…”Sussex County Administrator David Baker said since the 1992 ordinance was adopted, county officials have sometimes wavered on the buffer requirement.
In this case, for instance, planners didn't think a forested buffer was needed because there was a large storm-water retention pond that bordered the horse farm and not residential houses.”…
…”Sussex County Administrator David Baker said since the 1992 ordinance was adopted, county officials have sometimes wavered on the buffer requirement.
In this case, for instance, planners didn't think a forested buffer was needed because there was a large storm-water retention pond that bordered the horse farm and not residential houses.”…
*We urge you to comment on this bill. See the description here http://www.sussexcountyde.gov/e-gov/agenda%20min/pdfs/council/agenda/CouncilAgenda%20120407.pdf
Don’t let developer
Sussex County Council, 2 The Circle, P.O. Box 589, Georgetown, DE 19947 Phone (302) 855-7742, Fax (302) 855-7749
DALE DUKES 875-2043; FINLEY JONES 349-4920; LYNN ROGERS 684-4883; GEORGE COLE 539-1611; VANCE PHILLIPS 542-1501.
County website ttp://www.sussexcountyde.gov/departments/index.cfm?id=10
“
County wants woodland around new subdivisions
By MOLLY MURRAY, The News Journal
Posted Wednesday,
Pret Dyer, a coastal-area land developer, said it's admirable to require buffers between farms and new developments.
But Dyer said Tuesday he couldn't figure out what
"I think this falls very, very short of your intention," Dyer said during a public hearing on a proposed ordinance to require a 30-foot swath of trees around the perimeters of new subdivisions.
Kevin McBride, an engineer and land development consultant, also questioned the proposal.
"You're taking away a tremendous amount of usable land," McBride said.
*County officials took no action on the proposal Tuesday, instead agreeing to keep the record open for 30 days to allow written public comments.
The forested buffer proposal came up this summer after work started on the
Since 1992,
The idea behind that ordinance was that farms could be dirty, dusty, odorous businesses. The wooded buffer would shield them from new neighbors unaccustomed to the farming way of life.
Initially, a forested buffer was part of the
Earlier this year, Jeff and Jewell Marsh wondered why county officials weren't enforcing the buffer requirement on the boundary with their working, standardbred horse farm.
Sussex County Administrator David Baker said since the 1992 ordinance was adopted, county officials have sometimes wavered on the buffer requirement.
In this case, for instance, planners didn't think a forested buffer was needed because there was a large storm-water retention pond that bordered the horse farm and not residential houses.
Initially, with this new proposal, county officials set out to tighten the forested buffer requirements.
But Councilman George Cole,
Say for instance a developer subdivides a property neighboring a farm and includes the buffer, he said.
Then, that working farm next door is sold for development. Under the current rules, the newer subdivision wouldn't have the buffer.
Besides, Cole said, buffers serve many purposes including the provision of a corridor and habitat for wildlife.
Copyright ©2007, The News Journal. Users of this site agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy/Your California Privacy Rights (Terms updated March 2007). Questions?”
BACKGROUND:
In his Sept. 14 letter to the editor Lynn Rogers said he visited our farm several times. He did not.
This is just one of many false statements in
We never told
Two hours after
For the past year and a half we have spent endless hours trying to get our buffer back. In 2003 we were contacted by the
When the development started in 2006 we saw no reason to ask any more questions. The developer had told us his plans and no notices had been sent out saying there were any changes to the original plans. How were we supposed to know any different?
How many other developments in
How can the county council and planning & zoning say something is their standard practice without showing it is something they regularly did?
The county council and planning & zoning say they don’t have to do anything because “there was no violation per se.” Then who is responsible to protect existing landowners, people like us who have lived on their property with their families for 20 years or more?
In everything that has happened, the county council has been working with the developer and protecting the developer.
Their plan that has taken more than three months to work on is this:
They want to put “bigger” trees on the four to 10 feet of buffer land they say is left. Then they want to plant shrubs and bushes on the slopes of the storm water management pond. And they are calling this our new forested buffer?
The truth is the little remaining buffer land has dying trees ready to fall because the developer sheared their roots. The truth is that no one ever discussed their plan with us.
The truth is that while county council ignored our requests for help for more than a year, Rep. Joe Booth responded after one request. He has done more to help us than any other person.
The truth is it is time for the county council to take responsibility for the fact that they let the developer switch plans and they failed to enforce the county code.
The truth is this issue is definitely not settled and it’s time for our county officials to step up and take responsibility to the landowners of
Jeff and Jewell Marsh, Lewes"