PC Minutes 8-19-24

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 2024 The Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, August 19, 2024 at 7:00 PM as an In-Person Meeting and also using the phone/videoconferencing system WebEx. The Meeting Session was conducted with Chair Mrs. Maucher presiding. Members present were Mr. Roach (arrived at 7:34PM), Mrs. Denney, Mr. Witham, Dr. Jones, Mr. Reaves, Mrs. Welsh and Mrs. Maucher. Mr. Baldwin was absent. A new member of the Planning Commission, Mr. Michael Lewis was present in the audience to observe. Staff members present were Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Ms. Katherine Oehmke, and Mr. Jason Lyon (virtual). APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mrs. Maucher stated that they received a request to change the order (of the Agenda) and under New Applications to move Application S-24-11 Warehouse Building at 601 Garrison Oak Drive before the other Application SB-24-01 Lands of Wyoming, LLC. Mrs. Denney moved to approve changing the order of the Agenda and hearing S-24-11 Warehouse Building at 601 Garrison Oak Drive because the general nature is that it (the meeting) could go faster and those people won’t have to wait for the other application, seconded by Mr. Witham and the motion was carried 6-0 with Mr. Baldwin absent and Mr. Lewis observing from the audience. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 15, 2024 Mrs. Welsh moved to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 15, 2024, seconded by Mr. Reaves and the motion was carried 6-0 with Mr. Baldwin absent and Mr. Lewis observing from the audience. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the next Planning Commission regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, September 16, 2024 at 7:00PM in the City Hall Council Chambers. Mrs. Melson-Williams provided an update on the regular City Council and various Committee meetings held on July 22 & 23, 2024 and August 12 & 13, 2024. At the July 22, 2024 meeting, two members of the Planning Commission were reappointed: Mrs. Andrea Maucher from the Second District and Mr. William Witham, Jr from the Second District. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that they continue to be challenged with staffing matters and this is the time of year where a lot of vacations happen so just bear with us. OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Mrs. Melson-Williams presented the audience information on policies and procedures for the In- Person Meeting and Virtual Meeting using the WebEx system. OLD BUSINESS 1

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 2024 Requests for Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: None NEW APPLICATIONS S-24-11 Warehouse Building at 601 Garrison Oak Drive - Public Hearing and Review of a Site Development Plan for a 100,000+/- SF Warehouse Building with associated site improvements. The site is located at Lot 3 of the Garrison Oak Business & Technology Park. The property is zoned IPM-2 (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone – Business and Technology Center) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone: Tier 2 – Primary Wellhead Protection Area). The property of 12.813 acres is located on the west side of Garrison Oak Drive on the inside of the loop. The owner of record is Garrison Oaks LLC. Property Address: 601 Garrison Oak Drive. Tax Parcel: LC-05-068.00-02-03.00-000. Council District 3. Waiver Requests: Partial Elimination in Upright Curbing and Reduction of Parking Requirement. For Consideration: Performance Standards Review Application. Representative: Mr. Jon Falkowski, Becker Morgan Group Ms. Oehmke stated that this Application is a warehouse building at 601 Garrison Oak Drive. Shown on the screen is the particular location for this Application within the Garrison Oak Industrial Park. The next slide shows an aerial view of the location showing the floodplain on the lower area and the location is circled. It is zoned IPM-2 (Industrial Park Manufacturing-Business and Technology Center) and it is in the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). The very back tip is in the 100-Year-Flood Zone. The Garrison Oak Business and Technology Park is a group of fifteen lots with a residual open space. There is a little bit of history on the screen showing that it was first approved in January of 2010 and in September of 2010. It was platted in 2012. You can see on the screen that the different lots had various applications. There are three most recent in the last year and a half. The next slide shows a 2022 aerial view, and you can see that there are a couple of locations that have been built out. The numbers on the screen correspond with the three most recent locations in 2024. The “X” is the location for this Application. The Application is for a warehouse building of 100,000 SF. It is on a site of 12.8 acres. It is currently a vacant lot with an existing City of Dover water tower. The warehouse will be used for storage and logistics. It is planned for 87 parking spots including 4 handicapped spaces. There is a Waiver Request for a reduction in parking. As you can see at the top of the screen, there is a stormwater management area; so, they have also requested a Waiver for the partial elimination of upright curbing. There is also a PLUS Waiver review which was already approved from the Office of State Planning. In your application package, the Commission members can review the Performance Standards Review Application. They have included the landscaping plan and as you can see, in the back of the building there are spaces for loading docks. There is the drive through around the property for the trucks to come and go. Because this is mostly for storage, they have asked for a 30% reduction in parking. Mr. Falkowski stated that Ms. Oehmke gave a great summary of the project. The slide on the screen is an aerial view of the project. There are a few building renderings that you will see. This is the street side view of this project from Garrison Oak Drive. The project proposes two entrances, both on Garrison Oak Drive. This is the front shot of the building where you can see the vehicular parking in the front. The next slide shows coming into the property from one of the 2

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 2024 main entrances off of Garrison Oak Drive, again showing the front view and the landscaping of the project. The next slide shows the difference in some of the metal paneling on the building and Some of the aluminum storefront and windowing of the project to get some natural light into the building. The next slide shows the rear of the building from one of the stormwater management areas for the project. Just to note, the Garrison Oak Technical Park as a whole had a Stormwater Master Plan that was part of the overall project. The stormwater pond that Ms. Oehmke noted earlier, is to really handle smaller storm events. Each project that comes along is required to handle the smaller storm events. The larger events are handled by the Master Plan for the stormwater of the overall site. They are requesting two Waivers tonight. One is for the upright curbing wavier to really keep a flexible design for stormwater management where they can sheet flow some stormwater to the grassed landscaping areas as opposed to curbing and collecting it with closed drainage systems and piping it. It makes for a better design with the Kent Conservation District. The other Waiver is for a 30% reduction of vehicle parking. They are requesting 87 parking spaces as opposed to the 125 parking spaces required by Code. That really fits in use with the warehouse use. You don’t need a whole lot of parking for employees and only some for the office use for the building. They do not have any comments or issues with any of the DAC comments, they are happy to address it; and for the Staff Planning Report as well, they are fine with that. Mr. Witham asked how many employees they expect to be employed at the site? Responding to Mr. Witham, Mr. Falkowski stated that they currently don’t know because they don’t have any tenants that are locked in. But typically a project like this has a small office space in the front of the warehouse that would be under a dozen and then warehouse workers. He doesn’t have a number yet. Mr. Witham stated that they are asking for a reduction in spaces so that would mean that the expectation would be that the number of employees will be a certain amount. What was your estimation that that would be? Responding to Mr. Witham, Mr. Falkowski stated that they have pulled some research from other projects for other warehousing projects in the area. He doesn’t have that exact number with him, but he can get that to him. Mr. Witham stated that he is just looking for an expected estimate. Responding to Mr. Witham, Mr. Falkowski stated that he doesn’t have that number. Mr. Witham stated that based on the 30% reduction, he would assume that the number of employees would be within that ambit of 30%. Mr. Reaves stated that there is a recommendation for private trash collection services. In your Site Plan, will you have a blockaded off trash receptacle or is that going to be inside the warehouse area? Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mr. Falkowski stated that its one of the spaces in the rear where they are showing truck loading. One of those spots will be designated for a trash compactor. There are 28 spaces shown on the rear and 24 of those will be reserved for the facility itself for loading and the others will be for trash or egress. As they develop the building there may be a few points of egress so they will end up with about 24 parking spaces, but they will leave one reserved for the trash compactor. 3

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 2024 Dr. Jones stated that one of the comments from the DAC Report referred to truck parking and their designated unloading spaces but there was reference made to trucks being left in undesignated parking areas. Do you have any comments on that? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Falkowski stated that he did see that DAC comment. It is not the intention for this to be a truck parking center or an overnight center. Again, they do not have a confirmed tenant for the building but its most likely going to be a daytime operation kind of thing. But again, he can’t solidify that since they don’t have a tenant for the building yet to know their operational hours. But they could obviously discourage long term parking and definitely no one parking on Garrison Oak Drive to block the roads. Dr. Jones stated that the assumption is that the unloading will completely take place and the driver will exit. Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Falkowski stated that during the business hours of the tenant that ends up occupying this, yes. Mrs. Maucher asked if they were projecting large trucks or smaller trucks coming in? She has concerns about the capacity of White Oak Road. We have had three projects in the last year or so and that is a lot of heavy traffic. Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mr. Falkowski stated that there will be the larger trucks (what DelDOT would classify as a WB62 or 67). That is your standard sized tractor trailer; so, it would be those larger trucks. Mrs. Maucher stated that she did see that DelDOT made the comment that a Traffic Impact Study may be required. Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mr. Falkowski stated no, the turning movements wouldn’t affect the Traffic Study. It’s his understanding that the City is updating the Traffic Study and any improvements that come out of that Traffic Study would be handled by the City. He knows from the original park design, which he worked on back in 2009-2012, the existing entrances were designed to handle the large trucks for that turning movement. So, those entrances are designed geometrically for those large trucks. Mrs. Maucher opened the public hearing. Mr. Zach Prebola – Kent Economic Partnership at 555 Bay Road Dover, DE 19901 Mr. Prebola stated that they are in support of this project. This is a critical factor for when businesses are choosing and looking at locations to establish their operations. This Site Plan and these waivers help expedite that process and help us in attracting business and creating new jobs in the area. For those reasons, they ask that the Commission please support this project. Mr. Jonathan Street – Becker Morgan Group of 309 South Governors Avenue Dover, DE 19901 Mr. Street stated that he has nothing to add as Mr. Falkowski did a great job summing it up. He thinks that he hit all of the key notes in his presentation. Ms. Heather Mund – 420 Wyoming Avenue Dover, DE 19901 Ms. Mund stated that she has nothing regarding the proposal. The only thing that she wanted to speak about was the reduction in parking. She speaks from somebody that lives in an area where there are warehouses and there are people coming and going for work. She has seen where there will be trucks that will be impeding parking spots and dumpsters that are going to be impeding 4

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 2024 parking spots. If you have a reduction, there is going to need to be people out there, perhaps policing the area to make sure that everybody is doing what is being proposed and assumed would be a good idea. She is actually here for the other application on the agenda but hearing this is a concern. You do have people that will take advantage of using that parking lot to park overnight if they are an over-the-road driver. It happens quite a bit and there is no way to control it unless you have somebody policing the area. Mrs. Maucher closed the public hearing. Mrs. Welsh stated that she would like to confirm with the applicant on the reduction of the parking requirement. DAC recommended that the parking outlined on the plan be sufficient to be enlarged at a later date. Do you concur with that? Responding to Mrs. Welsh, Mr. Falkowski stated yes. Mrs. Denney stated that she has a suggestion. Within a motion, they could exclude overnight parking for trucks on the property. She isn’t sure what the other Commissioners think or how important it is to them. To be perfectly honest with you, she loves having the PLUS information. She thinks that when the State started doing that, it’s been helpful to her for this Commission as well as other committees that she is on. To her, she thinks that their recommendation is good as it stands but if there is a problem and someone agrees to that being a problem or a concern, she just wanted to put that out there. She doesn’t personally think that it’s necessary. Mrs. Maucher stated that she is not sure if there is already an ordinance that might already prohibit that. Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the question is regarding overnight parking. She thinks that there are two issues here. The question of overnight parking as it applies to the regular passenger vehicle lot and then there is also the scenario of truck overnight parking. She will tell you that in some of the recent studies by the MPO, there is a lack of that overnight parking or parking for break time for your over the road drivers and they are suggesting that some of these warehouse projects try to accommodate some of that type of truck parking on-site beyond just the loading dock area. Certainly, she thinks that the developer tenant could police how their passenger parking lot is utilized and maybe to void that overnight parking of vehicles if they deem necessary for their business operations but she will note that the overnight parking of trucks is something that is a concern. They end up in unauthorized locations. Garrison Oak Drive as noted in our Report and comments this evening, that road is no parking on that street at all so if there is an opportunity to accommodate any of that on-site, she thinks that they want to try to leave that door open for the future tenant because it may eliminate that issue in other places of the City. Mrs. Denney stated that she agrees with that and again, when she made the suggestion, she doesn’t think it’s necessary. She thinks that is somebody has been driving a distance doing an over the road haul and they get there and they need to be off of the road and sleep, it’s safe. She imagines that because of security sake, there will be at least a vehicle there around the clock because somebody is going to be there most of the time. She asked the question but it was not a suggestion on her part, she was just clarifying the thoughts. Mrs. Welsh moved to approve S-24-11 Warehouse Building at 601 Garrison Oak Drive inclusive 5

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 2024 of all DAC comments and inclusive of the waiver requests for partial elimination of upright curbing and reduction of the parking requirement with the thought in mind that the applicant did concur with the DAC comment to provide additional space for future use and also for consideration of the Performance Standards Review Application, seconded by Dr. Jones and the motion was carried 6-0 with Mr. Roach and Mr. Baldwin absent and Mr. Lewis observing from the audience. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; she believes that it’s a necessary improvement to the site and even though we didn’t really look at the elevations, the package included some beautifully done renderings of the proposed facility. Mrs. Denney voting yes; she believes that this is a great project for this location and one of the reasons that the little industrial park area exists so she thinks that it is very appropriate and a good use. Mr. Witham voting yes; for the reasons set forth in the Planning submission that they received from the applicant. This is a proper use of this facility that has been planned for quite some time in the City of Dover. Dr. Jones voting yes; based upon Staff recommendations and comments from the DAC. Mr. Reaves voting yes; based on comments previously stated and comments from DAC. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; based on comments already made. SB-24-01 Lands of Wyoming, LLC and Functional Properties, LLC (Ekaman Subdivision): Conceptual Subdivision Plan - Public Hearing and Review of a Conceptual Subdivision Plan to create six (6) lots from 2 existing parcels totaling 4.5754 acres to be known as Ekaman Subdivision. The proposed subdivision is to consist of five residential lots with the residual for stormwater management area. The proposal includes the extension and addition of a cul-de-sac to the existing street right-of-way of Jefferson Terrace. The larger parcel is zoned R-10 (One Family Residence Zone), and the additional parcel is zoned R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) with both being located south of but not adjacent to Wyoming Avenue and west of Monroe Terrace. Property Address: unaddressed on Jefferson Terrace extension (part of which is referenced as 3.8904 acres of Wyoming Avenue Rear). Property Owners: Wyoming, LLC and Functional Properties, LLC. Tax Parcels: ED-05-077.17-06-02.01-000 & ED-05-077.17-06- 13.00-000. Council District 2. Note: The renaming of Jefferson Terrace (to Ekaman Way) is subject to a separate review process. • This property was reviewed in 2013-2015 as SB-13-06 Jefferson Terrace Subdivision; however, the plan was never finalized. Application for Conceptual Subdivision Plan SB- 23-01C was conditionally approved by Planning Commission in March 2023; previous waiver requests were unsuccessful and the plan expired. Representatives: Mr. Kyle Burchard; Mountain Consulting Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is a Conceptual Subdivision Plan. On the screen we see depicted, the location. It actually is made up of two parcels. A regular lot that is shown with the R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) and then the irregular kind of “L” shaped property that is marked with the R-10 (One Family Residence Zone). It’s in two different zoning classifications, both of which that are One Family Residence Zones that would allow for development as a single family detached residential unit. Their proposed location here is off of Monroe Terrace and then off of the extension of Jefferson Terrace. Monroe Terrace in the vertical street that is not labeled there just to the east of the shaded area and then that is a “T” intersection with Jefferson Terrace which is labeled. This is a Conceptual Subdivision Plan SB-24-01. This location may be somewhat familiar to Planning Commission members and members of the public as there have been previous applications; most recently in March of 2023. There was a 6

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 2024 Conceptual Subdivision Plan SB-23-01. It was ultimately approved by the Planning Commission and it had a number of waiver requests with it. It was for a slightly different configuration to the proposed development. Ultimately, the requests for waivers were unsuccessful as those waivers were ones that had to be considered by City Council. Prior to that, there were other plans for development of this site in a different format back in the timeframe of 2013-2015 under a different owner entity but that application has since expired. This evening, we are really focused on the current application which is SB-24-01. A difference this time is that it does make of two properties, that smaller R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) lot and then the “L” shaped property. In the aerial view, you can see that from Monroe Terrace to the west, while there is right of way, meaning property for a road, there currently is not a City street constructed in that area. This developer would have construct that to City standards in order to reach a portion of the property. The property does have a small area. If you look at foot of the “L” in the lower right corner of the image, it has frontage on Monroe Terrace currently. The property has some open areas and also some wooded areas you can see in the darker shading. The shading that is blue on this image here is the special flood hazard area, also known as the 100 Year Floodplain. That is kind of centered on what is a stream corridor that crosses through this property. The City Zoning Ordinance prohibits development within that flood plain area and additionally they will have to study any wetlands that may also be on the property and the City has requirements for setbacks from those wetland areas. The proposed lots that are being created are in the northern portion of the site kind of at the top of the “L” from which the street would initially connect to so those properties are not within the flood plain area. The next slide is an image of the proposed plan. At the top you can see that there are a series of what would be five (5) lots and then a residual tract of land which is the southern portion of the property. That residual is anticipated to be left “as is” and also be able to address the stormwater management requirements for the project site. With a Conceptual Subdivision Plan, the Planning Commission is looking generally at road network and proposed configuration of the lots. Each of the lots, depending on which zone it falls into, has to meet certain size minimums of the R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) or the R-10 (One Family Residence Zone). From the initial submission, it appears the Plan is meeting those requirements. They are also showing the setbacks from property lines for any future development. With this street for Jefferson Terrace Ext., the property owner is thinking about renaming that street to Ekaman Way so you may see that referenced on the Plan but street renaming is a separate process and we are not considering that this evening. With the street extension, ultimately it will be a paved travel area with upright curbing and also sidewalks along the frontage areas, so each of the lots will have sidewalk in front of it. The project itself for future development would be subject to our infill standards which does also include the requirement for sidewalks along the frontage. She did note that there are portions of this property that are existing woodland areas. the Zoning Ordinance regulations do limit the tree clearing on an individual lot to a maximum of 50%. They are showing what appears to be at this early design stage, some woodland clearing but it does not appear to reach that maximum limitation there. As a residential subdivision moves forward, there will be other requirements for things like active recreation areas that they would have to address. In our planning comments, there are no waivers for this particular version of the Subdivision. They will be gathering some more additional information about the site if any development moves forward; so more information on the flood plain area, their stormwater design and wetlands delineation. We can see here that this is actually part of firm panel which is from FEMA related to flood plain mapping. The blue area is areas where development cannot occur per our City regulations. Staff is recommending approval finding that the Subdivision 7

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 2024 consisting of a total of six (6) lots, five of them being buildable and then a residual lot which they have targeted for maintaining as is and stormwater management for this plan. a Conceptual Subdivision Plan is the first step. Once the Planning Commission reviews it and takes action on it, the second step would be a Preliminary Subdivision Plan which again is subject to a public hearing and application submission process with the Planning Commission. Other recommendations that Planning Staff has made is that they have looked at the configuration of what is Lot 1. It is a little odd of a configuration. If they were looking to change that, they would have to seek a waiver of the number of lots or the percentage of lots on the end of a cul-de-sac. There is a caveat in our Code related to that. Right now the submission as filed complies with that requirement but if they were to resign to get another lot or reconfigure to place a lot on that bulb-end then they would be looking at a waiver request. Additionally, the third recommendation coming from Planning Staff is related to sidewalk on Monroe Terrace. The kind of foot or bottom piece of their parcel that has frontage on Monroe Terrace should also include the infill of sidewalk for that frontage. That is how we start to build our sidewalk network as projects come through the development process. The remaining portion of the Development Advisory Committee Report includes comments from a number of other agencies, including the City’s Department of Public Works which provides guidance about City streets and the sanitation needs. Also comments from the Department of Water/Wastewater noting that these lots would need to be designed for City water and sewer services. The Fire Marshal’s Office has provide comments and is asking for a fire hydrant at the end of the cul-de-sac to assist in any kind of firefighting potentials there. With DelDOT’s comments in the DAC Report, while they will have to do a pre-submittal meeting with DelDOT, none of these streets are DelDOT streets so review of the street development will fall to the City. The Kent Conservation District has noted that this project would be subject to a Sediment and Stormwater Management Plan and that previously they have advised in this area that certain management strategy related to the nearby Puncheon Run, which this stream then feeds into. A plan review with the Kent Conservation District will be subject to the Delaware Sediment and Stormwater Management regulations and compliance with those. The Dover/Kent County MPO has no objections to the Subdivision Plan. They are encouraging the sidewalks for this general location. Mr. Burchard stated that Mrs. Melson-Williams’ summary of this is correct. After the DAC Meeting, they did confer afterwards with DPW (Department of Public Works), KCD (Kent Conservation District), DelDOT and the Fire Marshal about all of their comments to make sure that they had a clear understanding of what they needed and that they would be able to provide that. Their intention was not to make any modifications and to make additions that will not require any waivers. They do plan to follow up with active recreation as cost-in-lieu due to space considerations. He believes that they will be proposing a conservation easement on the residual parcel, needing to still de-conflict with DPW (Department of Public Works) how they do maintenance of stormwater on that residual lot in conjunction with the conservation easement. That is really all that he has at the present time as they seek to move this forward to the preliminary subdivision and he would be happy to entertain any comments. Mrs. Denney stated that at the moment, they are addressing five (5) lots as depicted on this Plan. Responding to Mrs. Denney, Mrs. Maucher stated yes, five (5) building lots. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she can confirm that there is a proposal for five (5) building lots and then Lot 6 is a residual lot. Staff does note in the Report that there is potentially an 8

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 2024 opportunity to build in the area that is closer to Monroe Terrace on that residual lot but she believes that the strategy at the present time is that the applicant is holding that residual lot for stormwater management practices and is not anticipating a construction of a home at the foot piece. Mrs. Denney stated just for clarification for herself, they are really addressing the five (5) lots. Would the applicant then need to come back if they decided to do something with the sixth lot? If they don’t know what the plan is, again, probably stormwater management, how can they really vote on the sixth lot? Responding to Mrs. Denney, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that at this point, she would say that the Commission is dealing with five (5) lots and a residual. If their plans change, that is something that can be addressed with a next phase of the project. If their design changes in compliance with the Code that it allows an additional lot, then that could be considered at that time with ah Preliminary Subdivision Plan. Mr. Witham stated that he is confused a little bit. He looks at the plot map that was submitted by the applicant and at the end of the southern extension of Monroe Terrace; it shows what is called a proposed shared entrance. Can the applicant explain what that proposed shared entrance is? Responding to Mr. Witham, Mr. Burchard stated that there is an existing house lot. It is designated as Lot A-9 and there was no easement provided but there was a driveway there across the subject residual parcel. So it says “shared” and quite honestly that is a carryover. To the previous question if he may, he believes what they would do is to address the conservation easement on this land that would necessarily prohibit development on that residual parcel on the Monroe Terrace frontage. It opens up too many questions. It opens up too many uncertainties. He plans on seeing that on the Preliminary Plan and he recognizes that it is not on this Conceptual Plan at this time. There was a possibility that there could be space for some development on that finger of the “L” fronting on Monroe Terrace but it’s infeasible in any regards. That shared entrance is really just the existing entrance that will continue serve the existing house Lot A-9. Mrs. Denney stated that she has one more question with regards to the sidewalks required by the City on Monroe Terrace. Does the sidewalk, based on what they would be addressing tonight; the five (5) lots, does the sidewalk only have to be developed down to Ekaman Way or does it have to go the entire length of Monroe Terrace that is shown on this particular Site Plan? Responding to Mrs. Denney, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that what is shown on the Subdivision Plan is not depicting any sidewalk on Monroe Terrace. What is shown there is the paved width of Monroe Terrace within what is the property of the road; the road right-of-way. So it is not clear on this Plan about the sidewalk in that frontage piece on Monroe Terrace for this particular property. As part of its development, the City Code would require development of that sidewalk along that frontage even if it was just to remain part of the residual lot. Mrs. Denney stated additionally, sidewalks she would assume on Ekaman Way are required? Responding to Mrs. Denney, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated yes, Ekaman Way, if that becomes its name, Jefferson Terrace Ext., the Code would require sidewalks on both sides of that street leading from Monroe Terrace to the cul-de-sac and then back to Monroe Terrace. Mrs. Maucher opened a public hearing. 9

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 2024 Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Planning Commission member, Mr. Roach has joined us so he will be participating in this application. He has been here since we started on this application Mr. Steve LeBoon – 1025 Westview Terrace Dover, DE 19901 Mr. LeBoon stated that he really likes the questions that were asked tonight. This Plan, in his opinion, is legally deficient. They are recycled from the previous builder of Lighthouse Construction. You are talking about the access. There is no access for this project at all. Ms. Schwartz, who lives back in that residence, owns the share way. She is not giving up her share way so he doesn’t even know fundamentally how this builder, which is just confirmed that there is no access. Also, he knows that he has submitted a lot of paperwork and he wants to thank Mrs. Melson-Williams. He really does appreciate her being fundamental to get evidence and correspondence on behalf of his neighbors. Over eighteen (18) people signed a petition in opposition. It’s like ever five (5) years, this is the twelve (12) or fourteen (14) year project that has just been a nuisance and a headache and he hopes that the Commission denies the application once and for all so that it doesn’t have to go to City Council. He is not going to regurgitate what he has submitted but he has submitted a lot of information, which in his opinion would garner at least probably two or three days just to talk amongst yourselves. He hopes that you would respectfully deny this application. This is a project that creates catastrophic flooding. The plans from FEMA were done in the early 1950’s. The flooding behind his house would be catastrophic for one house. He wants to propose five (5) or six (6) and it’s going to affect his neighbors. It’s going to push all of that water. If you don’t know Mr. Ralph Taylor, a former City Councilman, he did a project on behalf of Council. This is the reality of today and this is what the water flow looks like under the bridge off of Governors Avenue (Showed pictures to Commission). They cannot afford any more water. He has submitted a lot of detailed information. His next door neighbor, Mr. Dan Beeker would like to know what the square footage per house is and also the values of the houses. The average square footage in their neighborhood, especially off of Wyoming Avenue is 2,500 to 2,800 square foot houses. Governor Jack Markell signed in an Order many years ago that still remains in affect; it has not been lifted, that no building should commence on anything near a floodplain. The picture that he showed is outdated. That water is really bad and he personally invites each Commissioner to stay at his house so they can see what it looks like when it rains. Please take a look at what has been submitted and he asked the Commission to deny this application. This has been a hindrance and a real headache for the community for fourteen (14) years. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the correspondence that Mr. LeBoon referenced, there was Public Comments: Set 1 that was an email from Mr. LeBoon that Staff received on August 9, 2024. He resides at 1025 Westview Terrace just for the reference there. Public Comments: Set 2 is a series of emails received from August 9, 2024 through August 19, 2024. It is a series of thirteen (13) emails from Mr. LeBoon with various attachments. These were sent to the Planning Commission members this afternoon and they have also been provided a hard copy. She is going to quickly reference what they are just for the record since he was just speaking here to kind of group things together. Item 1 is an email from Mr. LeBoon that was received on August 13, 2024 and it included an aerial map. Item 2 is an email from Mr. LeBoon also received on August 13, 2024 with again, an aerial map included. Item 3 is an email from Mr. LeBoon received on August 13, 2024 with a FOIA Request sheet attached to it and she did confirm with our FOIA system that that FOIA request was fulfilled on August 14, 2024. The City Clerk’s Office 10

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 2024 manages that process. Item 4 was an email from Mr. LeBoon that was received on August 16, 2024 and that includes the first copy of a petition of opposition that included fourteen (14) signatures. There was a link to the DNREC website on flood risk and avoidance and what was highlighted on that is an Executive Order that was issued by Former Governor Jack Markell. It is an Executive Order to State agencies regarding construction activities in the floodplain. Item 5 was an email from Mr. LeBoon that was likewise received on August 16, 2024 and it included a copy of the opposition argument documents that he had previously submitted with application SB-23-01C from 2023. Item 6 was an email from Mr. LeBoon that they received on August 16, 2024 that included an update to that petition of opposition. There was a signature added from Ms. Schwartz. Item 7 was an email from Mr. LeBoon also received on August 16, 2024 and it had an attachment that referenced the importance of trees. Item 8 was an email from Mr. LeBoon of August 16, 2024 and it included two photo of example flooding. One was a view looking east on Lynnhaven Drive which is south of the subject site and then a picture of water flowing under the bridge at the Puncheon Run on Governors Avenue. Item 9 was an email from Mr. LeBoon also received on August 16, 2024 that included a link to our zoning district type list which lists all of the zoning districts and the uses in those districts. There was a link to Delaware Code, specifically Title 7, Chapter 75 which deals with the State Open Space Program and then also a link to the Kent County online map portal. A subsequent email also on August 16, 2024 included an image from the Kent County online map portal that showed the subject area in the floodplain. Item 11 was an email from Mr. LeBoon that was received on August 18, 2024 which was an updated petition of opposition. Again, there were several signatures that were added at that point. Item 12 was an email also received on August 18, 2024 and the associates of email of Item 13 which provided a link to several wildlife photos that had been taken from Mr. LeBoon’s property or near his property at the site. Ms. Joan Sciple – 1139 Westview Terrace Dover, DE 19901 Ms. Sciple stated that she has lived at this address for 41 years. She has witnessed the flooding that occurs. Since she has been there, they have built up on Wyoming Avenue, on Governors Avenue and that water has no place to go. When it comes down, one of the heavy rains that we have had, the stream that goes right next to his neighbor’s house rose to the back door of her basement. She has a sump pump under her house. There are days when it doesn’t rain and it comes on. Where will it go? Over at Eden Hill that had construction, and debris was thrown into the stream. The stream came through and over to the pond in Woodbrook. That pond is a disaster at this point but the stream goes on and it goes back onto this property, through the trees in the conservation area and if they start digging what is going to happen? The dirt, the mud and debris will enter the stream and go down to the second pond that is on Lynnhaven Avenue and come into Puncheon run which already has its problems. She will say that she is well out of her comfort zone here but she does appreciate the Commission listening. This is so important to the Woodbrook area. they cannot take any more water on so please consider this very carefully when you decide what to do. Mrs. Cassandra LeBoon – 1025 Westview Terrace Dover, DE 19901 Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Mrs. LeBoon stated in the chat that she thinks everyone has made a good case in protest of the project. Also, there is a chance for the State to buy the land as part of the open space program. 11

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 2024 Mr. Curtis Williams and Mrs. Jordin Williams – 324 Wyoming Avenue Dover, DE 19901 Mrs. Williams stated that they just want to express their protest to this project as well. She thinks that anyone who lives in this area, they are on Wyoming Avenue which they consider a high point. Any time there is any type of rain, you are getting halfway into that field even up towards where they are where you can see the water. She can’t imagine the impact that this would have on Woodbrook or those areas if they started doing construction back there. Anyone who lives in this area knows that the water sits. They know what dramatic impact it’s going to have trying to build right beside those floodplains. She just can’t see how this makes any sense at all if we are trying to protect the existing properties that exist in these neighborhoods. They are against this proposal. Ms. Heather Mund – 420 Wyoming Avenue Dover, DE 19901 Ms. Mund stated that she is located on the corner of Wyoming Avenue and Westview Terrace. She appreciates them taking her comments. She knows that you have a lot of people here making good points. She is very concerned because when her father bought the property thirty (30) years ago, she saw where there were horses behind the house where you are considering this development and she asked about it and she was told that it was zoned for horse. Now we fast forward many years and now she is hearing about how they want to do building there. She knows that they have been affected by the rains and the water that builds up. It has been detrimental and she fears that by doing anymore additional building in that area, it is going to come at a cost to the homeowners. That is not fair to the people who have been living there, to pick up the cost. She also feels like a certain area needs to be protected because the trees being taken down and the wildlife needs to have a place to go. Everybody is building up and it is just impacting and there is nowhere for there to be proper in and out because it would infringe on property owners that don’t have the means to say anything other than come to this hearing and then after it’s done and they are impacted and it’s a concern to what they are going to have to deal with, with all of the comings and goings on an area that has just been brought up for the proposed of this development. Mr. Luke Siler – 330 Wyoming Avenue Dover, DE 19901 Mr. Siler stated that he has nothing else to add; just seconding the concerns. This does appear to be an enormous risk the surrounding neighborhood and wildlife. He was confused about how the property is delineated, where this extension will happen and if there is enough room between those properties. Responding to Mr. Siler, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she isn’t sure if he is watching on a computer but there is the screen shot that shows the plan and there is between two of the properties that front on Monroe Terrace, a portion of the street; property of the street that has not been constructed. That gives a pathway or an area where a street could be built going to the west to then access this tract of land. If you are looking at the image, it does say Ekaman Way. It is part of the “T”, it is the left-hand piece of that “T” intersection that is there, basically a block south of Wyoming Avenue. Mr. Siler stated that his other question was about trees as that map is illustrated and he can’t tell which trees area meant to be removed and what trees are mean to be planted. The key is the same. Responding to Mr. Siler, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that it is a little difficult to see but one is slightly darker than the other and that’s the one that is the one 8:40:05 12

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 2024 NEW BUSINESS Annual Meeting of the Planning Commission (Nomination and Election of Officers and Appointments to Subcommittees) Meeting adjourned at 9:24 PM. Sincerely, Kristen Mullaney Secretary 13