Planning commission votes to decline future-land-use change for 644 N. Bedford St. ("James Place")

Georgetown Planning Commission members voted on Feb. 19, 2025, to recommend declining an amendment to the town comprehensive plan that would have changed the future land use designation for 644 North Bedford Street from single-family residential to mixed residential. The change had been requested to allow a residential planned community (RPC) overlay for a proposed development the applicants have called James Place.

The applicants’ attorney, David Hutt of Morris James, told the commission the proposal anticipates 108 total housing units under the RPC—"a community known as James Place, which would include a hundred 8 units," including single-family homes, duplexes and townhomes. He said the RPC overlay would be superimposed on the property’s existing UR-1 (urban residential) zoning and that zoning and a future site plan review would still be required if the future-land-use amendment moved forward.

A planning consultant for the applicant, Mark Davidson of Pennoni, told commissioners that standard trip-generation estimates show a multi-family product generates fewer daily vehicle trips than detached single-family homes: "single family detached housing lots averages about 10 trips per day... Multi family townhouses and the like are somewhere around 6 and a half trips," he said, explaining that traffic impacts for the proposed mix could be lower than if the site were developed exclusively with single-family lots.

The Office of State Planning Coordination had previously reviewed the request and, in a Sept. 4, 2024 letter included in the application materials, concurred that the town could treat the application as a "minor variation" to the comprehensive plan amendment process. The applicants noted the site is within a State Strategies Map Level 1 growth area and that DelDOT classifies North Bedford Street as a major collector—points their materials cited as supporting the requested amendment.

Two written public comments in opposition were received and entered into the record; the clerk noted letters from Sheryl Howard and Rhonda Davis. No speakers appeared in-person or on Zoom to contest the application during the public hearing.

After public comment closed, a motion was made to recommend that town council decline the planned amendment (the motion on the floor was a motion to decline). In roll-call voting recorded during the meeting, Commissioner Meares voted to decline, Commissioner Wise voted to decline, and at least one other commissioner voted against declining. One commissioner recused earlier in the hearing because of a business relationship with one of the contract purchasers; that recusal was noted on the record. The motion to recommend declining the amendment carried on the commission’s roll call (recorded tally: yes — 2; no — 1; recused — 1). The commission proceeded to the next item following the vote.

Supporters of the amendment had told the commission the RPC overlay would permit a mix of housing types—60 detached single-family homes and 48 attached units (28 duplexes and 20 townhomes in the concept layout shown to the commission)—and would create larger shared open-space areas than a conventional subdivision. Opponents who submitted letters argued the mixed-residential designation does not fit the immediate area as shown on the town’s existing future land use map.

Because this action was only the land-use map amendment, Hutt reminded the commission that any RPC overlay zoning change and site-plan review would require separate public hearings before town council and the planning commission if the town council approves the map amendment.

The record for this case includes the applicant’s concept plan, the Sept. 4, 2024 letter from the Office of State Planning Coordination, DelDOT road classification, and the two written public comments entered at the hearing.