Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conditional Use Mobilization Yard topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council defers decision on temporary mobilization yard tied to Park Avenue relocation
Summary
A conditional-use application to allow temporary storage and processing of organic construction materials for the Park Avenue relocation project was presented; council deferred action to the next meeting after hearing competing conditions recommended by Planning & Zoning and an alternative set proposed by the applicant.
Sussex County Council deferred action on Conditional Use 2468, an application to permit a temporary mobilization yard and processing of organic materials related to the Park Avenue relocation project. The application was presented by attorney David Hutt on behalf of property owner Richard Bell.
Hutt told council the materials already present on the site include a large topsoil pile and a separate pile of organic root mass and shrubbery removed during phase 1 of the Park Avenue relocation (DelDOT project T2020004601). He said the term “mobilization yard” was coined during agency communications to describe temporary staging and processing for materials used in the relocation project. Hutt said the applicant’s site already has an existing conditional-use approval (ordinance 25-15) for related contracting and storage activity, and that concrete crushing previously allowed on the property occurred under a time-limited authorization and was later moved to another site.
Planning & Zoning recommended approval subject to conditions that would, among other things, prohibit grinding or screening of materials and require removal of materials within 45 days of specified project milestones. The applicant proposed a different set of conditions to the council: limit materials to organic matter only (no concrete or asphalt/millings), permit grinding/sifting of organics on site to create a “bio mix” for reuse in the road project, restrict processing hours (applicant proposed grinding hours aligned with a prior concrete-crushing limit, discussed as 9 a.m.–4 p.m. Monday–Friday), and require removal of materials within 180 days after completion of Park Avenue phase 2. Hutt handed the council copies of the applicant’s proposed revised findings and conditions and two neighbor letters of support (Lewandowski and Andrea Kennedy), which he said the Planning & Zoning Commission did not have when it acted.
Council members asked whether the proposed activity was temporary, whether the applicant could comply with Planning & Zoning’s 45-day removal condition, and whether grinding hours should be limited to avoid Sunday noise. Hutt argued the 45-day requirement was not practicable for contractors and suggested 180 days after final phase completion would be more enforceable; he also agreed to a grinding-hours limitation similar to the earlier concrete-crushing restriction if council wanted it.
No members of the public spoke in opposition or support at the hearing; the operator reported no remote callers. After discussion the council voted to defer the item to the next meeting so staff and the applicant could settle final condition language and provide the exact language council would vote on.
The application remains pending; the Planning & Zoning Commission’s recommended conditions and the applicant’s proposed alternate conditions will both be part of the record when council reconvenes the item.
