Wednesday, June 29, 2011

The Bond Bill and Stoltz Real Estate Partners

Senate Bill 130, the Bond Bill, was formally introduced yesterday. Old Leg Hall hands will quickly review the numbers in the front of the bill and turn to what is called the epilog language, which provides instructions on how the funds shall and shall not be used.

Page 52 of this year's Bond Bill includes some specific instructions to DelDOT on how to handle permits for two high profile development projects in New Castle County:
Section 114. Buck Road. The Department of Transportation is requested to refrain from issuing any entrance permit, authorization, or approval for use of any entrance way from New Castle County Parcel Number 0702600094 onto Buck Road, until such time as it also certifies by letter to the New Castle County Department of Land Use that the developer’s proposed entrance design meets the Department’s standards, pursuant to its authority under Title 17 Del. C. §146 and its related regulations, intended to protect public safety and maintain smooth traffic flow. The government of New Castle County is also requested to solicit comments from and work with the residents of surrounding communities, community organizations, and State and local officials to address traffic safety and other legitimate land use concerns about the proposed development, after the receipt of the Department’s letter.

Section 115. Routes 141 and 48. The Department of Transportation is requested to refrain from issuing any permit, authorization, or approval for use of any new, additional, revised, or modified entrances for New Castle County Parcel Numbers 07-032.20-003, 07-032.20-048 through and including 07-032.20-055, 07-032.20-057 and 07-032.30-072 onto or from Route 141 or Route 48, until such time as the Department obtains, reviews, and comments upon a traffic operations analysis for the area, which among other elements addresses (1) the predicted levels of service on intersections, roadways, or the Tyler McConnell Bridge affected by the proposed development of these parcels, and (2) the roadway improvements necessary to accommodate the development of these parcels, based upon the exploratory development plans submitted to the New Castle County Department of Land Use by the developer, as required by the County’s Unified Development Code (UDC). To the extent that any submission of proposed development plans is substantially different than the original exploratory development plans submitted to the County, the Department is further requested to assess the impact of the new submission’s traffic generation upon the local transportation network. The scope of the assessment shall be at the reasonable discretion of the Department.
The projects in question, proposed by Stoltz Real Estate Partners, have been the subject of immense controversy. I don't know how much these two sections will affect consideration of the projects.

3 Comments:

Blogger Nancy Willing said...

The way Chad Livengood charaterized this inclusion was that it was a lot like last year when Hudson/Katz/McDowell tried to place language into the Bond Bill about the Stoltz lack of traffic studies for his projects and Dep. AG Schrenk stepped in, called out DelDOT's objections and managed to 'fix' the language.

Supposedly this is what happened last Thursday night as the Bond Bill committee wound down its work. Hudson tried to get language in to force Stoltz/DelDOT to do TIS and Schrenk stepped in objecting and amended the language.

Thanks for pointing to this segment. I picked up a copy of the bill yesterday and was picking through it but didn't come upon this yet.

By the way, DelDOT decided to rewrite its Regulations pertaining to TIS. The public comments end today. The new regs proposals can be found HERE:

2309 Standards and Regulations for Subdivision Streets and State Highway Access
http://regulations.delaware.gov/register/june2011/proposed/14%20DE%20Reg%201323%2006-01-11.htm#P8_224

10:20 AM, June 30, 2011  
Blogger Nancy Willing said...

Correction: DelDOT new regs comments have been extended to August 30th.

Plus, when I looked in the Bond bill, I saw a similarly written section to what you found on Stoltz to two other very controversial property going through NCC Land Use right now. At least the one is written similarly: for Acierno's property at Possom Park Road and Kirkwood HWY.

The writing for the Gore property, that Chris Coons has a huge stake in, was a lot less constrained.

3:03 PM, June 30, 2011  
Blogger Tom Noyes said...

The language for the Acierno property at Possum Park Road has been there for several years. I don't know when it was first inserted.

The sections requires that if the property is annexed into Newark for any reason (such as easier zoning), Newark would have to repay the state for funding for the reservoir.

3:25 PM, June 30, 2011  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home