Introduction to the August 5th Meeting

The Sussex County Land Use Reform Working Group held its eighth meeting on August 5th, continuing the review of draft recommendations that will guide future growth and conservation policies. 

This session built on multiple sessions of earlier work, with this meeting focusing on covering recommendations 9 through 19 from the previous draft list, with language refined by a subgroup of four members. 

The intent was to move closer to finalizing the framework while leaving ultimate decisions for later stages. 

You can review the previous draft and the new draft for comparison.

Note: The new draft actually has an older date than the previous draft, but this was the version being used during the August 5th meeting, and you can review both drafts for comparison.

Defining Growth and Conservation Areas

One of the most important discussions centered on the restructured Recommendation #3, previously recommendation #9, which establishes clearer criteria for growth and conservation areas. 

The goal is to simplify zoning and protect natural resources while supporting future development.

Key elements included:

• Defining growth areas based on nine guiding factors such as infrastructure, transit access, and commercial presence.
• Designating all land outside growth areas as conservation zones with stricter requirements.
• Aligning zoning so growth areas include GR, MR, and HR zones, while conservation areas are limited to AR-1.
• Strengthening natural resource protection within conservation areas.

Members agreed that the updated structure ties zoning more directly to growth management. 

Minor refinements were suggested, including clarifying terms like “arterial roads” and addressing agricultural protections.

Image Generated by AI

Density Adjustments and Incentives

The revised draft divides the previous recommendation 10 into two separate items. 

Recommendation #7 focuses on base density adjustments, while Recommendation #11 introduces new bonus density options.

Base Density Changes (Recommendation 7)

Proposed changes include doubling density in growth zones while reducing it in AR-1 outside those areas. 

This shift is designed to redirect growth and discourage sprawl:

• GR: 2 → 4 units per acre
• MR: 4 → 6 units per acre
• HR: 12 → 18 units per acre
• AR-1 (outside growth zones): 2 → 1 unit per acre

While many supported concentrating growth in designated areas, farmers expressed concern that downzoning would reduce land value and financial security. 

Some argued this approach amounts to a “taking” without compensation. Others countered that scarcer one-acre lots might maintain or even increase value.

Bonus Density Options (Recommendation 11)

This proposal offers incentives for land preservation and affordable housing:

• A land preservation program allowing density increases in growth zones, with tiered fees funding farmland and conservation protection.
• Affordable for-sale housing incentives, granting bonuses if 10 percent of units are priced for households earning up to 120 percent of Area Median Income.

The group expressed strong support for these incentives, noting their alignment with broader conservation and housing goals.

Affordable Housing Program Updates

The group also reviewed Recommendation #12, which revises Sussex County’s affordable housing program. 

The proposal includes several key changes:

• Reduces the required set-aside from 25 percent to 10 percent.
• Aligns rent limits with state standards.
• Drops required open space from 50 percent to 30 percent.
• Offers affordable units reduced impact fees.

Debate centered on whether the set-aside should be 10 or 15 percent. 

Developers favored the lower threshold to encourage more projects, while advocates preferred a higher percentage to expand affordability. 

The group leaned toward 10 percent, but acknowledged that the County Council will ultimately decide once these recommendations are presented to them.

Image Generated by AI

Forest Preservation and Landscaping Standards

Recommendation #13 introduces new requirements for tree retention, forest preservation, and landscaping, a significant step for Sussex County. 

The framework is built on four parts:

• Defining Forests: Establishing a standard definition (10,000 sq. ft. or more with trees at least 6 inches in diameter) to guide which areas qualify.
• Retention Requirements: For the first time, projects would need to preserve a minimum share of existing forest, 50% in conservation areas and 30% in growth areas.
• Mitigation Standards: If clearing exceeds allowed levels, developers must offset impacts by replanting, with mitigation ratios of 2:1 outside growth areas and 1.5:1 inside growth areas.
• Landscaping Requirements: New plantings would be required in development areas, and rules would establish penalties for unauthorized clearing.

Members emphasized prioritizing reforestation adjacent to existing forests and suggested allowing fee-in-lieu payments to fund larger conservation projects through groups like the Sussex County Land Trust. 

Technical details will and should, by recommendation, be finalized by forestry experts after the working group’s process concludes.

Naturalized Open Space

The group discussed Recommendation #14, which shifts from its original focus on stormwater facilities to promoting naturalized landscaping in passive open space areas. 

Members agreed this approach would:

• Reduce enforcement disputes over what counts as “open space.”
• Improve habitat, nutrient capture, and pollinator benefits.
• Provide stormwater and watershed protection.
• Save long-term maintenance costs.
• Increase the minimum space open requirement to 35%

Subdivision Design in Conservation Areas 

The new recommendation #15 addresses subdivision design in conservation areas, with a stronger focus on protecting forests, wetlands, and habitat corridors.

 Key elements include:

• Clustering requirements for all major subdivisions in AR-1.
• Higher open space minimums (at least 35 percent).
• Smaller lot sizes (½ acre with septic, ¼ acre without) to preserve natural features while maintaining density.
• Early consultation with preservation staff through a four-step conservation review process.

Recommendations 16–18: No Changes Made

The group also reviewed Recommendations 16 through 18, which focus on supporting working farms, completing adoption of a Master Plan zoning ordinance for large-scale development, and exploring a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. 

During the August 5th meeting, members confirmed that no changes were needed to these recommendations. 

They remain as previously drafted: permitting agricultural support uses in AR-1 zones, implementing the Master Plan Zone for coordinated mixed-use developments, and reviewing TDR programs to allow voluntary transfers of development rights from conservation-priority areas to designated growth zones

Image Generated by AI

Hearing Prioritization and Process Reforms

Recommendation #20, previously #19, addressed whether projects in growth areas should receive faster public hearings that advance Sussex County’s land use goals. 

This idea is meant to act as a form of an “incentive” for those with qualifying projects that follow land use goals to get their public hearings scheduled quicker & higher up in the current queue of scheduled hearings. 

While the idea of expediting these projects drew support, members opposed rigid deadlines that could overwhelm planning staff. 

Alternatives such as hybrid prioritization, shifting certain uses to permitted status, and limiting testimony were discussed. 

The group agreed that by-right projects should move forward with only a public comment period rather than full hearings.

Public Comments

Two residents spoke at the end of the meeting:

• A local from Lewes stressed that development should be limited by available resources and urged stronger protections for environmentally sensitive areas. 
• A local farmer and businessman highlighted the need to balance density increases in growth areas with fair treatment of landowners, cautioning against uncompensated downzoning of farmland.

Looking Ahead

The working group will continue refining its recommendations at two more scheduled meetings on August 21st and September 11th. 

The final product is expected to provide Sussex County with a roadmap for managing growth while preserving its rural character and natural resources.

Stay tuned as we cover the upcoming meetings and the final recommendations that could shape the county’s future. 

What do you think of the group’s latest discussions? Share your thoughts with us in the comments, and follow our blog for more updates!

All referenced documents and details from our blog can be found through meeting notes / materials / meeting minutes that are available through Sussex County’s official website, and public meeting minutes & broadcasts archive.

Sources: Land Use Reform Working Group Meeting, Draft Recommendations, Draft Recommendations Sub-Group Work