Public Raises Questions For Proposed Wagoner's Row Development Rezoning

 

hmmm. I wonder if the New Castle County Planning Board will recommend appropriate buffering for the 12 clustered homes proposed for 19 acreas on the National Scenic ByWay for Route 100.

A recent News Journal letter ~ Implications of new Greenville rezoning request are not good 

The Greenville community needs to be on the alert. The property on Montchanin Road known as Wagoner’s Row has applied for a variance to the cur­rent zoning. This will enable the owner to build small houses on 1 ⁄ 3 -acre lots. 

I bought my lot in Greenville because of the zoning and the community restrictions. I built my home knowing that my in­vestment was protected be­cause I was surrounded by neighbors with the same inter­ests. Appraisals would be con­sistent because of these same restrictions. I will essentially be next door to small houses on 1 ⁄ 3 -acre lots if the zoning is changed. Rezoning to accommodate Wagoner’s Row diminishes the home val­ues in the whole area. 

The News Journal reported that “the 12 lots have buyers ready to sign contracts if the county approves the project.” There is also a waiting list. This should not be a surprise; this is like free money. These people are not stupid; 12 small houses on 12 small lots next to some of the most expensive homes in New Castle County. Is there a housing crisis? Not at Wagon­er’s Row. The Planning Board has the responsibility to protect the in­terests of the whole community and not just one property owner. This project is not fair. The Planning Board should maintain the current zoning that protects the whole commu­nity. 

You can contact the Planning Board and express your opi­nion. Its email address is land use@nccde.org. The application number is 2013-0123 Wagoner’s Row.  

Arthur B. Chase. Wilmington

And Charlie Weymouth sent this along - raising some very important questions ~ 

Sent: Thu, Aug 8, 2013 3:27 pmSubject: Planning Board-App.2013-0123-S/Z - Wagoners' Row

Attention Mr. Richard E. Killingsworth, Chairman, New Castle County Planning Board and please do pass to Members of the Board:
    Many thanks for responding to my call.  I will belay my general prejudices, and, separately, place following this immediate comment in subject regard:
    With respect to "Wagoners' Row", please review the following:

• The Board should require affirmation of under what terms Land was passed to Betsy Snyder, the only given testimony was from Mrs. Snyder that the Carpenter Family (Bob and Mary Coo ) was under the condition their land was to continue as an open land easement and desired that land conveyed (stated as 17 acres?) was to be held under the same restrictions.

• The UDC, promulgated during Tom Gordon's earlier Administration, was in the integral Comprehensive Plan to the regulatory provisions, definitive to property owner and line, the classified zoning.  Met without great enthusiasm, particularly, by the Developer Community, it effectively downzoned  certain properties and we lived with it.  Such may have occurred here.

• To this person's immediate concern, a concern with major, broader implications, aside from the implied only buffers, residential adjacencies, etc. offered by being a "National Scenic Highway" for Rt. 100 (such restrictions to be offered and articulated by the Kennett Pike Association, that party having written earlier that very few restrictions were implied and they now have said they'll take a year to study it.  Comment: the Fox will be in and out of the hen pen by then).  If such buffers, etc. are to be now defined, such should bind to the individual, adjacent owners and future required Maintenance Corporations.  Only such restrictions will be upheld by the Court, and thus prevents the County from lifting such in the future.

• Opposed to further residential growth within the County unless a prerequisite economy that can locally pay for the infrastructure, an exception may be a demonstrated market for the elderly of residual wealth to afford the one million dollar + cottages. 

• That following, with regard to primary access to the "Scenic Bi-Way", it should be mandatory that the primary access should be off Buck Road and, further, for the length of Route 100/92, no additional access be permitted.   A chained fire access might be a permitted exception.  You should take note that in recent years, the applicant for the Trust, Ruly Carpenter, removed his prime residential access from Rt. 100 and set such off Buck Road.  The solution required of Del Dot on the rezoning attempt at Rt. 141 and 100 , such request requiring direct access, required a widening of the road to Buck Road plus a separate left turn lane, what is now "The Ponds".  Widening/Changing Rt. 100, de facto, negates the visual intent of this Scenic Highway. This highlights the notoriety of Del Dot (and who stands as Governor) to assert their prerogative and demand implementation of required improvements, and, further, not place the burden on the general taxpayer .  It is time to stop such laxness in inconsistency of implementation and now require correction throughout the County to be placed upon the immediate landowner, the Developer---failing such, upon the County.  One should anticipate substantially increased local County taxes for such two generation delinquency over an inadequate relief/secondary road system. (As presented at your hearing, it has been proposed, and now anticipating the constricted use of 52 and 100, that a new thruway should be anticipated from Avondale, Pa. connecting via I-95, access to our Wilmington area trade centers, including rail, air and the Port of Wilmington)  Just one example, correcting  Lancaster Pike and Rt. 141 with bumper to bumper direct access retail/office will be at enormous cost.  Pertinent to this discussion, is the constant battle of many Federal Parks (with particular enunciation at the Acadia National Park (Northeast, Me.) against commercialism directly along such routes to the Park[s]).  You may well have the next example right here.  

 I have chosen not to introduce the history of business matters of this closely tied family (to include the Lickles), the representing law firm for the rezoning, or the County's Zoning/Building Permit history with that represented Landmark Engineering. 
 In closing recommendation forward, beyond immediate action in subject regard,  the County Planning Board must reawaken, assert itself as that independent, non political entity, initiating and forwarding professional recommendation on Land Use.  It should expand to a form encompassing the entirety of the Metropolitan area, ALL infrastructure---set those long term goals, priorities, costs AND WHO SHOULD REALLY BE PAYING FOR SUCH.  Start with a Comprehensive/Master Plan and assert leadership, as exhibited at the reorganization of County Government.  The highest priority is reestablishing a viable economy hip joined by a safe, healthy, physical environment.  Toe to toe, contiguous retail/commercial just doesn't do it. 

MANY THANKS and  Best  C.M. Weymouth, AIA

I did a story on the rezoning and News Journal reporter Adam Taylor covered the NCC Planning Board meeting itself ~ Greenville debates rezoning for housing development.

To make a public comment, email LandUse@nccde.org. 

You can find the plan in Active Plans - New Castle County 

To view the plan and read through the PLUS and other reports click ~ http://www3.nccde.org/project/details/default.aspx?ProjectID=20130123

  

~*~