Cluster ordinance debated by planners

By M. Patricia Titus
Staff Reporter

Commissioners realized upon reading the three proposed amendments that the combination, if enacted in its entirety, would create an inherent conflict within the ordinance.

Amendments 1 and 2 would limit cluster subdivisions to only areas designated as developing districts. The third amendment would allow cluster subdivisions in low-density areas but require that the density calculation for such subdivisions, when approved, be calculated after reducing the land area figure by 25 percent — resulting in lower density than cluster subdivisions in developing districts.

The first set of regulations would thereby largely prohibit something that was designed only to be limited by the other set. Something had to give, but commissioners were unsure exactly what.

P&Z Chairman Robert Wheatley said he questioned the point in limiting cluster subdivisions to town centers.

“I’m wondering if that is where the open space is. We may need to come up with another cluster option,” he said. Of the existing ordinance and the potential “density bonus” it allows, Wheatley said, “I thought we were giving up too much. What we gave for what we got wasn’t equitable.”

Commissioners were stumped as to how to bring about the changes they desired within the framework of the amendments already presented for that night’s hearing.

“We really need to not be addressing these things in vacuums. We could end up with things that no one ever intended but that meet the law,” Wheatley noted with concern.

That said, the floor was opened for public input, beginning with Mike Tyler, president of the Citizens Coalition, and much where he left off on the subject of Isaacs Glen.

Tyler said he felt there was enough undeveloped land remaining in the county’s development districts to limit cluster subdivisions to those areas. Moreover, he said he felt the reward to the developer for creating a cluster subdivision should be inherent in that process and not an added thing, such as a density bonus (intended or otherwise).

“Clustering in and of itself saves the developer money,” he said. “It should be the main benefit a developer sees. He can reduce the setbacks, create smaller lots and narrower roads, change the feel of the community. “The ones that have been coming through are very odd with the added density. This takes the best land and puts houses on the best land, and the buyer gets a bargain.”

“There is benefit in clustering as a technique and developers will recognize that,” Tyler emphasized. “The only problem I have with putting it in rural areas is that you’ll hear it’s out of character with the community … because it is. If you build them around town centers, it does fit in.”

To that, Wheatley replied, “The thought that I have is that the density issue is an issue. That needs to be addressed. I’m wondering though if there can be some kind of mechanism by which clustering can be encouraged in the non-developing area so we don’t get these three-quarter-acre-lot subdivisions that are this cookie-cutter kind of thing that are a mess.”

Tyler proposed avoiding a density bonus in favor of allowing the developer to simply create smaller lots. It potentially addresses one complaint from developers that was also voiced at the hearing — a desire to create smaller lots for those hoping to retire (or just live) on a lot that requires minimal yard work. Instead of creating added density, perhaps developers could add the extra land to their open space?

Wheatley appeared to favor that notion, saying it would allow a clustering option that could still get the county a density of less than two units per acre. “If it costs less, and no one wants big lots anyway, then that should all work,” he said.

Mabel Grankey of the Citizens Action Foundation also opposed additional density, emphasizing that evidence of superior design should also be required before approval, with specific points to meet in that regard. Existing superior developments should be examined before ordinance changes were made, she said.

The whole discussion opened up the issue of defining open space, whether it should include things like stormwater management areas, golf courses and the like. With requirements for open space as part of the cluster requirements, that definition will prove vital in determining the final densities of proposed cluster subdivisions.

Commissioners were left with that complex decision, and recommendations to issue to the Sussex County Council on the three amendments already proposed for the cluster-subdivision ordinance. They could recommend all, or some, or advise the whole be rejected and revised.

They instead opted to ask for further research on the subject, hoping the final language proposed will prove more what the commissioners had in mind to both keep density in check and encourage superior developments in the quickly growing county.

Recognizing that they had been asked to expedite the ordinance change process, commissioners emphasized that the issue could be put back on the agenda for the next P&Z meeting, if enough consideration and research can be done before then.