[0:00] Random question. Why are manufactured homes given a business license? I may have to defer to Don on that specific.

[0:12] So Don Nelson Williams principal planner with the planning office. I think that's it is a type of license on the manufactured home license. I think it's just group it was just grouped in that for reporting purposes. It is a license that it's not part of the planning office.

[0:33] planning office as part of another division, but I believe it's collected at the same time of the year as business licenses.

[0:41] So from a tracking purposes, I think that's why it was probably always kind of grouped together in our reporting.

[0:49] Okay, thank you.

[0:50] Thank you for all you do, I yield.

[0:53] Thank you, Councilwoman.

[0:55] Councilman Neill.

[0:56] I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[0:57] I'm kind of going to ride on what my colleague from the third district has just brought up.

[1:03] It struck me that what's in the DC, with a lot of the talent that has been repretired, fired,

[1:14] moved on, that maybe there's some federal work

[1:27] about the federal employees who've lost their job.

[1:32] Some of them have pensions, if they're little older, will have a pension so that we can

[1:37] attract them.

[1:39] Washington pays a really a high rate.

[1:42] When I was recruited back in Maryland, there was a difference of about $20,000 in my job

[1:48] classification, and what I was offered from the Labor Department, I chose not to go to Washington

[1:54] because I really appreciated and enjoyed doing what I was doing at the time.

[1:58] But I think that even with that fact that we do not pay as well as Washington does, if

[2:05] someone who has a pension, that may be part of the poll.

[2:10] And that is what we have.

[2:13] If there's any way we can tap into that from the city standpoint, what the Pellini Department

[2:25] department is done is noble. And of course, you've had in order to get the job done, you've

[2:30] been outside help, which is understandable and necessary. So I just throw that out as

[2:37] a thought as a possible pool that we can look at somewhere and see if we can tap them

[2:43] and to bring them in. Thank you. Thank you for your wisdom, Councilman Nile, Councilman

[2:50] Thank you, Council President, for recognizing me and I too echo what my colleagues have said.

[2:56] Thank you both and to your teams for the diligent hard work that you all have provided to us.

[3:02] It is greatly appreciated.

[3:04] In reference to what we're talking about as far as staff, do you know if you have to have a special certification or license for planning?

[3:17] you know if you're going to be the planning director there's a requirement but

[3:23] you know if there's a requirement for planning one and planning two as we're

[3:27] recruiting going forward. In terms of the planter one and two there are

[3:36] certain educational requirements as well as certifications depending upon the

[3:41] the position. I think the planter one gives us a little more leeway in terms of

[3:47] bringing it in closer to entry level if we need to, but the planter, too, definitely

[3:53] requires the education and we're looking for AICP certification as well.

[4:00] Thank you very much. I yield. Thank you. Any other questions?

[4:08] I have a couple. First of all, I echo the gratitude that has been expressed

[4:16] because the job being done is vital to our city.

[4:20] Our city can't have economic growth

[4:23] without the planning office and the building inspections

[4:28] and, of course, to keep things going and the fire marshal.

[4:33] It's an important, it's an important department

[4:36] for the citizens and to have economic prosperity.

[4:42] So, thank you all.

[4:44] My question has to do with the,

[4:49] because there are some shortages when it comes to being

[4:54] able to do an

[4:59] outside group.

[5:02] One of the things that interests me is the way some of the municipalities do it,

[5:18] I

[5:18] hire directly somebody who is clear by the town and they actually hire them and pay them

[5:29] directly instead of the taxpayers paying the firm because we do inspections like that

[5:38] for electrical others matters.

[5:41] Would that be like not to not to substitute but to augment would that be something we would consider?

[5:53] We actually have already considered that and at least one developer did take us up on that offer to keep his project moving at the pace he needed.

[6:01] I think one of the there's a lot of municipalities that do use these outside firms because it is again another field that's very difficult to find people who are qualified and to be able to perform these duties.

[6:19] One of the benefits of using the contractor right now is that they're actually helping to assist staff in terms of training, going over code requirements.

[6:31] and things of that nature so trying to go on all aspects looking at the future of

[6:36] the division and how best to serve it certainly something we're completely

[6:40] open to. Thank you and I have another question that I don't need an answer to

[6:46] right now that if you have it right now that's great but if you want to email

[6:52] it later I was just curious like with all the new apartments that are coming on

[7:00] board, which is great. Obviously, it's going to increase rental inspections. How does

[7:07] it impact it? And how are they counted? Like, when somebody is going to, you have an

[7:15] apartment complex that has 100 units, 150 units, 200. How does that impact the annual rental

[7:25] inspections? Well each unit is its own inspection because each unit

[7:32] deserves the same amount of time and attention to these inspections for

[7:37] the benefit of the occupant. One of the things we need to look at because we

[7:43] have a number of these apartment units on the horizon is what the effective

[7:48] staff is going to be and what our expectations are and how many we're going to be

[7:53] to complete a year. And technically we should be trying to get everybody done their annual

[7:58] housing inspections. So we need to make sure we have appropriate level of staff to

[8:02] provide that service. Thank you. Of course, we know we're close to annual

[8:07] for everybody. Right. You know, I don't know if we should change the code for buy annual

[8:13] or if we need the higher people. But if we can find, but that's something we'll have to think

[8:19] about. I want to thank you so much for the report and I'd like to entertain a

[8:26] motion to accept the report. It also moves.

[8:31] Seconded by Councilman Rochda to accept the planning, inspections,

[8:37] community development, 2024, annual report. Questions on the motion? All in favor?

[8:46] Any opposed to adopt the unanimous thank you if I could say one last thing okay sorry

[8:55] I just wanted to thank all the staff in the department for all their work and I

[9:01] would especially like to recognize Don Nelson Williams for the amount of

[9:05] effort that she has put it through in 2024. That

[9:17] takes us to item 7 which has been

[9:20] been removed from the consent agenda. It's now denied. I'm not on consent. Review of active

[9:26] recreation plan, potential occasionally requests, lands of for the LLLC, Cesar Street, town,

[9:36] houses at 207 Northwest Street, committee recommendation of approval. And let me, council

[9:48] Thank you for recognizing me, I asked that this item be pulled from the consent agenda because this property and also it's the same property referenced in agenda item number 11, the property owner was not able to attend when we discuss this at committee.

[10:05] He was out of state.

[10:07] They are available now.

[10:09] They have new information that they would like to provide to council for consideration to reconsider those items.

[10:17] Let me see, Council, number seven passed, didn't it?

[10:22] It did, but at for discussion, having the in lieu fee in that area, so in the downtown

[10:33] development district, there are impact fees that are waived.

[10:37] This fee, however, is not waived in that redevelopment area.

[10:43] And the developer brought forward the concern that this is a deterrent to redevelopment in an area that the cities otherwise targeting for redevelopment.

[10:53] So the property owner wanted to have that discussion and present that idea to council.

[11:00] They are in the audience if it would please you to bring them down to advocate on their own behalf.

[11:06] Please come forward and then name and address for the record please.

[11:11] being

[11:18] my name is Cameron Lowell and I'm at 117 West Reed Street right across

[11:22] from the fire hall here in downtown Dover. First and foremost I applaud that

[11:27] proclamation at the beginning of the meeting. I'm a parent to three beautiful

[11:31] daughters and two granddaughters and that warms my heart so thank you and I will

[11:36] start with acknowledging that woman right there Don Nelson Williams has been a

[11:43] rock star for this city. She has helped us through quite a few things here

[11:46] lately and I think she deserves another round of applause.

[11:55] So I have some graphics that I sent over and I don't know if we have those.

[12:05] But in short, we'll start with the 2019 comprehensive plan.

[12:11] Chapter 11 of that talks significantly about encouraging balanced housing opportunities

[12:17] for all residents, promoting adequate, safe and affordable housing for all residents in

[12:23] the city. Go to the slide after that, there's

[12:31] another PDF that will be after that. And if it's not

[12:36] there, I can babble about it quickly. Yeah, that's the one. There you go.

[12:44] So basically, chapter 11 of

[12:47] the comp plan is encouraging affordable housing. And they're encouraging infill residential development.

[12:53] They want those near transit and multimodal routes, which all of this was taken into account as we went through our DAC process.

[13:04] And if you look further through their goal number four is provide home ownership opportunities throughout the city, especially within low and moderate income neighborhoods.

[13:15] And then lastly, we've highlighted the fact that we want to continue to support the Restoring Central Dover initiative

[13:25] and the Downtown Dover development incentives to increase home ownership in the downtown area.

[13:32] So look, I, full disclosure, I have two adult children that just got back from Camp Pendleton.

[13:39] And they have 90 pound dogs, and I'd like to figure out for them not how to not live under my roof.

[13:44] So this is partially for selfish reasons, I assure you.

[13:51] Any home that they can find that they can afford,

[13:54] I don't know that I want them in that home because to me it's a total tear down.

[14:00] It's not safe.

[14:02] They were looking at fixer uppers and there's not a fixer upper that's an occupiable home

[14:06] that we can find that they can afford.

[14:07] So so

[14:12] this the next slide which talks about our downtown development district and I think everybody here knows the about the outline of the DDD and we're just inside of that because we happen to be right across the street from from that man's will be a garden and

[14:28] And the DDD incentives, and Dawn can speak more eloquently to this, but it waves water

[14:39] impact fees, sewer impact fees, building permit fees, and it's all designed to encourage

[14:46] people to redevelop these little posted stamps of dirt that have been forgotten downtown.

[14:53] There are some matching incentives from Kent County and

[15:00] And some tax incentives, and it's also in what's called an opportunity zone. And an opportunity zone is not for a developer like me. I'm just a hard work in general contractor. Opportunity zones are for people that have big capital gains. They invest in a community, but they have to leave the money there for 10 years. That's not us because we're trying to create homeownership opportunities. So that really doesn't apply to this conversation. But we have all these incentives.

[15:29] and then when we look at this cash in lieu of active recreation it's kind of like hey we're

[15:36] going to do all these things to try to help encourage development but we're going to basically make

[15:41] you pay 10% fee to parks and rack so it just kind of is in my opinion counterproductive I'll let

[15:48] that be your opinion.

[15:52] So through some spirited discussions with a few council members where does it

[15:58] go. And I believe that's why Dr. Sudler asked that question earlier, is where what's happening

[16:06] to that money, like it or not, when you say a donation, cash and lieu, it's a really

[16:15] nice word, but the cost of that home goes up by the amount of that donation. It's pretty

[16:21] simple math. So I understand the spirit of it. If we're going to build a 60 or 100 unit

[16:27] that apartment complex, and they're all stacked on top of each other, and there's a little

[16:32] tiny postage stamp of backyard that those tenants would need a place to recreate.

[16:38] In this scenario we have very wide units, they're 29 foot wide, so the backyard's big green

[16:45] grass, and there's a lot of space for people to recreate.

[16:48] And, you know, from my position for young families that are facing the economics of car insurance, groceries, fuel, everything it takes for a young family to make it in this world.

[17:04] What's more important? And we think we had this discussion. Do you want a place, do I need a place for my son-in-law to go to pull-ups?

[17:13] or do I need him to have enough money at the end of every week so that he can buy his

[17:17] toddler pull-ups. So I want to just discuss this with you because I feel it might discourage

[17:23] other people from trying to do projects similar to this, not necessarily looking for a concrete

[17:28] answer tonight. I just want to reconsider how we look at that and I'll yield to Councilwoman

[17:37] Thank you.

[17:38] That's the woman.

[17:39] Aren't you recognized?

[17:41] Thank you.

[17:42] So just when we were discussing it at committee, when it came up from a practical standpoint,

[17:51] it's four units.

[17:53] So and I tried to find it in the code, but I couldn't find it for the cash in lieu or and

[17:59] that was that waiver was either provide recreational opportunities or do the cash in lieu.

[18:07] But for homes, I guess my thought was, should that be a consideration?

[18:15] I could see 25 townhouses or 50 or 100 apartments that you'd want to provide those

[18:23] recreational opportunities to the residents.

[18:27] But for townhouses in a row, I just, from a practical standpoint, I just didn't see one

[18:32] the lot size there wouldn't have been room for a recreational activity too. I don't even

[18:37] know what the recreational activity would be that you could get for several houses

[18:41] to agree on. I guess maybe you could do like some botchy ball in the back yard or something

[18:46] but that just doesn't seem practical. So my question to our planning manager is, is there

[18:57] a minimum? Is there a threshold for the number of units? Could you help me out with that?

[19:05] I recognize our principal planner at this time.

[19:09] Don Nelson Williams, the principal planner in the city's planning office. So the provisions

[19:15] in the zoning ordinance for active recreation are found in Article 5 Section 10. There is

[19:23] a statement in here that the requirements apply to all residential development. It does

[19:34] not set a threshold. However, within this section of Code Article 5, Section 10.5, a number

[19:44] of years ago, there was a series of exemptions to recreation area and open space dedication

[19:51] that were established and these exemptions deal with that small development situation.

[20:00] So there's about five different, five or six different potential exemptions

[20:07] that are related to number of acres that are involved and the number of dwelling units.

[20:13] and it changes what is the normal active recreation area requirement of 275 square feet per dwelling unit to something less than that.

[20:25] In some cases, it takes you straight to a cash and loo. In other cases, it reduces that area requirement but may still set a minimum size threshold of that active recreation area.

[20:41] In any case, the option for if you can't meet the area requirement for active recreation,

[20:50] it offers this cash in lieu of area construction.

[20:56] These exemptions were added, I believe, back in 2009 was the last time the code was amended

[21:03] and it was in response to issues that we were having with doing that calculation of the 275 square

[21:13] feet per dwelling unit and if they couldn't meet that by developing active rec, what does that cash

[21:20] and lieu look like? I can think of, I believe there was at least one application that ended up before the

[21:27] board of adjustment because they're the only ones that can grant a variance or a waiver of these

[21:32] provisions related to the amount that that entity was going to have to pay.

[21:42] The code does not come into play when it's a single-vinc at lot that's going to pull

[21:50] a permit for a single unit on it.

[21:54] So a lot of what's happened in the downtown has not been subject to this provision.

[21:59] This provision really comes into play if you're appearing in front of the Planning Commission as part of your development.

[22:06] And in this case, the application at 207 Northwest Street is a conditional use before the Planning Commission and also a minor subdivision plan.

[22:19] Certainly, if you're interested in having us look at these active recreation area requirements,

[22:26] It could be something that staff could work on.

[22:30] It would be, the results would be potentially amendments to this section of code which would go through a formal review process in order to be adopted.

[22:41] I will note that when we were doing the recent updates to the C2 zoning district, we did identify a number of other areas of the code that likewise probably needed.

[22:55] some review and potential updates and this active recreation requirement was

[23:01] one of them. The code did recognize in these small exemptions locations in

[23:08] the redevelopment target area as one of the potential exemptions but it still

[23:13] leaves you with a requirement for a number or cash and blue. I don't know if that

[23:19] that helps you understand a little bit about where we are at the present time with what's

[23:26] in our code.

[23:28] It does.

[23:28] Thank you.

[23:29] That's very thorough.

[23:30] And I think you could cite the entire code by memory at this point.

[23:37] So with regard to that, the decision that was made the last time, I fully support the options

[23:42] were either provide a recreational amenity or do the cash in lieu and we voted to approve

[23:50] the cash in lieu and I think that was absolutely the right decision given those two options.

[23:56] If there's an opportunity, like you said to explore it further to take a look at those opportunities

[24:03] that there could be improvements, especially within the redevelopment target area,

[24:08] I certainly don't want to disincentivize development in that area, and make projects more expensive

[24:16] than they need to be, for this number of lots, for four units, what was the other point.

[24:27] So I would like for staff to take a look at that, but I'd like to hear what my colleagues

[24:31] have to say.

[24:39] I have a question again for our principal planner.

[24:48] The cash in lieu, first of all, is the code written or does it delineate between home

[24:57] ownership and or rental of apartments or townhouses. This is done from the

[25:06] planning office. It does not. The zoning ordinance looks at things by housing

[25:13] type single-family duplex townhouse apartments. It does not make a distinction of

[25:20] rental versus ownership.

[25:24] Okay, so basically single single family housing

[25:28] developments do not have to provide a recreational area in a development. Is

[25:34] that am I interpreting that correctly? No, they would. Any residential

[25:39] development be it a large subdivision that's got a hundred lots. In this case

[25:46] something as simple as four lots. A site plan that develops a series of

[25:51] of apartment buildings, all of them would require

[25:54] an active recreation area.

[25:56] So, okay, so obviously my development is a little bit older,

[26:01] but in a new development, if it was as simple as a sidewalk

[26:07] that you could walk around the block, so to speak,

[26:12] does that constitute recreational,

[26:14] or because I don't see housing developments,

[26:20] I can't think of any off the top of my head

[26:22] that require any type of recreation other than that.

[26:27] Can you give me an example?

[26:28] So, for example, a number of our recent subdivisions

[26:34] have a variety of common space areas.

[26:38] Some of them are, it may just be an open lawn area.

[26:43] There may be playground equipment such as in Lexington Glen

[26:48] and Patriot Village have areas that way, the project at Eden Hill, they've got the

[26:57] other extreme of a clubhouse building, the Clearview Meadows, probably the

[27:02] closest example to here that includes a clubhouse facility, has a large area

[27:10] that does include a designated walking trail that's separate from but connects to

[27:16] the sidewalk network on the streets. So it's been approached in a variety of ways and the

[27:22] apartments we tend to see things that may be interior to buildings, gym space, more of

[27:29] the meeting room type spaces, but they also include things like club houses and pools for example.

[27:37] Okay, yeah, understood. You know, the only examples that I have are like the apartments, like

[27:42] liander lakes and places like that. So based on should there be in your professional opinion,

[27:53] a cutoff, if you will, when it comes to the amount of actual lot space,

[28:05] Obviously, there's only four townhouses on this lot, which is going to take up the majority

[28:12] of the space on the lot, where cash and loo probably would not come into play, so to

[28:21] speak, as if I'm understanding a subdivision and things of that nature with acres and acres

[28:28] of property being carved up. But in this case, when there's a lot, maybe a lot in a half instance,

[28:37] do you think that we should readjust the ordinance to have a cutoff as far as like the square

[28:44] footage or the acreage on the property? So this is drawn with the planning office. So I think

[28:51] years ago there wasn't attempt in setting up something like that with this series of exemptions

[28:58] for small developments. Probably at the time what was put forth as exemptions kind of

[29:06] met the issues that we were experiencing. This is certainly a different type of housing

[29:11] market today. And so those exemptions or when does this requirement kick in is probably

[29:19] worth evaluating again. Thank you.

[29:24] Yeah, that makes sense. Okay. Oh, and then

[29:29] And I don't know who would answer this one, but in reference to the downtown development

[29:35] district and the waivers, is there a strong argument with what our contractor is saying

[29:45] about incentivizing development within our area and it's something like this constitute

[29:57] to potential waiver.

[30:00] You know, just to keep the spirit of development going in our downtown. So the downtown development

[30:09] district incentives and the incentives that are offered in the downtown redevelopment

[30:14] target area are not found in the zoning ordinance. They're part of a different section

[30:20] of the code of the overall code of ordinances in appendix C. And we recently just made some

[30:29] amendments to that. You could certainly consider it as a potential option for waivers, but it would

[30:38] have limited applicability in that it would be only related to residential development. I think

[30:47] the better place for potential changes to the program would be related to what the code requires

[30:55] in the zoning ordinance for that active recreation area.

[30:59] You could certainly look at size of the development number of lots,

[31:05] land size, proximity to existing recreational amenities,

[31:11] such as city and parks,

[31:14] number of things that way that you could look at probably more holistically

[31:19] in the downtown to address rather than waiting to a fee waiver

[31:25] if you will, later on.

[31:29] And the final question I have is how much have you calculated the amount of the cash

[31:39] in lieu has that been done yet?

[31:42] This is done for this particular application that has not been done.

[31:46] The calculation for cash in lieu requires the middle of an appraisal and then we do that

[31:54] calculation and the code outlines the type of appraisal and if we feel it's

[32:01] reasonable or not, then there's options for kind of an appeal of the apprais

[32:07] value, but at this point in time we have not received the appraisal in order

[32:12] to do that calculation. Okay. All right. Didn't know where I was going with this.

[32:21] When

[32:22] pulled off the agenda to have this discussion, but I think the more that I hear it, it's

[32:28] probably being that the last size is small and the enhancement would be great for the

[32:35] downtown area.

[32:36] I would be amenable to, you know, the waiver, and then, of course, with the addition of

[32:43] re-looking at the ordinance itself and making those changes to, you know, the code.

[32:49] So, that's all I have at this time.

[32:52] I yield.

[32:54] Thank you.

[32:55] Councilman Neal, and then Councilman Bogarty.

[32:59] Thank you, Mr. President.

[33:01] I think if we have an immediate problem, because this has already passed and it's forced now to approve.

[33:09] To pull this out, it's going to require some specific action.

[33:14] And you had, as mentioned to us that it would have had to go through the Board of Adjustments

[33:22] and it would have to go back to the Board of Adjustments for some sort of approval if

[33:28] we said that we wished to waver that.

[33:30] What would happen now if we say we want to pull that out because you have a second part

[33:35] this, which is also, we may want to pull out in regards to the alley, but that's a separate question.

[33:46] Would we have to pull this out? Wouldn't have to go back to the Board of Adjustments.

[33:54] So at this point, what is before you is a recommendation from the Parks Recreation Community

[34:00] Enhancement Committee in regards to how this project should provide its active recreation,

[34:07] and they've asked for this cash in lieu.

[34:11] My reference to the Board of Adjustment would be,

[34:14] it would be a specific application to the Board

[34:18] of Adjustment that the applicant would have to make

[34:21] if they were looking to totally not do any of the above,

[34:25] meaning it not provide any active recreation,

[34:29] nor pay any cash in lieu for this particular project.

[34:33] The provisions of the zoning ordinance, I don't believe grant that authority for the City Council to waive that those items in total as it's written today.

[34:46] Of course, we can't, the railhouse out as a form of entertainment for recreation, but anyhow, that means that basically they're going to have to make an application for that.

[35:01] It's going to have to delay the process as I understand what you've just said since we

[35:07] cannot do that, it has to go back out and it's going to delay the project.

[35:16] That could potentially be correct depending on their immediateness of how quickly they

[35:22] were going to move through a project but to totally waive the requirement for active recreation

[35:30] and the requirement for payment of a cash and lieu amount,

[35:35] it would take action by the Board of Adjustment.

[35:38] Okay, so unless we want to not go through with this at this time and delay it,

[35:49] basically faces a delay if we are going to wipe out or give them,

[35:55] and basically the cost of the recreation fee,

[36:01] we can't do anything about that.

[36:03] So the next thing that comes up is what about the alley

[36:08] and we haven't reached that point yet

[36:10] in our discussion, and I yield.

[36:14] Thank you, Councilman Bogarty.

[36:16] Thank you, Councilor President.

[36:19] I think you actually touched on something

[36:22] I'm now knowing the area and actually the real house does have a play area across the street

[36:27] So you can go in there and play and eat those amazing wings

[36:31] But that's neither here there

[36:33] My question is

[36:37] For consideration. I think you mentioned it in that area in an area that we are

[36:42] Discussing downtown there are there. How many parks are there and it's and are we can we eventually consider the walking distance from a

[36:52] development to a part given the space. So I am, I know there's one on a corner. So if

[37:02] it's, you know, if it's a development within two, three, four hundred feet from a park,

[37:08] you know, that's kind of a recreational area or you have, or you have two, but something

[37:13] to consider. I also wanted to know and I think my esteemed colleague said when you say

[37:21] recreation area is it to find exactly what has to be in a recreation area if it's just

[37:29] grass if it's just you know swings or whatever so there's really no definitive definition

[37:41] of what's in the recreation area, but then my last point is this, the size of the backyards,

[37:49] I mean, you know, most individuals will probably allow, you know, do workout or have their kids

[37:56] or whoever the recreation for kind of hang out in the backyard. Is there a standard, if you have a

[38:04] yard as a certain square footage per unit, I know you said 275 per unit, 275 feet per unit

[38:13] for other like apartments, but what's the reasonable size backyard that most people

[38:20] will say, this is where my kids or we'll kind of hang out anyway, is that taken into consideration

[38:26] because if I'm not mistaken, sir, each unit will have a backyard, correct?

[38:30] The two center units would be the smallest, and they're 29 feet by 45, so they're over 1200 square feet.

[38:40] So it's a pretty sizable area, and then the two end units will have the grass-based out towards northwest or towards the existing alley.

[38:50] So no spaces would be directly assigned to each of those unit.

[38:55] Yes sir.

[38:56] So each unit will have a space that's considered.

[39:00] I wanted to run my kids and get them tired of my grandkids and get them tired.

[39:04] They can bring them over to my daughter and son-in-law's house in the town.

[39:08] I appreciate it.

[39:09] I thank you.

[39:10] That's so considering the size of the backyards.

[39:14] Hopefully one, you know, I don't know if we can, if we're going to revisit this could

[39:19] that be considered in certain spaces as well.

[39:22] Again, I know that's not now, but in this case,

[39:25] I can take that into consideration.

[39:26] Thank you.

[39:31] Thank you.

[39:32] Are you else I think?

[39:33] Yes, thank you.

[39:35] And I will give right back to you, Mrs. Art.

[39:40] Thank you.

[39:40] I have two motions.

[39:42] I'd like to make.

[39:43] Well, before you do that, then, I have a question.

[39:48] My question for Mrs. Nelson Williams has to do with, you said that there can't be a waver

[39:58] in total.

[40:00] Can there be one, can there be a waver in part?

[40:04] And two, Councilman Bogarty sort of started swarming into an area where that I had questions

[40:12] about is dealt with the backyards if he just re-did his recreation plan and put a swing-set

[40:22] and barbecue pit in the backyards wouldn't have the whole lot cheaper than payment and

[40:28] lieu and fulfilled the requirements.

[40:32] So, this is John with the Planning Office, so the beginning of this section of code talks

[40:38] about that it's required because it's a certain type of application that's going before

[40:46] the Planning Commission. There is a definition of recreation area. I don't believe it's ever

[40:54] been interpreted that an individual yard area on an individual lot would satisfy the active

[41:02] recreation area because these active recreation areas are meant to be collectively used by the

[41:09] residential development and not necessarily just an individual landowner in how this section

[41:18] of code is written. So I'm not sure that we could at this point look at that to meet the requirements

[41:27] of the code for this particular development, but certainly if you're looking at future changes

[41:34] to the section of code, that's something that could be taken under consideration for one,

[41:43] for smaller scale projects, if they had a minimum yard size at time of development, that could

[41:50] certainly be considered, but I don't believe that the code would allow us to interpret that

[41:55] today.

[41:56] Thank you. I appreciate that. Councilwoman Arndt, any first of all, anyone else have any

[42:06] questions? Councilwoman Arndt to recognize. Thank you for recognizing me. In my mind,

[42:12] to maintain compliance with the code, the first thing that we should do is to vote again

[42:19] to approve the cash and loo donation for the active recreation that's

[42:24] requirement and you could appeal it to the board of adjustment. The next

[42:29] motion I would like to make would be to ask staff to review code specific to

[42:34] the zoning provisions of active recreation to consider lot size number of units

[42:39] and proximity to active recreation. So that would be making improvements moving

[42:44] forward, but we've already discussed and agreed upon that there's not a waiver that we

[42:50] could do at this time for this particular project.

[42:53] Thank you for the first motion.

[42:55] So the first motion is to approve the cash and lewd donation for the active recreation

[43:00] for the subdivision with the specific amount to be determined upon receipt of the appraisal

[43:05] in accordance with the zoning ordinance provisions.

[43:13] All right.

[43:14] Councilman Neil blotforth in his conversation with our principal planner. I'll say. Thank you. It's been moved by

[43:22] Councilman Arsac, and my councilman Rochelle

[43:25] discussion

[43:27] Councilman Neil since that is already approved. Do we really have to prove it again?

[43:33] Yes, and the reason why is because it's not approved by is because we may have removed it from the consent agenda

[43:39] And if it were on the consent agenda, that would have approved it by council, so we have

[43:47] to do it separately.

[43:48] Thank you, Mr. President.

[43:50] Thank you for your question.

[43:53] Dr. Suddler.

[43:55] I just want to say, thank you for recognizing me, Mr. President.

[43:57] Anderson, I just want to say I have to incur with Councilwoman Arne, I think it's a great

[44:01] observation.

[44:02] So I go.

[44:04] Thank you.

[44:06] All right.

[44:07] Yes.

[44:11] Mr. Bogarty. Yes. Mr. Neal. Yes. Dr. Pillsbury. Yes. Mrs. Aren't. Yes. Mr.

[44:22] Rosha. Yes. Dr. Suther. Yes.

[44:27] Council President Anderson. Yes.

[44:30] 7-0. The motion passes. Thank you. Thank you for your information. Now let's get to the

[44:40] I would like to move to ask the staff to review the code specific to the zoning

[44:48] provisions for active recreation to consider a lot-sized number of units in proximity

[44:53] to existing active recreation.

[44:54] motion.

[44:55] Rocha Seconds.

[44:56] It's been moved by Council.

[44:58] We are to stay up to review.

[45:00] Thank you. The active recreation requirements in the code. And if you have the exact wording on that, ask staff to review the code specific to the zoning provision of reactive rec requirements with the three lot size number of units and then proximity to active recreation, existing parks and other features. Thank you.

[45:31] Is

[45:34] there a second?

[45:36] Rocha's second.

[45:38] Good.

[45:38] It's the second.

[45:39] Thank you.

[45:43] Any discussion?

[45:49] No.

[45:49] This one will just do, you know, need a roll call on it.

[45:55] All in favor?

[45:56] Aye.

[45:57] Any opposed?

[45:59] The motion passed unanimously.

[46:02] Thank you.

[46:04] And that brings us to number 11.

[46:08] Councilwoman Archer recognized.

[46:10] Thank you.

[46:11] So my rationale for pulling this one off, the consent agenda was as stated previously.

[46:16] The applicant was not able to join us for the discussion as he was at a state at the time.

[46:22] He has additional information.

[46:24] He would like to advocate on his own behalf.

[46:26] Thank you.

[46:29] And you are once again, your name every at your head.

[46:34] Still Cameron Loellan at 117 West Reed Street.

[46:41] So we've got some more graphics to put up here and so this is pursuant to rear access

[46:49] and alley waiver and our our engineer that took us through the DAC process is here this

[46:56] evening and one of the other individuals that was instrumental in helping us with that

[47:02] processes here are Fire Marshall, Jason O'Seca. So there's a graphic up there and it's going

[47:08] to be the one that's labeled as A.

[47:17] Yeah, yeah, so and there's some information that'll

[47:21] be repetitive, so I'll try not to dwell on that too much.

[47:24] That would be a pretty thin. So the this project, there was a house there and most members

[47:33] a counselor or well aware that it fell into disrepair and it was full of vagrants and drug

[47:39] activity and then fortunately our planning staff does a really good job by identifying that

[47:43] took the house down. We had attempted to buy that house and try to repair it and I tell people

[47:49] all the time they're never as bad as they look it was horrible. So once the property was demoed it went

[47:56] on the market and we made an offer but that offer was based on some very lengthy conversation

[48:04] with superwoman here on what we can and can't do and she advised us and our engineer and architect that we would have to go through the DAC.

[48:14] And so it became apparent very early on that we were going to have to do some things that were going to impact that affordability which is why we talked to you about the prior situation.

[48:29] But again, the 2019 plan is infill projects affordable housing and through the DAC comments

[48:38] and Doug Lieberman's here, you can join me Doug, if you'd like.

[48:44] We had some comments, if you want to just go ahead and go to the next slide, it's going

[48:51] to be B. That's what the beauty looked like before.

[49:00] So, at the advice of Councilwoman, aren't we did it by graphic that's actually a Google

[49:07] earth shot here?

[49:08] And the area at the top in dashed green is an easement that we would need in order

[49:15] to bring sewer and water into the project.

[49:18] And then the four rectangles that are blue, those are the townhouses and then the light

[49:24] gray is where the driveways would be. And through that DAC process there were some things

[49:32] that came up. The Kent Conservation District and Denrek wanted to see more green space.

[49:39] We as the father of one of the homeowners didn't really want an alley back there because

[49:45] we all know what happens in alleys in downtown Dover and I think Chief Johnson can attest

[49:50] So that, um, we'll save your comments for later.

[49:53] Um, but, uh, so, and then Doug refreshed my memory.

[49:57] We went, uh, and talked through with the, the Kent County MPO wanted us, not to have

[50:03] as many curb cuts, which in order to put an alley behind it, we would eat up all those

[50:09] backyards that we want these young families to have, and we would have to put a curb cut

[50:15] out there on northwest street, which would also take one and a half to parking spaces

[50:21] away from that, right?

[50:23] So, if I have anything wrong here, tell me to stop.

[50:27] So, through that process, we looked with our architect, Mark, who's here,

[50:35] and looked at the possibility of non-combustible building materials,

[50:38] and once we started to go down that road, it got very, very expensive,

[50:42] a very fast. So it was the advice of our fire marshal to sprinkle the buildings in lieu

[50:51] of having that rear access.

[50:56] You stand by that still? Okay. And the comment that was made

[51:02] by a few of the people that looked at it, and I've never been a firefighter. I'm not going

[51:08] run into building, but burning buildings, that's not my deal. But the, correct me if I'm

[51:16] wrong here, Jason, but you wouldn't put an apparatus in that where that easement is

[51:23] if it was an alley. Is that?

[51:28] Yes. Anybody else wants to come up? Come on up.

[51:35] Jason, I see a fire marshal. I just, I think the chief's online. I'm going to say some

[51:41] some of the tactics for him, that's you.

[51:43] Jim, thank you.

[51:45] I'll say some of the tactics for the fire chief

[51:46] he's online, because that's more his decision making.

[51:50] But what I can speak to, when I go to the DAC process

[51:55] before we do anything regarding rear access,

[51:59] I make sure the fire chiefs are aware of what we're doing.

[52:01] We work all the time with them.

[52:03] So they were very aware of what we were doing

[52:04] and referenced to eliminate the rear access,

[52:06] which I know we haven't done to yet.

[52:10] So during the DAC process, sort of rear access is required per code.

[52:18] You can always meet or exceed something.

[52:21] So sprinklers are not required, but in our world, sprinklers are exceeding something.

[52:27] So we have traded off in the past for sprinkler systems and townhouse units.

[52:32] I know you've heard about it already.

[52:34] One project was a representative lane.

[52:37] Another project was on Wodeck Road, which did not go forward, but it did get approved with no rare access for sprinkler in the buildings.

[52:46] The representative lane, we actually had a fire in there.

[52:49] Sprinkler system put the fire out on New Year's Eve and minor loss due to the sprinkler system.

[52:56] But when it comes to the fire department, and I think the chief can talk on this, we're talking 149,

[53:02] We'll say 150 feet on the rear.

[53:05] When they set their ladder trucks up, usually the first engine is going to go to the front.

[53:09] The ladders can go to that current alley or north street.

[53:13] It's going to reach halfway across.

[53:14] They have two ladders.

[53:16] I don't think it's going to be an issue.

[53:17] It's not going to be an issue with hose lines because the hose lines are 200 and 300 feet

[53:21] already on the trucks as standard, but I'll defer to him on the tactic side.

[53:27] Thank you. Chief Kerry, would you like to say something you recognize?

[53:38] First, I'm David Kerry, the part you can do. I think it's a good choice to go with this.

[53:46] For course, systems in the town houses,

[53:50] for access to financial art,

[53:56] our hostlines are anywhere from 200 to 300 feet long.

[54:00] Our guys are used to hailing them

[54:02] and making rear access around large park buildings

[54:06] and townhouse rows, other places in the city.

[54:10] With the sprinkler access, we don't need as much

[54:13] rear access as what we would

[54:15] if we did not have the sprinkler systems in the building.

[54:19] And as far as lighter truck access,

[54:22] we'll be able to get to the building from both ends

[54:24] and also the front of the building.

[54:25] And I don't think it'd be a problem.

[54:27] I think it's a, I think it was a good move in the right direction for the city to look

[54:32] at the residential sprinkler systems and start with this group of townhouses for that.

[54:40] Thank you.

[54:41] Questions from members to the, to the chief for the fire marshal?

[54:49] Councilman Russia.

[54:51] Yeah, not so much a question, but a statement, you know, based on what I've heard from the chief

[54:59] in the fire marshal and what information out that was provided by our fire marshal in

[55:09] reference to how the sprinklers worked in a similar town home scenario where the fire

[55:16] was actually put out before the fire department arrived to the building. I think that it's

[55:23] safe to say that we can, we can go ahead and move this, this forward.

[55:29] And I yield, you yield.

[55:31] Councilman Bogarty.

[55:32] And thank you, Council President.

[55:34] One of the things that I appreciate sometimes again, when you in this row, additional information

[55:42] helps you change.

[55:43] So it's not waffling.

[55:45] One of the things that helped me was the imagery and the, the positioning of the, the positioning

[55:55] other fire truck being being able to reach behind it. So thank you for the

[56:00] additional imagery, the colored imagery. I've seen that one but the other one

[56:04] with the actual house that will be erected there are proposed houses or town

[56:10] houses that would be erected. Thank you for that and again me not being a

[56:16] professional firefighter and have to already volunteer firefighter but all

[56:20] even our volunteers are professional and they're in their conduct. So thank you for

[56:24] that will help me to make a decision as well.

[56:29] Thank you.

[56:31] Your council president.

[56:32] Thank you.

[56:33] That particular, I probably won't let that be.

[56:37] It's really coming from the side and then being able to attack.

[56:42] And again, if the fire department says they are okay with it, I yield.

[56:47] Thank you.

[56:48] Thank you.

[56:50] Councilwoman Arndt.

[56:51] Thank you for recognizing me.

[56:53] I just want to reiterate the comments that I made at the last meeting that I do think

[56:58] this is the type of project that we're looking for for downtown, especially in the redevelopment

[57:02] area. This infilled development, more affordable housing, so many people are talking about how

[57:10] the price for houses are folks are being priced out of the market. And these are the types

[57:15] of projects that we should be looking towards and support. Thank you for the clarification

[57:21] on the emergency response, I was actually at railhouse and looking out the window and saw

[57:28] the property and I thought, you know, just like seeing it and seeing how relatively small

[57:33] the property is and understanding that there's asphalt on three sides, I just didn't think

[57:38] that we needed additional asphalt behind the property. So with that, I'm going to maintain

[57:44] my previous vote and if we're ready for a motion, I'm certainly willing to make it.

[57:51] Thank you, Council President Anderson, for recognizing me.

[57:54] My question is in regards to what the mayor had sort of brought forth in regards to

[57:59] the flames, possibly overtaking the sprinkler system.

[58:04] Can you just, the problem, can you talk about the probability of that occurring and that

[58:08] being a problem, just so I can put that to rest?

[58:11] in a one and two family dwelling setting that's very low. I'm not going to say it's never going to happen.

[58:20] I know we had an apartment building that had an exterior fire that burnt a roof off.

[58:26] If it was built today, it would have sprinklers on the balcony and that wouldn't have happened.

[58:31] So as the times evolve so to the standards, the biggest thing, like I said last time,

[58:38] not to beat this to that tonight.

[58:41] When it comes to sprinklers, I talk to say Fire Martial Night

[58:45] and one in two family dwellings in Delaware.

[58:47] There's been zero deaths in sprinkler residential fires.

[58:52] Materials today are built differently.

[58:55] Your house is as well as the items in there.

[58:57] They burn faster.

[58:58] They burn hotter.

[59:00] And the intent is to suppress that fire as soon as possible.

[59:05] So hopefully that's sprinklers 30 seconds to a minute into the fire.

[59:08] It's already activated, suppressing the fire.

[59:12] The average response time right now, the chief can probably help me out with this.

[59:18] The time you call 911 to getting the fire department dispatch to getting someone on scene,

[59:23] even if they're in the station, you're probably at four minutes at your best case scenario.

[59:28] Four minutes of a fire in today's world.

[59:30] If you're upstairs and the fire's downstairs, you're probably not making it out.

[59:35] I'm a big proponent of sprinklers, you're going to see it in the upcoming residential

[59:40] code.

[59:42] And this is a good thing not only for the developer, for the people that are going to live there.

[59:47] One thing we didn't haven't talked about is also good for our firefighters.

[59:52] Without the sprinklers, the fire lit fire gets bigger.

[59:55] It puts them at danger as well.

[59:57] Lightway construction fails faster.

[59:58] we have seen

[1:00:00] We have more firefighter injuries right here in Dover. And you'll see some of them when we do the building code. But it's also something for the firefighters.

[1:00:11] Thank you for feedback. I yield. Thank you for all you do. I get a department. Anyone else? I yield.

[1:00:20] Councilwoman Archie recognized for a motion. Thank you. I make you all may be seated. Thank you.

[1:00:27] I'll make a motion to approve the subdivision waiver, allowing the elimination of the rear access

[1:00:36] about Alley requirement.

[1:00:37] Pills, Barry, seconds.

[1:00:39] And maybe by Councilwoman Arnick, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury, is there a discussion?

[1:00:47] Discussion?

[1:00:48] Councilman Rosha?

[1:00:49] Yeah.

[1:00:50] The only thing, just do we need two motions on this?

[1:00:53] Is one.

[1:00:53] We will.

[1:00:54] We will.

[1:00:54] because there are two different waivers.

[1:00:58] Okay.

[1:00:58] Because the other part we want to have the sprinkler requirement.

[1:01:04] So if we approve the one, we definitely

[1:01:07] will want to approve the other in my humble opinion.

[1:01:10] And the other one's sort of irrelevant.

[1:01:15] Right. We're addressing appendix A right now.

[1:01:17] That is correct.

[1:01:19] Okay.

[1:01:19] I'm good. I yield.

[1:01:21] That is correct. Thank you for the clarification, which you read the admission and call the role, please, Madam Clerk.

[1:01:35] The motion is to approve the subdivision waiver allowing the elimination of the rear-access alley requirement.

[1:01:46] Thank you, Madam Clerk.

[1:01:51] Mr. Bogarty.

[1:01:52] Yes.

[1:01:53] Mr. Niel.

[1:01:54] Yes.

[1:01:55] Dr. Pillsbury.

[1:01:56] Yes.

[1:01:57] Mrs. Arn.

[1:01:58] Yes.

[1:01:59] Mr. Rocha.

[1:02:00] Yes.

[1:02:01] Dr. Sadler.

[1:02:02] Yes.

[1:02:03] Mr. Counts, President Anderson.

[1:02:06] Yes.

[1:02:07] 7-0.

[1:02:08] The motion passes and that is a Councilwoman R to recognize.

[1:02:16] Thank you.

[1:02:17] I'd like to make a motion for approval of the waiver to allow the alternative use of residential

[1:02:22] sprinkler system to satisfy the re-emergency access requirement.

[1:02:27] Rocha, second.

[1:02:28] And move, but Councilwoman, aren't to approve the Planning Commission recommendation

[1:02:36] of the waiver to allow the alternative use of residential sprinkler to satisfy the

[1:02:42] rear emergency access requirement, and it's mesecmed by Councilman Rocha's, their discussion.

[1:02:50] Seeing none, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

[1:02:53] Thank you.

[1:02:54] Mr. Bogueerty.

[1:02:55] Yes.

[1:02:55] Yes. Mr. Neill. Yes. Dr. Pillsbury. Yes. Mrs. Aren't. Yes. Mr. Rocha. Yes. Dr. Sutherland. Yes.

[1:03:05] Council President Anderson. Yes.

[1:03:08] I voted 7-0. The motion passes at this time since it was separated. At this time, I will accept the motion to accept the committee of the whole report.

[1:03:22] So moved by Councilman Neal, seconded by Councilman Russia to accept the Committee of the

[1:03:30] whole report. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. That brings us to item 21,

[1:03:42] setting the property assessment of fields. The staff

[1:03:50] recommends

[1:03:55] the fields to be scheduled

[1:03:57] for May 27th, 2025 through May 30th, 2025 from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., and one evening, if needed,

[1:04:07] the hearing times are subject to change on

[1:04:14] the setting of the property.

[1:04:18] Okay. All right. It's their emotion.

[1:04:21] I'm going to move for approval, but I do have a question.

[1:04:25] All right.

[1:04:26] The motion for approval is there.

[1:04:28] That's by Councillor McMillan.

[1:04:30] Thank you, by Dr. Teal Sparing.

[1:04:33] The floor is yours, councilman Niel.

[1:04:35] Yeah.

[1:04:36] We have proposed that the reassessments be delayed for two years because this is the assessment

[1:04:43] is coming now from Tyler, from Kent County is basically there.

[1:04:48] Now, we have we approved that delay for two years.

[1:04:51] I thought it was just one year while we not, so we, while they, this is being set up,

[1:05:00] that's why we need to do it for this year.

[1:05:03] Is that correct?

[1:05:05] I'll turn to staff.

[1:05:07] It would take effect 26.

[1:05:10] Is that correct?

[1:05:12] The assessment?

[1:05:14] My understanding that it was for two.

[1:05:16] but I just want to mention of it because what I saw was two years putting it in

[1:05:23] 27. With this correct question, what is the rep?

[1:05:29] David, thank you, Council President. Again, my understanding is that it's a one-year

[1:05:34] deferral to use the Kent County assessment records and we do each year need to

[1:05:42] approve the assessments and hold an appeal based on our own numbers because

[1:05:48] there are some adjustments that get made as well. So this is something we have

[1:05:53] to do every time that we have, you know, set the tax rate or having a

[1:05:59] assessment. I believe it's a one year. Okay, now we've in this, each five years, well,

[1:06:08] then the next time that we be back on four years in advance, so that it will be five years

[1:06:15] from this year, or it will go to five years from 2000.

[1:06:21] That's a good question. My answer will be that it will be, you know, we'll use the county

[1:06:26] assessments beginning in year two and two, three and four and five that would be the new assessment

[1:06:33] record we would use for that date.

[1:06:36] I wish I could defer this actually to a former city manager and

[1:06:41] controller back there. Am I right Donna?

[1:06:49] She's been down this

[1:06:50] path a couple of times before so. There would be a problem with that

[1:06:57] protocol wise. This is an lump in the citizens at the moment. So

[1:07:03] okay, I'm about to say if you if you wanted to, I'd ask just as

[1:07:07] for a suspension of the rules and that wouldn't be a problem.

[1:07:12] Okay, that's fine.

[1:07:25] Please continue.

[1:07:27] No, the motion is on the floor. I just was, that was for clarification as to what we were

[1:07:32] looking at. And of course, we don't know what the effect is going to be, how it blends

[1:07:39] And then what they're going to come back in, we may need to extend the Pills process for a month depending but what we see coming back from Tyler this time, I yield.

[1:07:53] I can understand that. Thank you, Councilman. In the other discussion,

[1:08:04] there was a request

[1:08:06] for by the mayor to make a comment. That's also not protocol during regular meetings.

[1:08:13] It is during committee meetings. However, if anyone have objection, the suspension

[1:08:20] the rules to allow the mayor to comment on this item.

[1:08:24] Seeing no objection, Mr. Mayor, come on up if you like.

[1:08:39] Thank you, and it's their discussion from members.

[1:08:49] All in, unless we need a roll call,

[1:08:52] there's this all in favor.

[1:08:54] All in favor?

[1:08:55] Aye.

[1:08:56] Aye.

[1:08:56] Any opposed?

[1:08:58] The motion carries.

[1:08:59] The

[1:09:04] first reading of the proposed ordinance 2025-07 amending chapter 98 by establishing a public space naming policy in application procedure packet.

[1:09:17] The Councilwoman Arne, first action by City Council will take final action.

[1:09:24] on site City Council would take place in the second reading.

[1:09:28] March 24th, 2025, the proposed ordinance, 2025-07 is available at the entrance of Council

[1:09:37] Chambers on the City website at cityodover.com under government or by contacting the City

[1:09:43] Clerk's Office at 3002-736-708 or city clerk at dover.de.us

[1:09:54] email city clerk at over.de.us. Councilwoman Arn. It's your night tonight.

[1:10:03] Thank you for recognizing me just a quick overview of the proposed

[1:10:06] ordinance. It is to establish a clear and consistent process for renaming a

[1:10:13] public space within the city. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions?

[1:10:20] Councilman

[1:10:21] question. That you have all you just need for. That's why. If there are questions I will

[1:10:29] defer to Madame Clerk for the introduction of the ordinance and the accordance with

[1:10:34] section 1-9 of the Dovercud, Madame Clerk.

[1:10:40] Ordnance 2025-07, amending chapter 98 by establishing a public space naming policy and application

[1:10:47] and a procedure packet. This constitutes the first reading, the final reading is scheduled

[1:10:52] to take place on March 24, 2025.

[1:10:55] It's no action at this time. We now have the first reading, next, I don't, we now have

[1:11:02] the first reading of ordinance 2025-08 for the re-sony and the property located at 582

[1:11:09] a corn lane. It is recommended for referral to the Planning Commission for a public hearing

[1:11:15] on April 21st, 2025 and that a public hearing before City Council will be set for May 12th,

[1:11:23] 2025 at 6.30 p.m. at which time the final reading and the Council action will take place.

[1:11:30] The ordinance is available at the entrance of Council Chambers or the City website at

[1:11:36] city of Dover.com under government or by contacting the clerk's office 736-7008 or city clerk

[1:11:46] at Dover.de.us. I will now entertain a motion for the referral as recommended. What is the

[1:11:54] pleasure of council? So moved. It's been moved by councilman Neal to recommend a referral

[1:12:01] as to refer as recommended. Second by Councilman Russia. Questions on the

[1:12:08] motion? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The motion is adopted unanimously.

[1:13:01] Further to the City Clerk for an introduction to proposed ordinance and

[1:13:04] accordance with Section 1-9 of the Dover Code.

[1:13:10] Warden, it's 2025-08, amending the zoning ordinance and zoning map of the city of

[1:13:16] Dover by changing the zoning designation of property located at 582 A corn lane.

[1:13:21] This constitutes the first reading.

[1:13:23] The final reading is scheduled to take place May 12, 2025.

[1:13:30] Thanks for the city manager's announcement.

[1:13:34] Thank you, Council President.

[1:13:35] I have no any announcements this evening.

[1:13:40] Thank you.

[1:13:47] Thank you, Mr. President, members of the council, I have guests with me this evening.

[1:13:53] As many of you know, there has been quite a bit of angst in the community about us

[1:13:57] not having a seen Patrick's Day parade.

[1:14:00] We could not find anyone who would volunteer to take over that responsibility.

[1:14:05] We did look in earnest.

[1:14:06] we do have a young lady Melissa Bergold who will step forward next year to make

[1:14:12] sure that we have a bigger and better St. Patrick's Day parade in 2026. Having

[1:14:18] said that, Ms.

[1:14:21] McOneal, on the 17th on St. Patrick's Day in front of City Hall, we

[1:14:28] will have a small celebration, a presentation of a proclamation to the Irish

[1:14:34] Society of Delaware. We will have a bagpiper and we will sing some Irish songs and St. Patrick

[1:14:40] is self will be there. But because I'm the fun mayor, we have something else that's going

[1:14:46] to happen. And I'd like to introduce my guest, Mr. Donny Legons, who operates one of my

[1:14:51] favorite places in Dover next to my home, the Real House.

[1:14:58] I'm Donny Liggins.

[1:15:01] Thank you all for having me here today. Last year, St. Patty's Day, the capital crawl was an amazing time, and it sucks that we don't have a parade this year, so they didn't do the event. So, we thought we would continue the tradition and pick up that mantle and run with it. So, my wife and I reached out to all of our neighboring bars and included in the glens this year, some of the glens, Irish mics, 90s tap house, gray fox, and us, of course,

[1:15:30] to continue the bar crawl so this Saturday from 1 to 8 will have a whole lot of fun

[1:15:36] the downtown over it was a lot of fun last year so we'll continue that last year

[1:15:41] was thinking it was just from 2 to 6 we're gonna do it from 1 to 8 because people

[1:15:45] wanted the party to keep going and it was safe. I didn't hear of any incidents last

[1:15:49] year so we're gonna try to keep that going this year and I'm just having to be a

[1:15:53] part of this I'm glad we reached out to our neighboring boroughs and not just

[1:15:56] have in just their warehouse because we do believe in that collaborative spirit here.

[1:16:01] And so just thank you.

[1:16:03] Thank you.

[1:16:05] And did you notice how he kind of scrunched down when he stood next to me because he knows

[1:16:10] how I feel about being a little bit on the vertically challenged side?

[1:16:14] Thanks, Tony.

[1:16:16] Thank you.

[1:16:17] Thank you.

[1:16:18] Yeah.

[1:16:19] Council member announcements.

[1:16:21] Dr. Subbler.

[1:16:22] Thank you.

[1:16:22] Not announcements.

[1:16:23] Just one.

[1:16:24] Just a little clarity.

[1:16:25] I do believe for that event would there be a bus like a party bus correct if you could speak to that just for a second

[1:16:31] If it's a kid

[1:16:39] in here. Yeah, there we go. Yes, there is a party bus

[1:16:42] So leaving from railhouse

[1:16:44] It's $20 to get on you give a wristband last year. I think they had t-shirts and things like that

[1:16:48] But we just want to keep it very simple that bus leaves from railhouse to Gumma Glens to Grey Fox to 90s

[1:16:55] And then I think I forgot stone rail market is also in there as well and then Irish mics

[1:17:00] 20 bucks and a continuous loop every 30 minutes it'll go downtown so you can be

[1:17:05] safe you can have have a good time and anyone 21 and older can get on that bus

[1:17:09] with that wristband and how do they get achieved the wristband how do they get

[1:17:13] the wristband right on our Instagram page or our Facebook there's a link right

[1:17:17] there it goes right to a event bright and you can sign up online right there for

[1:17:21] it thank you you're doing a wonderful job appreciate it I appreciate you thank you

[1:17:26] Thank you.

[1:17:27] Thank you.

[1:17:28] Other member announcements?

[1:17:33] Any other council member announcements?

[1:17:41] I want to thank in advance Councilwoman Dr. Pillsbury for chairing the Council Committee

[1:17:51] of the whole tomorrow, and we look forward to create agenda.

[1:17:57] I'm busy on city business.

[1:18:00] We had some very positive business today, I was pleased with some progress.

[1:18:09] We made in Washington with the administration's deputy director for intergovernmental affairs

[1:18:18] There's a special assistant to President, and they are very interested in looking at some

[1:18:27] things when it comes to, because they want to reprogram some infrastructure money to

[1:18:33] harder infrastructure, and they're interested in our stormwater program, it was a very positive

[1:18:42] and water which would be interesting because I think that it's going to be a very positive thing.

[1:18:50] There may be a temporary cut in the, if you look at the continuing resolution

[1:19:00] that just passed a small cut in the revolving water fund but that is not looking like it would be a permanent thing

[1:19:10] and that's the long anyway. The by-partisan infrastructure bill

[1:19:17] is so that those things are looking very positive and we hopefully more to

[1:19:25] come.

[1:19:28] Is there any other business before the council, Mr. Mayor? This

[1:19:45] is

[1:19:45] most unusual. On behalf of myself and the members of City Council, we'd like to

[1:19:51] can gradually and recognize our city clerk.

[1:19:55] Ah, if I knew you were going to say that, I would have said no.

[1:19:58] So let's give her a sweet play of something very special.

[1:20:01] And she has to put up with you guys.

[1:20:03] Let's give her a stand.

[1:20:07] And of course, she has now certified municipal clerk.

[1:20:14] And that is quite an achievement.

[1:20:17] She did it in an extraordinarily short period of time

[1:20:21] in just three years, so that definitely is quite an achievement.

[1:20:27] Mr. President, fast and first.

[1:20:37] See, I should have done this, that only has just ruined the two weeks from now.

[1:20:42] We stand adjourned.

[1:20:44] Thanks.

03/10/2025 Regular Council

Transcript