FISHERS COVE July 13, 2021 - William J. Rhodunda, Jr., Esq. Nicholas G. Kondraschow, Esq. Rhodunda, Williams & Kondraschow Brandywine Plaza West ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
FISHERS COVE July 13, 2021 William J. Rhodunda, Jr., Esq. Nicholas G. Kondraschow, Esq. Rhodunda, Williams & Kondraschow Brandywine Plaza West 1521 Concord Pike, Suite 205 Wilmington, DE 19803 (302) 576-2000
City of Lewes Rejection
City of Lewes Remand Letter April 14, 2020
“Stormwater management. The Applicant
should identify the stormwater management
City of Lewes system to be incorporated into the overall
Remand Letter development plan. The Planning Commission
should verify that the stormwater
management plan will work, that it addresses
April 14, 2020 flooding for the development parcels and the
adjacent parcels, and that the water table has
been adequately considered. Working with
the City Manager, the Planning Commission
has the option to have the stormwater
management plan reviewed by a 3 rd party
expert in the field”
“ The AECOM flood model should be further
utilized by running the model with actual
City of Lewes numbers from the development and take into
Remand Letter consideration the recommendations
beginning on page 31 in the City of Lewes
Flood Study”
April 14, 2020
“The Sussex Conservation District should
review the stormwater management plan
prior to reconsideration of the preliminary
consent”
Developer’s attorney’s letter May 14, 2021
Developer’s attorney’s letter May 14, 2021 Attachment: Duffield Associates’ May 14, 2021 letter
Developer’s
attorney’s letter
May 14, 2021
Attachment:
Duffield
Associates’ May
14, 2021 letter
The Developer has FAILED to address the issues that caused
City of Lewes the previous plan to be rejected
Rejection The Developer’s plan DOES NOT comply with City of Lewes
zoning ordinances or Comprehensive Plan
&
The Developer claims to have met the requests set forth in
Remand Letter the City of Lewes Remand Letter
It hasn’t and it offers little to no information to prove that it
has
Compliance with SCD regulations DOES NOT EQUAL
compliance with City of Lewes zoning ordinances or
Comprehensive Plan
Finally, there are flaws or failures of explanation in AECOM,
Duffield and SCD’s analyses
Developer’s “This remand response addresses those
specific issues that Mayor and Council
attorney’s requested. Most notably, the remand
letter requested consultation with the Sussex Soil
Conservation District (SCD) in addressing
stormwater management. Not only did the
May 14, 2021 applicant consult with SCD, plans were
submitted to SCD, SCD comments were
addressed, and SCD has approved the
applicant’s stormwater management plan – an
approval usually legally required and obtained
at final site plan approval.”SCD approval
SCD approval Compliance with SCD regulations DOES NOT
EQUAL compliance with City of Lewes zoning
ordinances or Comprehensive Plan
As confirmed by Jim Elliott, Plan Reviewer
(SCD), the SCD review and approval DOES
NOT include a review for compliance with City
of Lewes zoning ordinances and SCD
regulations DO NOT contain the provisions set
forth in City of Lewes zoning ordinances,
Sections 197-73(A)(2)(d), (j), (k), (l) and (m)Jim Elliott email July 9,2021
SCD approval
City of Lewes
(d) Maintain natural drainage
Zoning
Ordinance (j) Minimize the impact of development on adjacent
properties within and near flood-prone areas
Section 197- (k) Provide that the flood storage and conveyance
functions of the floodplain are maintained
73(A)(2)
Floodplains (l) Minimize the impact of development on the natural and
beneficial functions of the floodplain
(m) Prevent floodplain uses that are either hazardous or
environmentally incompatibleALSO: No development activity that
would affect the flood-carrying
Section 197- capacity of the floodplain should
73(E)(3)
be permittedALSO: New floodplain development
may not aggravate existing flood
City of Lewes problems or increase damage to
Comprehensive
Plan other propertiesCity of Lewes NO ONE has analyzed these
Zoning provisions and stated that they’ve
Ordinance
&
been met or explained that they’ve
Comprehensive been met
PlanSection 197-73 The Developer’s plan CANNOT
Floodplains maintain natural drainage of the
floodplain
The Developer’s plan CANNOT
maintain flood storage and conveyance
functions of the floodplainRetaining wall The retaining wall, by definition, is diverting
water from the floodplain, which means you
are NOT maintaining natural drainage
The retaining wall prevents storm surge from
entering the floodplain
Where is the water going?Stormwater What happens when stormwater
management management ponds fill from storms?
ponds Who is going to maintain the stormwater
management system?
How often will the stormwater management
system be inspected by the City of Lewes to
ensure it is functioning properly? “In addition, AECOM and the applicant have shared
Developer’s data and analysis, and the applicants [sic] plan is
designed to alleviate current and future flooding
attorney’s conditions.”
letter
Duffield attachment: “The final site grading and
stormwater design was completed interactively with
May 14, 2021 AECOM modeling to address flooding concerns.”
Duffield attachment: “While we have seen output
from [AECOM’s] model, we have not seen a final
report.” Developer DOES NOT say that it will comply with all of AECOM’s
suggestions
Developer’s Duffield notes that it has NOT seen AECOM’s final report
attorney’s
What is the status of AECOM’s final report?
letter
What assumptions and scenarios were run through the models?
May 14, 2021 Were models run with increased impervious improvements to
Rodney Avenue at widths of 24’ and 26’?
Were models run without an increase to the width of Rodney
Avenue?
Only two difficult-to-read charts posted on City of Lewes website
Still appear to show flooding to neighboring propertiesGMB letter June 11, 2021
GMB letter June 11, 2021
GMB DOES NOT reference AECOM final report
GMB letter
GMB DOES NOT state that the Developer’s plan complies
June 11, 2021 with City of Lewes zoning ordinances or Comprehensive
Plan
GMB DOES NOT address flood storage capacity
GMB is the engineer for the City of Lewes
GMB has failed in its obligation to ensure that the City
of Lewes zoning ordinances and Comprehensive Plan
were complied withDeveloper’s “Options for improving Rodney Avenue have
been discussed with City Engineers and the
attorney’s applicant has made a recommendation.”
letter
Duffield attachment: “A modest improvement
May 14, 2021 to Rodney Avenue is proposed which improves
safety and emergency access.”GMB letter “2e. The developer has met with the City of Lewes
planning staff and GMB concerning the Rodney Avenue
road design. The initial concepts are generally
June 11, 2021 acceptable from an engineering standpoint. It should
be left up to the Planning Commission and City
Council to review and decide on any modifications to
the conceptual layout. After a final design is decided
upon, GMB will fully review the proposed design.”
“i. The concepts are not included in the preliminary
site plans.”Rodney The Developer’s plan includes widening Rodney Avenue from
existing 16’-18’ to 26’ (as indicated on Site Plan Sheet 3 of 5)
Avenue
Presentation materials by the Developer show 24’, with a 2”
overlay over the existing road, and full depth pavement in new
widened areas
2” overlay is not in accordance with City of Lewes ordinance
Section 167-14 – Street Reconstruction Standards
26’ width is larger than the 24’ minimum that can be approved
through exceptions pursuant to City of Lewes ordinance 170-27
- Streets Duffield attachment: “A modest
Rodney improvement to Rodney Avenue is
proposed which improves safety and
Avenue emergency access.”
But emergency access has already been
accommodated by the 20’ easement
alongside Fisher House (notwithstanding
the fact that the Developer had the
opportunity to grant themselves a wider
easement at this location) The City of Lewes in 1989 already rejected a proposal
Rodney to develop this parcel because the developer wanted
to use Rodney Avenue for access to the property
Avenue
The situation here is WORSE because the Developer
removed its Pilottown parcel from the plan
The Developer INTENTIONALLY landlocked their
property
The Developer has still not provided adequate legal
authority that they can use Rodney AvenueDeveloper’s “Finally, some lot size and grading
adjustments have been made which allow for
attorney’s a zero net fill in the flood plain.”
letter
Duffield attachment: “The site design has
May 14, 2021 achieved effectively no net fill within the
mapped 100-year floodplain zone.” (a) Disposal of fill…shall not be permitted in special
City of Lewes flood hazard areas
Zoning
Ordinance (b) Fill shall not be permitted to be placed for the
purpose of supporting a building or structure
Section 197-
73(D)(5) (c) Fill placed for a purpose other than to support a
Floodplains Fill building or structure shall be compacted for stability
under conditions of rising and falling floodwaters and
resistance to erosion, scour, and settling and shall be
designed with adequate drainage and no adverse
effect on adjacent properties.Fill Developer and Duffield claim that there is “zero net fill”
However, there is a cut volume of 7300 +/- cubic yards and fill
volume of 18,100 +/- cubic yards
So there CANNOT be “zero net fill”
In addition, the Developer’s original Karins and Associates
Engineers Report noted that the majority of excavated site soil
is “somewhat limited” for local roads and streets, meaning it is
not suitable for roads and streets
So, despite the implied use of no imported soil for fill (“net zero”)
how are the roads properly founded on native soil? The Developer’s plan shows that fill is needed to achieve
finish grade at the houses that varies but in some cases is 4
Fill ½ feet
Unless all of the crawl spaces and/or foundations are built on
top of original grade how are these structures supported?
Has the Developer performed geotechnical testing to
validate appropriate safe soil bearing capacity?
Has the Developer analyzed the impact of the various types
of soils that may be used in the stormwater management
system?The City of
• The Developer’s plan FAILS to address basic concerns
Lewes should
that were specifically raised when the previous plan
REJECT the was rejected
Developer’s plan
• The Developer has INDISPUTABLY FAILED to
demonstrate compliance with the City of Lewes
zoning ordinances and Comprehensive Plan
• The City of Lewes Planning Commission should
REJECT the Developer’s planYou can also read
