Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Notifications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Seaford resident says city failed to notify neighbors about variance for Clarence and Thomas Streets
Summary
A Seaford resident told the mayor and council the city did not mail required 300-foot notices for a recent variance affecting 728–732 Clarence Street and requested a written explanation and corrective measures.
Jean Briggs Johnson, a Seaford resident, told the mayor and council on Nov. 25 that the city failed to provide legally required notice to residents living within 300 feet of properties for which a variance was approved. "According to the ordinance, all residents and property owners within 300 feet of a parcel requesting a variance must be notified in advance," Briggs Johnson said. "We did not receive any such notification regarding the recent variance application for properties located at 728, 730, and 732 Clarence Street."
Briggs Johnson summarized a series of communications with city staff and the property owner, saying she emailed City official Mike Bailey on Nov. 4 and again on Nov. 10 asking why residents were not notified. She said Bailey supplied portions of the city code in response but omitted the subsection she believes requires mailed notice, and that a later call with Charles Anderson left her confused when Anderson said the letters were mailed and explained the staff member who handled mailings was ill. "Either way, it was clear that no one cared that the letters were not mailed and their minds were made up to pass this variance without the residents and property owners' input," Briggs Johnson said.
Briggs Johnson asked the council for a written explanation of why the required notification was not issued and for assurances that corrective measures will be implemented to prevent similar lapses. At the meeting, no city official provided a formal written response; the exchange concluded with Briggs Johnson's request and the council acknowledging receipt of her statement.
Why it matters: The resident invoked the city's notification rule, saying the requirement exists "to ensure that the affected residents have a fair and meaningful opportunity to review proposed changes, prepare comments and participate in the public process." The claim of missed mailed notices concerns procedural fairness in land-use decisions and the council's obligation to follow its own code.
What's next: Briggs Johnson said she expects a written response addressed to Clarence and Thomas Street residents. The transcript records no immediate resolution or council vote on reopening the variance decision; the matter remains a resident complaint pending staff follow-up.
