These hotly debated ordinances could reshape Sussex County — literally

Density calculation and natural buffers may not stir up exhilarating conversation at the dinner table, but two recent proposals concerning them could change how land in Sussex County is developed, affecting home builders, farmers and future property owners.

County council member I.G. Burton spearheaded both ordinances in an effort to reduce density and help protect the environment.

"This is a pro-growth ordinance," Burton said, citing the need for "good development" that keeps with the low-density character of Sussex.

Burton seeks to eliminate the ability to count wetlands when calculating the overall density of a proposed subdivision. Typically, single-family subdivisions allow for two units per acre, so if a developer purchases a 100-acre lot, they can build 200 houses.

Under current county code, if 30 of those acres are state tidal wetlands, the developer can still build 200 homes on that lot, even though they can't touch the wetlands. That makes the subdivision more dense.

If the ordinance is passed, only 70 acres can be counted in the above scenario, meaning the developer could only build 140 homes. The ordinance does not include federally-owned wetlands, which Burton said "gobbles up" a majority of land in Sussex. 

Opponents argue the resulting decreased density will lead to jacked-up home prices and sprawl, reducing opportunities to build affordable housing and further exacerbating traffic. 

The ordinance will also destroy "thousands of acres" of natural resources, said Jim McCulley, president of the Home Builder's Association of Delaware, during a September planning and zoning meeting. 

"If you take wetlands out of the density calculation, you've essentially taken all the value of those (sensitive) areas away and given the incentive to landowners to minimize or reduce or eliminate those areas," McCulley said. 

Units that can no longer be developed under the new ordinance "are probably going to go somewhere else," he added, leading to more developments being built and thus more sprawl. 

During that same meeting, Bob Thornton, state director for the Home Builders Association, said there were about 270,000 acres left in the county that can be developed. Reducing 20 to 30 percent of that land through the ordinance could wipe out billions of dollars, he said.

Farmer Dave Carey said his property value will be diminished if the ordinance gets passed.

But supporters say Burton's proposal is a crucial step in protecting wetlands, which help the environment in several ways. They filter pollution, provide flood control and therefore protect property, support a large number of species, store carbon, filter water quality and contribute to drinking water, said Chris Bason, executive director of Delaware Center for the Inland Bays. 

Bason said Sussex has lost about a third of its salt marshes, which decreased from 11,000 acres in 1938 to 7,000 in 2007. A report from the organization found that the remaining wetlands are not in the best condition. 

"This ordinance would help protect the wetlands," he said, adding that not concentrating development in environmentally sensitive areas is a "smart land-use policy."

"When the inland bays and the waterways and everything we love about this area is gone, it doesn’t come back," Burton said. "It’s just gone."

Delaware news:Scenic overlook in salt marsh at Delaware beaches coming soon

Delaware news:From fledgling flotilla to superpower sub: Delaware name sails on in the Navy

Council member George Cole said other places along the Eastern Shore — like Accomack in Virginia, a county that has its own wetlands board — "cherish their wetlands and water bodies."

"Up here we look at the inland bays like a step child," he said. "We’re doing nothing to protect it." 

Cole called the sprawl argument a "smokescreen" and said he'd rather have low-density sprawl than high-density sprawl in order to better protect wetlands.

"This will not stop development and people will continue to come here," he said.

The planning and zoning commission deferred its vote regarding density calculation on Oct. 11. Last month, members voted unanimously to recommend County Council deny Burton's other ordinance, which would double the county's forested and wetlands buffer requirement to 40 feet. 

"There’s no science to prove a 10-foot buffer works any worse than a 100-foot buffer," argued Joe Conaway, a land-use consultant and former county administrator. "Any time you eliminate land, you basically decrease density, which means the houses start with a higher price."

Added Conaway: "The biggest problem with the county’s land use plan is it doesn't provide a place for people to build affordable housing. There is no room under this scenario for those kinds of houses."

In their recommendation, planning and zoning members asked the council to consider specific factors for the buffer ordinance, like lot and property sizes, and to hold a workshop with stakeholders that will look at existing vegetation and parcel size.

Cole said he wants the county to take action on the ordinances before he leavesin December. 

According to Burton, it's time to change some of the county's land use codes.

"You can’t put (codes) in 1974 when there were 56,000 people living here and think you don’t need to revisit it again," Burton said. "You have to say, 'Hey, things have changed. Are we OK with our codes?' That’s what we’re doing."

More:'The traffic is us': Sussex grapples with density debate as county housing grows

More:Sussex County Council approves more homes on Gills Neck Road near Lewes