Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use And Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges removal of state preemption clause for Auburn Valley; DNREC secretary to meet with community
Summary
A resident told New Castle County Council that a sentence in a state bond bill (Section 88, Auburn Valley Project) removes county zoning and land-use authority from certain parcels; Council members and staff said DNREC has authority under the bond bill and DNREC Secretary Greg Patterson has placed permitting on hold and will meet with community.
Carlos Alejandro, a Hockessin resident and business owner, told the New Castle County Council that a sentence in the state bond bill — identified in the meeting as Section 88, Auburn Valley Project — currently states that implementation of Auburn Valley elements "shall not be subject to the zoning, subdivision, land use, or building code ordinances, or regulations of New Castle County." Alejandro said that language has been in the bond bill since 2011 and that it removes the county’s land-use authority for the named project area.
"The implementation of the transportation, stormwater management, demolition, remediation, redevelopment, and parks and recreation element of the Auburn Valley Master Plan shall not be subject to the zoning, subdivision, land use, or building code ordinances, or regulations of New Castle County," Alejandro read aloud from the bond bill and said the clause led to development decisions that bypass county land-use review.
Council members responded during public comment. Councilwoman Janet Kilpatrick and others suggested following up with state lawmakers; Councilman Street and Councilman Carter described the concern as serious and noted past instances where state-level decisions preempted local land‑use review. Councilwoman Durham said she had spoken that day with DNREC Secretary Greg Patterson, who had assured her "everything is on hold in terms of DNREC permitting" and that Patterson intends to meet with Alejandro and other community members to review the matter.
Council members said the issue may be appropriate for further discussion at land-use committee meetings and urged Alejandro to provide written materials. Council members did not vote or adopt any ordinance on this topic at the meeting.
The transcript shows council members acknowledging the longstanding nature of the language in the state bond bill and discussing the balance between state-level redevelopment authority and county land-use expertise. No county action to alter the bond bill language was recorded; council members advised the resident to pursue legislative change with state representatives.
The council president and staff offered to accept Alejandro’s materials and forward them to the appropriate council members; Councilwoman Kilpatrick asked Alejandro to email the materials to her for follow-up.
