DRAFT
The New Castle City’s Planning Commission Meeting took place
on February 27, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. in the City of New Castle’s
Town Hall.
Members Present: Dr. Jack Norsworthy, Co-Chairman
George Freebery
Jane Miller
Elliott Tatum
Melissa Pavonne
Staff Present: Jackie Seneschal
Member Absent: Thomas Wilson, Chairman
Jim Steele
Mary Davis
Chairman Norsworthy called the meeting to order at 6:45
p.m. Roll call was taken.
Ms. Melissa Pavonne was introduced as the newest member of the Planning
Commission.
Minutes – A motion to accept the minutes of the
1/23/06 meeting was made and seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Business from the Mayor -- None.
Business from the City Council
Clubs and Lodges in the R3 Request for Parking Considerations -- The
Chair referred to a letter distributed to all Commission members from
City Council concerning this matter.
Ms. Seneschal prepared a memo addressing City Council’s two
concerns. One is to understand how parking would be affected and how
many uses was this affecting at the lodges and clubs already existing
in New Castle proper? Information on existing zoning square footage
has been gathered, but the inventory is not yet complete. When Mr.
Bergstrom finishes the inventory it will be distributed to Commission
members. (Ms. Seneschal reviewed the subject matter thoroughly.) Council
did not provide a specific time for response in their letter. The
Planning Commission can either discuss at our next meeting in March
or have a special meeting.
Ms. Seneschal said she would inform Council that additional time is
needed to provide a response to their concerns.
Riverbend Public Hearings—March 9, 2006 – Ms. Seneschal
informed the hearings have been advertised. They are at 7 p.m. in
this building. There will be three public hearings. They address an
amendment to the comprehensive plan for the change in use, an amendment
in the comprehensive plan to change the transportation ____, then
the rezoning. They will hold all three hearings simultaneously.
SUBDIVISION & SITE PLANS
Subdivision – 117 West 9th Street – Ms. Seneschal informed
this is a request to take an existing lot with one house on it and
subdivide it creating two lots with a semi-detached house, two units.
It has been reviewed by the City Engineer and by us. A copy of the
letter from the engineer is included with your packages. Ms. Seneschal
said the description of the property needs to be changed to reflect
the legal description of the property. It meets zoning requirements.
Ms. Miller made a motion to accept the proposal with the condition
they change the name; Mr. Tatum seconded the motion. The motion was
passed unanimously.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
February 27, 2006
Page 2
Riverbend Pre-Application Submission – Ms. Seneschal
said Riverbend submitted a plan to the City on 2/14/06. It is not
a preliminary plan submission so no action is required by the Planning
Commission. Subdivision regulations state that before people submit
an application for a subdivision they make a pre-application submission
that is reviewed by the Planning Commission Chairman and the Building
Official. The Building Official writes them a letter informing of
any areas of concerns or issues with the plan they can address before
a formal submission. It also requires that the Planning Commission
be advised that the pre-application has been received. All Commission
members have received a draft of the response letter that was prepared
indicating a number of changes to the plan and requests for additional
information. Ms. Seneschal has spoken with the state Historic Preservation
Office and they have indicated there will be a Phase 2 study because
there are indications there is something on the property. There is
evidence of a pre-historic Native American site, like a hunting camp.
(Lengthy discussion took place about the archeological findings on
this site.) Ms. Miller feels very strongly about honoring a historic
area. Ms. Seneschal said the first thing to do is to determine what
is on the site and go from there. (Ms. Seneschal detailed what was
addressed in the response letter.) She asked if there was anything
the Planning Commission wants to see on the plan when it comes in
as a preliminary subdivision plan for consideration. Ms. Pavonne asked
about sidewalks. Ms. Seneschal has asked them to inform where they
will be located because they don’t appear on the document. Ms.
Pavonne also inquired about availability of water and sewer lines
and who pays for it. Ms. Seneschal said the developer pays for it.
There is sewer across the property and the water is available across
the railroad tracks at the industrial park. The Municipal Services
Commission has asked for the lines to be moved in two places. Ms.
Pavonne asked if the front door of the homes would be facing the sidewalk.
Ms. Seneschal said this is something that needs to be addressed.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Discussion of Current Vacancies on the Planning Commission –
Mayor Klingmeyer informed that Mr. DiAngelo will be appointed to the
Planning Commission.
NEW BUSINESS
New Castle County Department of Lane Use-New Castle County Planning
Issues – In November Jim Steele and Jackie Seneschal met with
Dave Culver and Charlie Baker of the New Castle County Department
of Land Use to discuss the City of New Castle and to get an idea of
what is going on around the City of New Castle. They invited Mr. Culver
to tell us what is going on in and around the City of New Castle and
the County’s Comprehensive Plan which is presently undergoing
its five-year update. Mr. Culver invited anyone to attend any of the
public meetings addressing the Comprehensive Plan. Meeting information
is posted on the County website. He brought two aerial maps that he
will leave with the City that shows where major and minor plans are
located. (Areas Mr.Culver covered included the former Amoco site,
Army Creek, the former Deemer’s Beach site, and Airport Toyota
on Route 13.) Ms. Seneschal asked if there was a highway corridor
or redevelopment effort group on Route 13. Mr. Culver said nothing
exists at present. There is a Route 40 study that meets routinely
between the county, WILMAPCO and DelDOT and they have discussed making
Route 13 a study corridor. (Mr. Culver also gave an in-depth review
of traffic impact studies and their requirements. He also addressed
open space issues, historical sites, and environmental/clean-up issues
raised by members of the audience.) Mr. Culver informed that any property
under development in New Castle County can be researched on their
webpage and look up that property to know what is going on. Ms. Seneschal
asked him to provide a schedule of the comprehensive plan update
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
February 27, 2006
Page 3
for the county. He said they would be meeting for the
next several months and they hope to have a draft document done sometime
this fall for review with the Plus system and public review. We then
hope to have the document to Council this time next year for adoption.
There will be several drafts out and they will be posted on the county
website. Adoption must be done by March 2007. She followed that the
City of New Castle and the Planning Commission should have a set of
concerns over the next month or two to the County of things we would
like to see addressed. He confirmed this and said the concerns would
be addressed as the respective committees met.
Discussion of Budget Request and Future Activities FY2007 –
Ms. Seneschal reported that in February the City Council increased
the Planning Commission’s budget from $14,000 to $25,000 for
this year. The principle issue was that the budget has already exceeded
$14,000. Two things contributing to this are the Riverbend Project,
which has required a significant amount of time and resources. The
other was there was a delay in the payment of invoices in the transition.
Invoices for work done in March, April, May of 2005 weren’t
paid until December 2005. There was also a grant approved by the State
Office of Planning and she is trying to track when the city received
that money. What kind of budget request should be made for next year?
She suggested probably $1,100 per month is used for basic support;
meaning that $15,000 per year will cover basic, ongoing planning support.
The City of New Castle has to update their comprehensive plan every
five years as well. She suggested an additional $10,000 this fiscal
year and an additional $10,000 next fiscal year and apply for a Livable
Delaware grant each fiscal year so that that $20,000 becomes $40,000
to be used towards the update of the comprehensive plan update. That
plan should start somewhere around January 2007 and be finished about
a year later. (She then discussed ways to make the study less expensive.)
She said every major controversy in the last year has touched on parking
in some form. She suggested addressing parking as a major issue in
the comprehensive plan. Her other suggestion was to change the city’s
fee ordinance for sub-divisions and rezonings and possibly larger
special exceptions and have developers pay for the cost of professional
review fees. You can’t predict when those projects will come
in. She asked if there are other things the Planning Commission thinks
we should be doing. Members were content with her suggestions; therefore,
she will move forward and determine what the formal process will be.
Adjournment – Mr. Tatum made a motion to adjourn; Ms. Miller
seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Debbie Turner
Stenographer
