In a long and passion-filled meeting, New Castle County lays out its new zoning plan

Update: This article has been corrected to show that the Department of Land Use proposed five groupings of rezoning ordinances, but ten ordinances overalll, and to correctly identify Councilman Penrose Hollins as the author of comments that drew applause.

One comprehensive rezoning ordinance is dead in New Castle County.

Soon, there may be ten in its place.

In a nearly three-hour county meeting attended by an audience of dozens — some carrying signs protesting a lack of planning — Land Use General Manager Charuni Patibanda laid out her plan.

This new plan, which Patibanda described at an occasionally raucous Feb. 6 meeting of New Castle County’s Land Use Committee, will be a substitute for Ordinance 23-083, better known as the comprehensive rezoning ordinance.

Ordinance 23-083 had called for rezoning 84 parcels in one fell swoop, to align the county rezoning map with state law, and with a comprehensive plan already approved by the New Castle County Council in June 2022.

The ordinance drew profound and lasting opposition from a broadening group of critics beginning in October, especially in fast-growing southern New Castle County, inspiring waves of protests and town hall meetings.

Opposition initially centered on controversial parcels, including would-be business zoning on former farmland and a now-dead proposal for an expansion of Incyte’s offices in Alapocas — but grew into a broader fight against the entire process of county-initiated mass rezonings.

Finally, the bill’s sponsor as a member of the Land Use committee, Councilman David Tackett, announced his intention in late January to withdraw Ordinance 23-083, citing an overwhelming groundswell of public opposition.

Tackett asked the Department of Land Use to lay out a new path to bringing the zoning map and the approved comprehensive plan into alignment.

New Castle County may see 5 smaller rezoning ordinances instead of 1 big one

Land use manager Patibanda arrived on the podium to outline her department's new plan in the wake of Ordinance 23-083.

But first, she mounted an impassioned defense of the employees in her department, whom she said had been subjected to unfair impugnments to their reputation and their integrity, including by members of the County Council she declined to name. (In a slide showing multiple examples of such comments, she had redacted the name of Council President Karen Hartley-Nagle, quoted in an article by Delaware Online/The News Journal stating her belief that land use officials had "sneaked" controversial parcels into the comprehensive rezoning bill.)

This defense was later taken up by another land use employee, who also said his colleagues had faced ugly public accusations. He gave an emotional plea to treat members of the Land Use Department as human beings and fellow Delawareans.

Patibanda then got down to the business of rolling out her department's plan, which called for the County Council to introduce an ambitious roll-out of ten rezoning ordinances, separated out by geography into five groups.

Each ordinance would presumably be more bite-sized than the previous omnibus, and allow more opportunities for public input. But together, the ten ordinances would achieve much the same effect as 23-083: They would rezone the county in accordance with the approved comprehensive plan, as mandated by state law.

Any parcels or projects that have drawn criticism would be severed out and considered individually, Patibanda said.

The remaining parcels would be split out according to the districts of the various council members. Each County Council member would be responsible for ensuring that the public was wholly informed about the proposed rezonings in a community meeting. They would also be charged with determining which parcels should be included in each ordinance.

The northern New Castle County districts, which include mostly uncontroversial downzonings to uses such as parkland, would be introduced first, beginning as soon as the end of February.

The districts in fast-growing southern New Castle County would not be introduced until April to leave more time for public comment and consultation. Those districts had seen a greater degree of community outcry and concerns from residents whose neighboring lands might be rezoned to allow for business uses.

County Council, and community members, voiced concerns about the new rezoning plan

Reaction to the new plan was mixed and occasionally voluble.

Multiple council members who had voted for the comprehensive plan in 2022 now seemed to be having second or third thoughts about too quickly enacting the plan they’d previously approved, given the scale of public opposition.

Councilman David Carter, who represents the 6th District in southern New Castle County, had not voted for the comprehensive plan in 2022, he said. He now took pains to point out that his thoughts hadn't changed: He still didn’t like it.

Council members thanked Patibanda for taking on a difficult job, but worried about the unwieldiness of trying to discuss and understand ordinances that could still include as many as 19 parcel rezonings. Others wondered whether these smaller comprehensive rezoning bills would truly address public concerns about the process, or proposed different ways to split out the parcels into different bills.

Councilman Penrose Hollins declared, in a fiery speech, that this new proposal seemed designed mostly to make the rezoning process easier on government officials, not citizens.

This speech inspired applause from the gallery — applause that was quickly quelled by presiding Councilperson Janet Kilpatrick, according to council chamber rules.

A number of citizens voiced their own objections, whether to individual projects that would affect their lives, or to the entire way the rezoning process was handled. Proponents of a long-delayed Wawa north of Middletown asked that this project instead be severed from the bill, and considered separately.

According to Councilperson Bill Bell, that Asbury Chase Wawa would be able to be considered by the County Council as soon as April.

Here's the outline of the newly proposed New Castle County rezoning plan

The Land Use Department’s proposed plan may change in response to revisions and criticisms, said Patibanda. It's also possible that multiple competing proposals may emerge. But for now, here’s a quick recounting of the proposal on the table.

The new plan would call for council members to introduce five rezoning ordinances on the following schedule, according to the comprehensive plan previously approved by the council.

Feb. 27: Ordinance Grouping 1 would comprise 14 proposed rezonings in Districts 1, 3, 9 and 10 (Councilmembers Toole, Kilpatrick, Sheldon and Street)

March 12: Ordinance Grouping 2 would contain eight parcels in Districts 2, 4 and 8 (Durham, Hollins and Cartier)

March 26: Ordinance Grouping 3 would contain 17 parcels in Districts 5, 7 and 11 (George, Smiley and Tackett)

April 9: Ordinance Grouping 4 would contain 19 parcels in District 12 (Bell)

April 23: Ordinance Grouping 5 would contain 12 parcels in District 6 (Carter)

After each ordinance is introduced, the ordinances would each be subject to a community meeting, a public comment hearing for the planning board, and a 30-day public comment period. The ordinances would then proceed through the usual battery of committee meetings before reaching council vote. From here, if all goes well, the council would vote on each of the ten ordinances. The council would say yes. Or the council would say no.

Matthew Korfhage is business and development reporter in the Delaware region covering all the things that touch land and money. A longtime food writer, he also tends to turn up with stories about tacos, oysters and beer. Send tips and insults to mkorfhage@gannett.com

This article originally appeared on Delaware News Journal: Here are the details on New Castle County's new zoning plan