ChristianaCare are here with me tonight. So what I'd like to do in the beginning of this, at the front end of this, is just give you an idea of why is ChristianaCare doing this? What's the vision? What's the why around what we're trying to do? And then I'll ask our engineering partner from Bowler to come join me. Steve will come join me afterwards. So the deck is out there. And as I said, we're super, super excited to be here. We also, like many of the folks who are here tonight, are falling in love with Georgetown. So congratulations with that. Already a good foundation of healthcare exists in Sussex County. ChristianaCare is committed to all of Delaware and what we want to do is compliment some of the existing services that already are in the community and come to Georgetown and bring high quality, highly accessible care to Sussex and to do so through the Georgetown community. As I said, we've fallen in love with Georgetown, and I'll give you some of the numbers as to why we think Georgetown in particular makes sense, but being the heart of Sussex County, we also wanna be 16 miles from everywhere. We think it's just a perfect community, a perfect way to serve both the eastern side of Sussex as well as the western side. So thrilled to be looking at the opportunities. And as we get into it, You'll hear us say this, architecturally, we'd love to work with the community if we build something to do something that makes sense to you as a planning commission and to the community. So just some of the numbers, you're probably familiar with all or most of this. You're growing like crazy, right? There's a high increase in the population growth. And not only is the population growing generally, it's an aging population as well. And sorry to break that to you, but it's an aging population and that brings about Increased utilization of healthcare services. And again, ChristianaCare is trying to meet that need in Northern Delaware. We continue to refine services there. And we also want to be part of the solution in other parts of Delaware. So eager to contribute to the meaningful healthcare services that are happening here. So in addition to the growing population and the aging of the population, as I said, all aspects of healthcare, whether it's outpatient healthcare, inpatient-based healthcare, and of course, emergency services continues to grow. So again, we hope to be part of that solution in growing with you. We're already in Sussex. We have a primary care practice in Rehoboth and one that also specializes in senior care. We've seen over 20,000 people, patients in just the past year alone within those practices at the Rehoboth site and then up in Milford we have a practice as well. so constantly looking for where might we be able to bring value to the communities that we serve and we certainly have had great success in Rehoboth and Milford and part of that success has contributed to us being in front of you tonight because those 20,000 patients see this as as a complimentary service to what we've already established from my primary care perspective so This is kind of the meat of it. What we are looking to establish, and you mentioned the square footage in the introduction, it's a one building site, one location that is two floors. And together it's rounded around 40,000 square feet, 43,000 square feet. That first floor of the building is a 24 by 7 emergency department staffed by emergency trained board certified physicians. And on that same first floor are inpatient beds. And you can see on the slide, there's eight of each of those. So eight bays in the emergency department to take care of patients and eight overnight beds. Those eight beds in the emergency department are expected to see plus or minus around 40 patients a day. That's around what these kinds of facilities are doing for us presently in some other communities. And so that's about 15,000 patients. over the course of a year through the emergency department that can be treated by this facility. And it has full access to radiology services, x-ray, CAT scans, ultrasounds, and then laboratory and pharmacy services also support the emergency department activities as well as the overnight stays in the inpatient side. And then on top of that is a health center that we would establish. And that health center would have primary care services. It would have certain specialty physicians. Think about cardiology or neurology, things like that from a specialty physician perspective. Behavioral health services. And likely other diagnostic services, again, just like I mentioned downstairs, x-ray, CAT scan, things like that for radiology services. The downstairs is dedicated to just those ED. So some of those services might be duplicated upstairs for outpatient so that no one, the emergency department patients don't need to wait. And likewise, those that are coming in from the community do not need to wait either. So that's what would go on to that center is about a 40,000 square foot building, 24-7 emergency department on the first floor with inpatient beds and then health services or physician practices sitting on top of that. Let me pause there. And I know one of the commissioners asked about when the Christian school was open opening. If this goes all as planned, our expectation is that we would be opening around two plus years from now. So the beginning of 2029 is what we're thinking. If there's nothing else about kind of who Christiana Care is and what we're doing and why we chose Georgetown. I'll turn it over to Steve, but do you want me to hang out for any questions or we'll go with this Steve and then come back?

I have a question.

Okay.

Would you also be connected with your larger services of state? So if somebody needed to be transported, they would be able to go to your larger services?

It's a super, super question. Yeah, because this, I didn't say this and thank you for allowing me some extra talk time. This is not urgent care, okay? And it's also not a trauma center. So there are things, there's no operating rooms in this facility. There's no ICU.

And you have trauma, you can be shipped to your upstate.

You can be shipped upstate. You can also be shipped to Bay Health or BB or Title. You know, wherever the patient, whatever is best clinically for that patient or wherever the desire of that patient is, we'll work with the other health systems locally and throughout the state.

Would you have a better chance of getting into upstate at a timely fashion instead of trying to ship around for the other?

It would be well-coordinated. Yes, correct. It would be well-coordinated because it's part of the family. Helipad? We're not planning for a helipad on the campus. We always work with the local community so that we can find where the best field is for that landing zone, and then we coordinate those activities that way.

And then I think I read cardiology and neurology will be teleservices. Is that right?

On the inpatient side, there's the emergency medicine physician is there 24-7. There's a virtual hospitalist who is there taking care of patients on the inpatient side. And likewise, if there's a need for a cardiology consult, pulmonary consult, whatever the consult might be, the virtual capability exists for that.

But then upstairs for the outpatient, you're going to have physicians and APPs, I'm assuming?

Yeah, physicians, advanced practice clinicians on the primary care side, on the specialty physician side, and behavioral health supporting primary care. Correct. All right. And I'm happy to come back up, or some of my colleagues from Christiana Care can as well, but we'll turn it over to the smart guy who does the engineering stuff, Steve Fortunato.

Quite an intro. I usually don't get that at these events. So, as I said, my name is Steve Fortunato. I'm with Bowler Engineering. We are the civil engineer for the project. We're super excited to be partnering with Christiana Care and Trumbull Pro on this project. This is something, you know, yes, it's land use, it's development, we're here for a hearing, but I think this is something that's a chance to, you know, really bring something unique and good to the community and something that's not really found in a large scope down here in Sussex County. So I'm from Delaware. I live down here. So this is something that I've got four kids, so I hopefully don't ever have to go here. But the way things have gone, I probably will end up going here at some point. So this is exciting to be a part of. So just to get started, we are requesting a preliminary site plan approval at this stage. So presumably, we get this approval. We would have the rest of the agencies to gain approval from the Delta Fire Marshal Conservation District. We'd be back asking them for final approval from the town. As stated, this property is zoned highway commercial. Each status is a permitted use within that property. It's about six acres. And by virtue, it is also compliant with the comprehensive plan due to the current zoning. There are no wetlands or floodplains located on the site. The existing site So here's the proposed site. Existing site, which I don't have a picture of, but it's currently, I'm sure you're all familiar, it's currently a lumber yard. So there's various buildings out there, a lot of pavement, and it's been that use for some time. So it is, I think, a good location in terms of it's got a town side street that it can gain access from to get into town quickly to service those residents as fast as possible. Also direct access to DuPont Boulevard. You'll see here we do have, you know, various site access points where I'll get to in a minute. The existing site does have that stormwater pond. pond that we do intend on maintaining so we are planning on leaving that it functions fairly well we've included it in our models we've talked to conservation district about it and for the purposes of what we're doing here since we are actually reducing impervious it'll serve the site well we'll just have to make some minor modifications to it So like I stated, I won't get too much into the use. I think that was a great presentation. I don't think I can top that in terms of what's going in here. But it is truly two uses. It's one building, one project. But there are really two distinct uses, which one is the hospital, the other is the medical office. And the site has been intentionally designed in a way to sort of almost separate and tailor to those specific uses. So if you'll see on the eastern side or the right-hand side of the site plan, that's where you've got, there's two full access entrances to Bramall Street. That's the town street, so the town's going to review the design and approve those entrances. Pedestrian sorry traffic will enter those headed towards the medical offices So everything coming in the medical office is going to use those two entrances and they'll find parking There's two drop-off areas that are located on that side of the building There's plenty of as you can see pedestrian walkways that are well marked and we well exceed the code required minimum for parking Which was only 113 spaces. However, we provide on the site as a total 195 spaces We also exceed the amount of ADA spaces needed because as previously stated, that's probably going to be, you know, a large portion or at least some portion of who's using this facility. Conversely, on the western side of the property, you'll see it's a much smaller site, but it does include an access point, an in, right in only, ingress from DuPont Boulevard. That is for ambulatory access only. So that's not public access. We're not having everyone just come in there because it's convenient. That is reserved only for the emergency access. ambulance is coming in. It provides a clear pathway to the drop off of the ambulatory care that's required there. And then there are some parking spaces just because you have people following or different, you know, emergency services that are needed. We have met with DelDOT regarding access. So we've had some initial meetings with them, some coordination. They're in agreeance in general with this layout. They don't have any issues with the entrances, you know, as shown conceptually. Obviously, we've got to provide a full design, submit to them, get their approval, which takes some time. But they have looked at the layout and they do agree that, you know, it's always getting access to DuPont is kind of the hot ticket for them. But they totally understand given the use that ambulance is coming right in off of there to provide that access is important. Talked a little bit, pedestrian access is probably throughout the site. We've got Walmart crosswalks. We're providing sidewalk on Bramwell Street. We're not providing sidewalk on DuPont Boulevard because they are providing that as part of their grade separated intersection. So they actually told us to not install it because it just gets in their way and they've got to end up pulling it up anyway. So we have coordinated with them on that future improvement. It's not directly going to affect us. So we're not doing anything specifically different, but it is something that we've coordinated. You can see here we do provide extensive landscaping. We do meet the code required landscaping in terms of number of plants, shrubs, species, so forth. We do have, and I'll mention we do have two waivers that we're asking for. One is, which I'll show a slide on in a minute, one is a waiver for the buffer depth so we can provide all the plants. We just have to encroach a little bit on that 10-foot perimeter waiver. The other waiver that we're requesting is to waive the separate or additional pedestrian walkway that travels through the site, which I'll get into in a minute. So you can see here, this will provide substantially more landscaping, I think, and really dress this corner up in terms of a major access point into the town. So we believe that's a great improvement.

I will get into now...

the waivers that we have. So officially, there are three. It's relief from the design standard, like I said, to provide the pedestrian walkway. In lieu of that, we are providing substantial drop-off locations. So a lot of that pedestrian access, we're not proposing retail or commercial, something where you've got a ton of people coming in and out to just go shopping. It really is people can drop off up front or provide their own parking to head upstairs. Relief, like I said, from the buffer yard, there's actually technically two of them, which I'll show in a moment, to reduce only in a few locations the width from 10 feet down to 4.7 in one location and 6.8 feet in another. Again, that's not a blanket, but only in a few small locations. So you can see here we've put together this overlay on our site plan which shows the green area where we are able to maintain the code required 10 foot perimeter landscape buffer. The small slivers in red, you can see there's a couple on the plan south and then the plan west side where just in order to fit this building and then the fire marshal circulation, ambulatory circulation, and the parking needed, we just have to bump into those just a little bit, but we are able to provide the plantings required. Then over on Bramhall Street, the main encroachment there is some of the sidewalk improvements. So we are providing, like I said, sidewalk there. It bumps kind of in and out and weaves around some hydrants and some power poles, trying to avoid some of those existing features as much as we possibly can. With that, I'll mention that we did receive a round of comments from the town. We reviewed those carefully. We actually met with the town. They did a great job working with us and ran through a lot of them, a lot of different options. So we really appreciate town staff and the reviewer working with us during that process. we address those comments resubmitted we have another comment letter which has just a few minor comments which we don't have any issues with and we would definitely address in our next submission to the town for for a final approval so with that again i'll just close and appreciate the help and we're requesting a preliminary approval for this project and i'm both of us anyone open up for any questions

I also wanted to mention that our town engineer, Sharon Cruz from DBF, is also available to answer any questions of the commission, unless she also has anything to say as a part of anything.

Would you like to make any comments? No, this time. Okay. Any questions for the applicant or town engineer?

I was just curious. I'm guessing, is it a gate on Route DuPont that lets the ambulances in?

I don't think we're proposing a gate right now, no. So it's not gated. We just want ambulances to just come right in. So it'll be signed, definitely. There'll be signage out there that it's not for access. And I'm sure if it ever was used by accident, that the staff would correct anyone that did that.

And just to give you a degree of magnitude on the ambulances, like I mentioned, there's about 40 patients probably coming to a facility like this. There might be three, four, five ambulances a day. The vast majority are coming themselves being driven.

then for the walkways is there going to be lights and you know so people can get through just in case yeah we and then we have a well-lit facility we have a lighting plan we submitted which meets all the town requirements on lighting and then there's additional lighting provided around the building so yeah any questions

So if we're ready for motions, we want to start with the variations.

Yes, so you will vote, or you'll make a motion on each of the three waivers independently, or I guess you could make them together if you so choose, but typically they're done individually. And then, yes, and then at the end there would be an overall vote for preliminary plan approval.

So you want a motion to approve the requirement for the delineated pedestrian walkways from the rear of the parking lot to the building? And you want that one separate from the others?

They're written as three separate.

Yeah, they're all written as three separate.

So we might as well follow this.

Just go ahead and follow them, because they're all in one. And to permit the provision of pedestrian drop-off locations in lieu of the full requirement.

OK, we have a motion. Is there a second?

Second.

Motion second. We will take a roll call vote. Commissioner Weaver? Yes. Commissioner Roach? Yes. Commissioner Allen? Yes. Commissioner Locates? Yes. And I'm a yes as well.

Next. I'd like to make a motion that the waiver from the 10-foot buffer yard requirement along the Northwest property line to permit the provision of a 4.7 foot buffer yard in that location in lieu of the full requirement.

That's a motion to approve.

Make a motion to approve, please.

A motion, is there a second?

I'll second it.

Then we have a motion to second. We'll take a roll call vote. Commissioner Weaver? Yes. Commissioner Roach? Yes. Commissioner Allen? Yes. Commissioner Locates? Yes. And Ami Esselstam?

And we have another motion to approve the waiver from the 10-foot buffer yard requirement along the northwest property line to permit... Was it the south property line that was the second one? This is northwest. We're not doing northwest here? Northwest.

They've got the same address. Yeah, so.

Yeah, so it's the south.

So we're down here with this one?

No, this just, this should say itself.

Oh, okay. So let me start over on that. Motion to approve the waiver from the 10-foot buffer yard requirement along the south property line to permit the provision of a 6.8-foot buffer yard in that location and move of the full requirement. Correct.

Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second?

I second.

Okay, we have motion second. Take a roll call vote. Commissioner Weaver? Yes. Commissioner Roach? Yes. Commissioner Allen? Yes. Commissioner McCates? Yes. Yes as well. And one more. One more here.

We motion to approve the application for preliminary site plan approval as presented.

Okay. We have a motion. Is there a second?

I'll second it. I am very excited to see more health care come to Sussex County.

Okay. And roll call vote. Commissioner Weaver? Yes. Commissioner Roach? Yes. Commissioner Allen? Yes. Commissioner Lacazette? Yes. And I'm a yes as well for the same reason. It would be wonderful to have even a micro hospital in the town.

Thank you. Good luck.

Thank you.

Okay.

Right. Okay, one more thing. Case number 2024 dash 10 dash 12 pens grant an application by Davidson Realty Inc. For the concept plan review for 106 lot subdivision and townhouse development properties located at 20304 and 20352 DuPont Boulevard, north of the end of all drive zone Mr. Two townhouse presidential

Good evening. My name is Bill Davison, and I'm the developer of Penn's Grant. I'm not a big-time developer. Okay, so I didn't wear a suit, and I did sit over here, so. I bring to the table, you know, I'm not big, but I bring to the table over 40 years' experience in real estate, in development and building homes. I also sat on your side of the table as a 10 year member of my planning commission. And so I appreciate what you do. Right now we have about 4 million home shortage in the United States. And it's not only in Delaware, it's where I live in Pennsylvania. I was out west two weeks ago. They're short of houses, Denver, where my daughter lives in Austin, Texas. So we need to replenish that supply. And we need homes for our community, for the police, municipal workers, and our adult children if you want them to be close by to visit. So we think we're providing a good product here. It's walkable. You can walk to the store, to Redner's, to Walmart, just like the folks, the new folks that have moved in College Park. And we think it's a good product and we're excited to listen to your input. Thank you. And I'm going to turn it over to Doug.

Evening. My name's Doug Liberman with Larson Engineering. I'm here with Bill and representing the property owner, Georgetown Baptist Church. You guys are probably familiar with this. We've been through this a couple times as far as the property itself. We've gone through a future land use change and a rezoning change to MR2 per the comprehensive plan. This proposed project complies with these previously approved uh landscape changes or land use changes sorry uh the existing church parcel is 24.64 acres uh we're proposing to subdivide 14.08 acres off the rear of the prop property uh leaving 10.56 acres of commercial land for the church as you can see from the aerial that we have on there the uh the dark red property line and i'm sure everybody's familiar with the church we are leaving the bulk of the property that is being used by the church, which is the church parking lot and the field behind the church. The other piece of property that we are gaining is a small piece of property. I believe it is 1.32 acres behind the northeastern supply. And this property was pretty much cut off from the rest of the northeastern supply site by their own stormwater pond. So we were able to add that to the project, which brings the project to 15.41 acres total. The property has commercial zoning north and south of us along Route 113. And then there's residential zoning, which is zoned MR1 and Village College Park, which is shown at the upper left of this development. Village College Park is a mix of apartments and single-family residential uses. This development will be nearly a seamless transition from the apartments and single-family housing in Village College Park with the proposed townhouse development on the church property. The proposed townhouse development will provide needed affordable housing within the town. We've heard a lot about that earlier. specifically the comprehensive plan states on page 10-8 that larger areas that have not been approved for development or are not actively under review should primarily utilize the mr2 zoning to promote more medium density developments such as townhomes which is what we are proposing here Comprehensive plan also shows on map 10.1 that the parcel is within state strategies of investment level spending, level one and two. This indicates the development of the parcel is expected. Investment level matches that of the Village of College Park, which was, and other developments recently that have been approved within the town. The proposed development is 106, oh, here we go. The proposed development is 106 townhouse lots. The overall density of the project allows for 6,333 square feet per lot. The maximum density allowed is 4,840 square feet, so we have more open space than what we are required for that. Each lot has two parking spaces and we have 19 overflow parking spaces spread out throughout the site. These are concentrated at the cul-de-sacs and then also around the open space areas. The road is proposed meets town code is 28 foot wide and then it is slightly larger with the entrance on the hall drive which we match that with which I believe is 32 feet. There's sidewalks along the roads that we're proposing, and there's also a trail network that goes around the site with connections from that trail network directly to the street network located at the turnarounds on the right-hand side of the property and then one right in the center of the property for a sidewalk connection. Open space improvements were done in accordance with the design guidelines by providing a trail network, seating along the trail network with a picnic table, an open play field just to the left of the stormwater pond, an exercise station, an open field to the left of the entrance that you can see there. And then also there's a water feature associated with the stormwater pond. We were required to provide .77 acres of open space, and we are providing 6.16 acres of open space throughout the site. Access to the site will be off Hall Drive, which is an interconnection required when the Village and College Park was originally approved. The stub is already there, and that was part of the original record plan approval. We met with DelDOT at the behest of Brian to discuss access to the site. The interconnection was always proposed, but Brian had asked us to see about the right of way and stub that we have going out to Route 113 on the property. We did not want to do that stub, mostly for safety concerns because we didn't want to create this as a cut through for people that would bypass the light or the interchange, future interchange at Route 18 and 113 by cutting through the development and then ultimately cutting through Village College Park. It was something we did not want to do. to not want to pursue, and actually DelDOT did not want us to take access off of Route 113. As far as DelDOT improvements, we do need to provide a shared use path along the Route 113 frontage. So we are currently working on that. Utility services would connect into Hall Drive. We've got water and sewer extended to the end of the property. And those are all Town of Georgetown services. We've got one large stormwater management pond located at the northeast corner of the site. This site discharges north into a prong of the Mifflin tax ditch. So all of our site will drain towards that stormwater pond. That will have to be approved by Sussex Conservation District and also the DENREC Drainage Program because we're dealing with the textage. The developer is going to be making a donation to both Georgetown Fire Company and EMS Ambulance Service. He has discussed this with them and they have agreed on an amount. This site is also just down the street from the new town police station. on University Drive. We have landscape buffers shown on the plan in accordance with the design standards. We're going to detail those on the preliminary plan if we're allowed to move forward to that stage. The home builder has asked for a larger open space as we enter the development off of Hall Drive. You'll see we've got two large green spaces. They want to provide more of a landscape designed entry improvement to kind of have a sense of arrival for this. So that will be detailed once we come back with the preliminary plan. We have three waivers associated with this development that we're asking for coming through. First, is we have these alternative turnarounds. They are both at the end of what we'll call Road A and Road D at this point. I promise we'll pick roads that are more inventive in name than that. One is adjacent to the stormwater pond, and then one is at the northeast corner, you can see. at the end of the street, so in closer detail. We're proposing these turnarounds. These turnarounds are compliant with the state fire marshal turnaround, and we have sized them for that, and we have also discussed these with the state fire marshal, and they are in agreement with that these will be fine for this use in this area. And what we kind of wanted to do when we did these is, if I go back, you can see how the townhouses are more of a straight alignment. If we did the cul-de-sac, the townhouses and the driveways end up getting offset a good bit, and it makes for not quite as an efficient use of the space. The other thing we have associated with that is there's no parking or townhouses that's directly off of those turnarounds at the ends. You can see that they're just specifically the turnarounds themselves. So there's no through traffic or people backing into those areas. So that specific waiver, the waivers from section 9.3 G of the town of Georgetown design and construction standards. And so moving on, if you guys have any questions on those, I can ask, or we can just go through all of them first, because we'll go through all of them. Okay. The second waiver, is a parking space location waiver from section 230-151.a of the town of Georgetown zoning ordinance to allow parking spaces to back out on a public right-of-way. Specifically, the section of the code states off-street parking areas that make it necessary for vehicles to back out directly into a public road are prohibited. except for dwelling units, each having an individual driveway. So obviously, if we've got townhouses, you're going to be backing out in the right of way. But in the areas where we have the overflow parking, We have them off the cul-de-sacs on both ends of the street. You'll see them here. And then also, well, specifically this is related to cul-de-sacs. So these parking spaces are kind of the overflow parking space. We tried to place them outside of the areas that are most tightly used. So in a really overflow for visitors, if you go back to our, primary plan on the left hand side of the entrance we've got seven parking spaces right overflow spaces associated with the open space and then at the t turn around at the lower right corner we've got three parking spaces there so we spread those around all those spaces back out onto a right away. Some of them back out within the cul-de-sac, so we're asking for that waiver. The third waiver is we are seeking, it's a parking space size waiver. And this is what we're trying to do is kind of to trying to work with the ordinance where we don't want to have large expanses of paving throughout the site. So these specific townhouses are 20-foot wide townhouses. So as part of the zoning ordinance, we need to provide two 10-foot wide parking spaces. So what we are looking to do is create separate driveways for each of the units. But when we do that, we're creating a two foot wide grass strip in between all of the units. So we take a foot out of each side. The exterior units have a 10 foot space and then a nine foot space. And then the interior units in this detail, B, C, D, and E, all have two 9 foot by 20 foot wide parking spaces. So that would require a waiver from Section 230-151.A of the Town and Georgetown zoning ordinance to allow parking spaces that are shorter or narrower than 10 feet. we feel doing this we still in effect get the full 10-foot parking space but we have a break between the units so that people have kind of really have their own driveway as opposed to it just being a sea of concrete parking and i have a detail of what these end up looking like And this is, well, these are the units that are being proposed by the home builder, but you can see the open space provided in between each of the units. So it kind of breaks up that sea of concrete to provide some green space, potential for some plantings, and then also gives people a little space on each side so that they know which driveway is theirs, which snow they got to plow or shovel. So it kind of separates everything.

So who would own the part that's between the two? Pardon me? Who would own the property, the grassy area?

It's split. There's one foot on one side and one foot on the other. So they kind of share that one. They share the planting bed. Yes, they do, yes. So in conclusion, the concept plan we presented is in compliance with the comprehensive plan and will provide affordable housing within the town of Georgetown within walking distance of restaurants, shopping, and retail services. So if you have any questions, I'd be happy to try and answer them.

Hi, Doug. If I could, Mr. Chair, I just wanted to ask for a couple or mention a couple of clarifications, I think, with the waiver. So actually, the one with the the extra parking spaces that would otherwise back out onto the street. I believe, so I was looking at how we previously approved certain, actually very recent developments in town with very similar layouts. And I believe that those have been treated basically just as, you know, sort of, accessory to the general other units in the development, so I don't believe we've generally applied that requirement to those, so that may not be necessary ultimately.

I was just responding to a comment that we got.

Oh, gotcha, okay.

It was from a town engineer.

So the other, however, with the parking size, so while it is, I personally, while I do believe it is more aesthetically pleasing than, yes, than having it be entirely concrete, unfortunately, I believe that the sizing differentiations require not necessarily a waiver from the Planning Commission, but actually a variance from the Board of Adjustment. So we might have to talk a little bit about that. And I mean, obviously that's an opportunity that's open to you. However, there could be other means of creating a similar effect if you don't want to go to the Board of Adjustment and maybe the Planning Commission. I prefer not to add another step. Yeah. Perhaps the Planning Commission can offer other possibilities.

And we're really showing it as an alternative because our plan currently just shows all. just compliant parking throughout.

Any questions from the Commission? This is a preliminary conceptual plan that we're just seeking our feedback, comments, suggestions.

I'm very happy that you're not coming off of 113.

I was really worried about that.

Yes, us too.

As another possibility, Doug, sometimes we've seen similar developments have a, it might have to, you might want to look at the lots, or I guess the building footprints, perhaps some of them could be sort of budged or nudged a little bit to the rear, maybe even a couple feet to effect in the driveways because the entire driveway opening doesn't need to be 20 feet wide you could create actually we don't have a minimum driveway entrance for residential so you could have theoretically a 10-foot entrance from the curb, and then it can sort of bulb out to effectively a 20 foot wide pad. Obviously, you might need some additional room for that. So that's just another option. Yeah.

I don't know that I would want to do that. Just it makes It makes access to the unit much more difficult.

Like one vehicle at a time can go in there, and then they just have to .

Right, you would have not a full 20-foot wide access, I guess. It could be reduced not to 10 feet. It could be reduced to 15 or, yeah, I'm, yeah. Brainstorming. Brainstorming, yes, yeah.

That's something we can discuss. Yeah, that's something we can discuss.

50 foot of concrete. I'd want to get some input from the home builder to see what they would do. I mean, we could do pavers in between. You know, something like that.

That's a possibility.

Everybody has their own pad, and then there's just pavers in the middle. So it's still a paved surface. Technically, it's still 10 foot wide parking space, something like that. or I've seen them do just stone instead of grits, goose egg style stone. But I don't know that that satisfies the ordinance at that point, but that's something we can discuss.

What do you think?

It's a decent plan, just hopefully it'll have some nice amenities to attract You know, nice working families always concerned about overflow parking in communities like this. You have two cars and people don't use their garages. You have two cars in the driveway. Your guests are parked on the street. So any anywhere you have an opportunity to.

So again, we've got 19 spaces and we did go with a 28 foot wide road. So there is room to park on the street. And we did try to spread those parking spaces around.

And at the 28-foot wide cartway pavement area, you do have some room where on-street parking is possible.

That's what it was, yeah.

Results, suggestions, comments, questions? Looking good.

Is there a question from this gentleman?

We're getting ready to move into public comments. So if we're done with this, that's next on the agenda. So feel free.

Either way. So my name is Bill Siskowski. I live at 557 Hall Drive. I'm one of four families that live on Hall Drive. I represent the Village Board of College Park, or the Board of Village of College Park, whichever it is. Let me apologize. First of all, I'm gonna be a little rambled, very passionate about this. I have nothing prepared because we didn't know anything about this. The four families that live on Hall Drive were not aware of this meeting tonight about this proposed community. It was rumored, but no one knew about it. There was actually a letter sent out for someone on Wilson Loop to get this and they told us about it. So the board of Village Park didn't even know about it, so I'm here to represent them. I'm perfectly glad that this picture is up there, because I want you guys to consider, we just have a new hospital coming in, Christiana, they want to bring it in, that's excellent. But looking at this scenario, it's going to take an ambulance an extra 20 minutes to get past Hall Drive, where it's 20 mile an hour speed limit. And because everyone races up and down Hall Drive, there are going to be speed bumps. And anybody in that cul-de-sac, they're not going to get to them in time. I'm all for more community. I know how you guys love Georgetown. We love Georgetown. That's why we got here, right? We're two years, it'll be in Halloween of this year, two years that we've moved down here from Connecticut. And like a lot of people, we're all moving in influx of Sussex County. You see communities all over the place. And I feel with this community, they're trying to take, and they're asking for waivers. Why are they asking for waivers? Because they're trying to take 10 pounds of crap and stick it in a five pound bag right there. It's cornered off from everything and everybody. He's got to walk through woods to get to the stores that he's talking about. Now, there's no disrespect to the gentleman. They're trying to make money. They're trying to be developers. I understand it. But this particular area, it should be designed as open air or open area space or whatever they call it, right? Because there's no reason to stuff all of that, 108 community, 108 people, excuse me, 108 townhouses, how many people are gonna each occupy those townhouses? Probably two to each one, right? So now you're talking 216 people each having two cars. How do you get into that area? one way in, one way out, hall drive. It's ridiculous. Now I'm not a suit, I'm a trades guy, I've been a trades guy all my life. I think logically. Everything I do is logic, right? There's no reason except for the reason for greed to stuff all of that in that one area. And that's what I want you guys to consider. There are so many more communities built through here, all in Lewis, all up and down. Route 9 here, all over Sussex County. And these guys, and I'm sorry if I'm trying to be personal about it, I'm trying not to insult them, but they're just greedy about this. They're just trying to find a way to sell that property to help out the church, because it was church-owned property. Right? And they find a way to make a buck by sticking all these houses in this area, which is, it's not logical because it's not safe. You're going to stick 108 people or 108 families in this area with only one exit. Nobody, it's unfathomable, unheard of. Not to mention, right, we have these pictures of previous when they had, drawn out the whole area. It showed all of the Village of College Park area, but nothing was developed yet. which means now I'm sure you guys are aware that there are apartment buildings that got put in there. So now there's eight apartment buildings. Each of those eight apartment buildings hold 240 units. Do the math there. That's how many people are getting stuffed in this area. We already know the area is so saturated that DelDOT now has to create that bypass like they did for Millsboro. because of all of the accidents there. Now, the other part of this congestion is everybody uses 404 to cut in across from the college to go to Redner's, to go to Walmart, and then they all got to try and get out because there's not enough access for the amount of traffic going through this area. They want to do walking trails. So walking trails with all of these cars is a recipe for disaster. So please consider all this stuff. Suitability, access, traffic overview, donations. Mr. Davidson, thank you so much for giving me the information about the home builder. The home builder's gonna be Ryan Holmes. Okay? Now, everybody, we have 121 units or houses, single-family houses, in the village of College Park. And I can guarantee you 90 of the 120 were lied to by DRB. DRB is a sister company of Ryan. I don't know how they're intertwined, whether Ryan owns DRB or vice versa. It's Okay, well that's what I've heard. That's what I've heard, whether the legality of it is or not. But I can guarantee you that there are lies we're told throughout everything. A walking park, we have a figure eight as a walking park where the sales people told us it was going down around the pond and it was gonna be a mile long thing. All the top soil has been stolen off the grades of everybody's lot. So you can put down sod, it looks great for a year. After a year, the sod doesn't break through that hard pan of clay and dirt because the developers stole all, that's how, I'm sorry if I say it this way, but they decided to clear the top soil off the top. so they can make more money. I think this is all about greed. And sticking all of this together is just another greed.

If you could wrap up your comments quickly. I'm sorry? If you could start wrapping up. We've all passed the three-minute mark. Yeah.

Could you just state your name again for the record, please, and your address?

My name is William Siskowski, C-I-S-K-O-W-S-K-I, 557 Hall Drive. And I'm also a board member of the Village College Park. Thank you so much for listening to me, and please take that in all consideration.

All right. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Jacqueline Stevens, and I'm at 733 R. Wilson Loop. And we would like to know, we live in the single-family homes, we would like to know if this nice development is going to be behind our homes. We're at 733 R. Wilson Loop. Well, not, you've got to go back to the trees. Is that where we are?

So this is all that. This is mine. One, two, three, four, five. This is our house from there.

Oh, so it is going to be behind our house. Yes. OK. This is you.

This is Kevin and Sonia.

OK. So will there be anything other than trees separating our house from?

Well, as you can see, the majority of the open space is their house.

there there are required buffers between properties so like the plan will have to meet those requirements and the buffer zones can be a combination of plantings fences you know there's there's different requirements for different types of properties that back up to each other and the plan will have to meet our buffer yard requirements we heard that it was going to be some type of wall like an eight foot cement wall that's that's not permissible in the town of georgia

Oh, that's, okay. So they can kind of walk through, they can kind of walk through this development to get to Walmart, through the trees, walking through. Yeah, but they're not going to do that. They're going to walk through the trees and, you know, make it. No, we have trees behind our house.

We have a whole bunch of trees. Yeah, but the house.

Yeah, but how do you get there? Yeah, how do you get there? Well, I'm talking about where we live at, 733 Argos and Luke, right? Well, that's the way you should go. But if there's no buffer between our house and their house, these houses, they're going to walk through.

Can I interrupt you? Excuse me, sir. Excuse me, sir. Can I interrupt you for a second? If you could ask your questions to the chairman, and then he will put it back to the developer to answer them.

Okay. Yeah, but I still don't get it, and my time is running out, but I don't... No, you can have more time if I interrupted you. Okay, so I still don't get it. I mean, we're behind these houses, right, these townhouses, and we have a whole bunch of trees, like a whole bunch of trees from our house to the church. Like, is there anything going to be in between our houses and the church other than the trees?

Are you proposing a fence between the properties?

No, we're not sure if it's going to be a fence.

Right. Right.

Okay, if not a buffer, there needs to be something because they can walk through to get, they're not supposed to walk through, but they can walk through those trees because they used to do deer hunting or something back there. So they can walk through to get to our nice backyard, which is supposed to be a premium lot that we paid $10,000 for, which is not right. And DRB told us that they wasn't building back there. Right?

Yeah.

Yeah, they told us that they wasn't building anything back there. So we're concerned and we all did one .

Unfortunately, we have no control over what your developer told you.

Okay. But our concern is if you can, you know, put something there so they can't walk through our backyard. We know that they're supposed to walk on the blacktop. It's a nice development. I'm not taking anything. It's beautiful. If it's affordable, my kids can move there. Is it going to be affordable housing? They walk through people's houses through their backyards now. The people that live in the development walk through to get to Walmart. So this is convenient. Let's walk through the woods. Let's go see what's on the other side. Yeah, they walk through, not ours, but they walk through the single-family homes to get to the other side. It's a nice sidewalk. There's a street, and they walk. Where do people come from? Well, they come from their own development, the college part, a shortcut. Yeah, so these people will probably do the same thing.

I know my time is up, but yeah.

So if you can, you know, do something, give us a little something, something high where they can't jump over it or go underneath it, that would be great.

I would also offer for anyone who's interested, perhaps yourself included and others, if you'd like to leave your name and email, and we can alert you as to when this will next be on the agenda, so we can continue that discussion. And I'm sure, you know, this isn't the last time. We're not even taking action on this tonight.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, so there's another opportunity to discuss, you know, some of these issues and it sounds like the applicant has heard you. And so there might be some opportunity to do some more research and to address some of those comments, yes.

Yes, thank you. Yeah, that would be great. Okay.

I'll find a piece of paper. I just wanted to offer, I'm going to put this up here. You can put your name and email.

My name is Susan Soskowski. I also live at 557 Hall Drive.

I'm Bill's wife.

the only thing that is really important to me is we have a lot of children and a lot of dogs so the amount of traffic that's going to be on hall drive concerns me for the kids dogs we're all supposed to be responsible for our own dogs same for kids but we all know whoever's had kids kids do their own thing so i just really want that to be really really considered when approving this and moving it forward that's all i ask

Any other public comments? The whole agenda is on the town's website. If you look up the agenda for tonight's meeting, all that information is on there. OK, moving on to community development report. So.

Let's see if I have any notes on here.

So as you noted earlier tonight, we do have another annexation from Delaware or the Delmar Christian School. Obviously, you will be seeing that most likely on the next agenda. We have also received a preliminary Some preliminary feedback from our SJR8 consultants, the zoning reform consultants. We don't have a formalized memo yet, but that should be coming. And we are also expecting some engagement opportunities in the fall to basically report out some of their findings about what in the zoning code could be improved to increase access to housing, generally speaking. Some of them are administrative in nature and others are just permitting certain things in certain places, essentially. So you'll learn more about that in the coming months, I believe. And lastly, no, I think that's pretty much it. Someone asked about the Market Street Village, which was the East Market Street cottage homes. Those have been in review, and actually we're probably expecting a resubmission pretty soon, so that will eventually make it to the Planning Commission agenda in the next couple months as well.

Any update on God's Way?

I have submitted some inquiries, and I haven't heard back yet, but we'll keep trying. Very good.

Any questions for Ron? If not, is there a motion to adjourn?

I'll make a motion to adjourn.

Is there a second?

I'll second it.

All in favor, say aye. Aye. We are adjourned. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Appreciate it.