Georgetown planning commission recommends denial of rezoning, land-use change for East Market parcels

The Georgetown Planning Commission voted on Oct. 15 to recommend that Town Council deny a proposed change to the town’s comprehensive plan future land-use map and a related zoning-map amendment affecting two parcels at 501 and 503 East Market Street.

Planning staff had proposed changing the two parcels, identified in the meeting packet as Sussex County tax parcels 135-15.13-16 and 135-15.13-17, totaling about 0.91 acres, from a commercial future land‑use designation and Highway Commercial (HC) zoning to single‑family residential and UR‑1 (Urban Residential) zoning. Town staff said the change would allow a potential cottage‑community residential development that the applicant is pursuing, and noted the Office of State Planning Coordination concurred with the town’s determination that the map change was a “minor variation” and therefore not subject to the state’s preliminary land use (PLUS) process.

The planning commission’s recommendation to deny came after about an hour of public comment in which multiple residents raised concerns about density, traffic, aesthetics, property values and site remediation. Resident Bunny Burton said she was “not in favor of the proposed” rezoning and expressed concern about living next to the Delmarva Power property and potential ground‑contamination issues that DNREC would need to evaluate. Judy Hill, another resident, said, “I just think it's not gonna look that nice coming into Georgetown.” Clayton Townsend, who identified himself as a resident and participant in local improvement efforts, called the proposed tiny‑home plan “a glorified mobile home park” and urged commissioners to preserve commercial land.

Commissioners framed the issue narrowly as a choice about appropriate zoning and land‑use designation for the parcels rather than a final decision on any particular development proposal. One planning commissioner reiterated that the question before the commission was whether the parcels should be zoned residential or remain commercial, and noted that detailed site layout, stormwater, traffic access and remediation would be addressed in later site‑plan and permitting steps if rezoning were approved.

After discussion the commission member who moved the recommendation to deny cited safety, traffic and the potential impact on long‑time neighbors’ property values as reasons for the motion. The motion passed by roll call: Commissioner Briggs — yes; Commissioner Allen — yes; Commissioner Roach — yes; Chair (name not specified) — yes. The commission made two separate, but related, recommendations to Town Council: one to deny the comprehensive‑plan future land‑use amendment and one to deny the zoning‑map amendment. Both recommendations were accompanied by the same rationale.

Town planning staff told the commission that a separate text amendment to permit cottage‑community development (a “cottage community ordinance”) is moving on a different track and is scheduled for a Town Council public hearing on Oct. 27 at 6:45 p.m. at Town Hall. Staff also noted the parcels sit within the downtown development district and recalled a 2016 downtown development district plan that had previously recommended reconsidering Highway Commercial zoning in parts of East Market Street.

The commission’s recommendation is advisory; Town Council will take final action on both the comprehensive‑plan amendment and the zoning change. The staff packet included an agreement of sale/donation from the current owner (identified in the packet as G & J Properties/Greg Johnson) to an entity identified as Little Living (Littleliving.org), and staff said representatives of that organization would be available to answer questions at later hearings.

Next steps: the commission’s recommendations and the meeting record will be forwarded to Town Council for its public hearings and readings. If Council approves either the land‑use map or the zoning change, subsequent site‑plan review, DNREC remediation requirements (if any), DelDOT access permits and other engineering reviews would follow before any construction could proceed.