CCW Minutes

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE The Council Committee of the Whole met on July 26, 2022, at 6:00 p.m. with Council President Sudler presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson (arrived via WebEx at 7:45 P.M.), Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Neil, Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Rocha, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Hare. Ms. Arndt was absent. Mayor Christiansen was also present. Civilian members present for their committee meetings were Mr. Contant (via WebEx) and Mr. Shevock (via WebEx) (Legislative, Finance, and Administration), and Dr. Jackson and Mr. Hosfelt (Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee). Mr. McCutcheon and Mr. Shelton Utility) were absent. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Boggerty, and unanimously carried. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance and Administration Committee met with Council President Sudler presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Hare moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Rocha, and unanimously carried. Discussion – Fiscal Year 2022 Audit Program (Lori Peddicord, Controller/Treasurer) Lori Peddicord, Controller/Treasurer, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Fiscal Year 2022 Audit Program. Staff recommended acceptance of the audit program. Mr. Hare moved to recommend acceptance of the audit program, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Mr. Hare moved for adjournment of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting, seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:04 p.m. UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee met with Chairman Rocha presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Hare moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Neil, and unanimously carried. Evaluation of Proposals – Silver Lake Production Well (Jason Lyon, Director of Water Wastewater)

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JULY 26, 2022 PAGE 2 Mr. Jason Lyon, Director of Water Wastewater, and Kate Mills, Water Production Manager, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Evaluation of Proposals for Silver Lake Production Well. Staff recommended to award the contract to Davis Bowen & Friedel, Inc. for the design /build services of the Silver Lake Production Well, RFP #22-0033WW, for $2,942,000. Mr. Hare moved to recommend awarding the contract to Davis Bowen & Friedel, Inc. for the design/build services of the Silver Lake Production Well, RFP #22-0033WW, for $2,942,000, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Mills stated the department had completed the test well process that was approved by the state. Ms. Mills explained they needed to obtain a permit to drill a test well at that location. Ms. Mills stated the state is aware of the project and that they have taken all the proper steps thus far. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Ms. Mills stated the city has not run out of water in another well. Ms. Mills explained this well will be for redundancy, and they are constructing and replacing the pipe on North State Street that is near the well. Ms. Mills further explained they are upgrading the size of the water main to handle the well’s production, and creating redundancy for the water system, so if another well does go down, the new well will help support it. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Ms. Mills stated this project started four to five years prior and the well was simulated in a water model that an engineering group looked at. Ms. Mills explained this is what led to the decision to upgrade North State Street. Ms. Mills noted they are using all the material needed to make the location a viable location. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Lyon stated the vendor would have every opportunity to use minority subcontractors, but they are not mandated to do so. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Lyon explained when the project went out for bid, they worked with the procurement team. Mr. Lyon noted his department gave them a bidder list about a month before the mandatory pre-bid meeting, so minority contractors were solicited. Mr. Lyon explained when they pull the list, they go to the state website and chose companies that can do the work. Mr. Lyon further explained they solicited them and said there is a bid out for this project and the date of the pre-bid meeting. Mr. Lyon noted unfortunately they did not get any takers. Mr. Taylor stated he has had his fill of one company being selected. Mr. Taylor explained that there are minority businesses everywhere, and they do not feel as though they're getting their proper opportunity. Mr. Taylor believed they are not because they do not know when these bids are coming out and what is happening. Mr. Taylor clarified he did not believe Mr. Lyon, or his department was doing anything wrong but, the city needs to step up its measures and make sure that they get the information out to more people. Mr. Taylor believes they must do a better job with recruiting minority businesses for these accounts. He explained one of the reasons why he has insisted on a mandatory pre-bid meeting is to get everyone in the room, so those smaller companies that will not get the contract, can subcontract with the larger company.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JULY 26, 2022 PAGE 3 Mr. Taylor stated they cannot keep coming with just one bid or he will start saying no and solicit his colleagues to say no. Mr. Taylor explained that this is something that must be at the forefront of our minds when they start putting these contracts out, and not something that comes up right at the end, of a council meeting. Mr. Taylor noted that Ms. Mills and Mr. Lyon are doing a great job, but this process must be altered. Responding to Mr. Lyon, Mr. Taylor clarified by mandatory he means everyone who will bid and everyone who will subcontract and wants to be a part of the project must attend the mandatory pre- bid meeting Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Lyon stated historically when the city had mandatory pre-bid meetings the issue was that they were receiving a small pool of candidates because companies from outside the area were not coming down. After all, they did not want to make the trip. Mr. Lyon explained if they did not attend the meeting then the contractors were not able to bid on the project. Mr. Lyon further explained the city made pre-bid meetings not mandatory to increase the number of bids they receive. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Lyon stated regarding the Evaluation of Proposals – Silver Lake Production Well they did solicit from disadvantaged minority, women-owned businesses from the State of Delaware website. Mr. Lyon assured the council if there was another avenue to solicit from, he would be happy to work together. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Mills stated once the well is built residents may notice slightly better pressure. Ms. Mills explained that they will be replacing the cast iron main during the upgrade. Ms. Mills further explained the that portion of Dover and the other parts connected to it should see less brown water. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Lyon stated the City of Dover Purchasing Policy currently does not include a provision that a percentage of work is to be performed by a minority contractor. Mr. Sudler requested the Water Wastewater and Procurement Departments work together to create a workshop to include what is the criteria for a sole vendor and what parameters are set in place regarding trying to achieve a mandate that a percentage of work be completed by a minority contractor. Mr. Sudler stated Mr. Lyon and his team are doing a good job and thanked him for the transparency in the procurement process, and for explaining exactly how they solicited bids. Mr. Sudler agreed with Mr. Taylor and explained if the city mandated pre-bid meetings the city will not be perceived as always using the same vendor and if the other contractors do not show up then it will be on them. Mr. Boggerty stated he would be willing to provide staff with someone who will help them navigate and merry what the federal government is doing and how they drill down on contractors.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JULY 26, 2022 PAGE 4 Mr. Hare moved to recommend awarding the contract to Davis Bowen & Friedel, Inc. for the design /build services of the Silver Lake Production Well, RFP #22-0033WW, for $2,942,000, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Mr. Neil moved for adjournment of the Utility Committee meeting, seconded by Mr. Boggerty, and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:24 p.m. SAFETY, ADVISORY, AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE The Safety, Advisory, and Transportation Committee met with Chairman Taylor presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury, and unanimously carried. Status Update - Loockerman Street Fire of March 16, 2022 - Dangerous Building (Jason Osika, Fire Marshal, and Eddie Kopp, Code Enforcement Supervisor) Mr. Jason Osika, Fire Marshal, stated the fire occurred on March 16, 2022, and there is still an open investigation, so his comments will be limited. Mr. Osika stated they did a structural engineer’s report immediately, on the day of the fire. Mr. Osika said this report was done to make sure the building did not need to be demoed on the spot. Mr. Osika explained the report showed that there is no danger of the building falling into the street or causing any further damage. Mr. Osika explained the process of handling a fire such as the Loockerman St. Fire is to condemn the building as unfit for habitation, enter a case, and turn it over to Code Enforcement. Mr. Osika further explained Code Enforcement then follows up with repair or tear down and any permits needed. Mr. Osika stated that Code Enforcement will send letters and work with the homeowner and insurance companies in obtaining permits to make sure the proper work is done. Eddie Kopp, Chief Code Enforcement Officer, stated that Code Enforcement Office sent the first notice on March 17th, 2022, with the violations to correct the obvious condemnation. Mr. Kopp explained the owner was allotted 60 days and there was no response from the property owner. Mr. Kopp stated a second notice was sent on June 15th, 2022, which is the normal process. After receiving no feedback from the property owner, they sent a letter of intent, on July 1st, 2022, to the owner and the attorney representing the property owner. Mr. Kopp explained the letter of intent is a notice they have 30 days to correct the property, or else Code Enforcement will present it before council to be declared dangerous and set a demolition date. Mr. Kopp further explained that he contacted the attorney of the property on July 26, 2022, and he said there is no update. Mr. Kopp stated the lawyer cannot provide anything other than they are aware of the situation so, they receive our letters. Mr. Kopp stated as far as he knew, in speaking with the attorney, the owner of the property is out of the country, with no return date set, so the attorney is representing the property and has been included on all notifications. Mr. Kopp stated he has sent proper notices to all the addresses on file, of which there are three. Mr. Kopp stated the follow-up date for the letter of intent is August

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JULY 26, 2022 PAGE 5 4th, 2022, which, after that, if no response is received, Code Enforcement will arrange a meeting with the City Clerk’s office for a council meeting. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Kopp confirmed the owner of the property on file is SAG Holdings, LLC and the next follow-up date is August 4, 2022, which will result in a notice of a Council Hearing. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Kopp confirmed from his conversation with the attorney, that the property is uninsured. Mr. Kopp also noted the building is a standalone building with a very small gap between the damaged building and the adjacent building. Mr. Boggerty asked if the city could require tenants or building owners, to show proof of insurance. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Hare stated the businesses are more than likely insured. However, it would be different to mandate a property owner who has paid off a building, be required to have insurance. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Hugg stated if the city were to declare a business dangerous, they would take on the responsibility for tearing it down. Mr. Hugg explained the city would take ownership of the building and that the only way to recoup the demolition money it to sell it or develop the lot. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Kopp stated Code Enforcement has recommended making changes to the Dangerous Building Ordinance. Mr. Kopp explained the way the Ordinance is currently written it is a drawn-out process that will take six months to a year to demolish a building. Mr. Kopp insured Council the Dangerous Building Ordinance would be on an upcoming agenda for Council because Code Enforcement is aware that it is an issue and is taking steps to address it. Mr. Rocha noted he was concerned from a safety perspective that if someone entered the building unlawfully and was injured would it not be a liability to the city? Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Kopp explained there is a provision in the code that would shorten the time and that is if the building is in imminent danger to the public. Mr. Kopp further explained the Structural Engineer’s Report stated the building was structurally sound and has been boarded up to prevent unlawful entry. Mr. Kopp noted by calling the building an imminent danger would only remove the letter of intent and lessen the time frame by 30 days. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Hare stated if the process goes as it has in the past 5, 10, and 15 years, Code Enforcement will bring it to council, the owner is going to show up and council is going to say, "Oh, well, okay, you got another 60 days to get it," they are not going to do anything, and then come back to council. Mr. Hare explained what council needs to do is, state the owner has had all the opportunities and tear it down and give the owner 15 days to fix it. Mr. Hare explained if the property was not fixed then to tear it down. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend the Safety, Advisory, and Transportation Committee waive the letter of intent and send the building straight to City Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JULY 26, 2022 PAGE 6 Mr. Hare stated he did not disagree with Mr. Sudler’s thought process however, council cannot change the rules and must follow the Dover Code of Ordinances. Mr. Hare suggested getting a legal opinion from Mr. Rodriguez, City Solicitor. Mr. Neil agreed with Mr. Hare, Mr. Neil stated council should check for legal sufficiency to make sure that they have dotted all their I’s and crossed all their T’s legally. Mr. Neil stated as soon as a legal opinion has been rendered, they could bring it before council as quickly as possible. Mr. Neil noted he is looking forward to changing the ordinance to speed up the process. Mr. Sudler stated after hearing the consensus of council he would like to rescind the motion and make another motion. Mr. Rocha agreed to rescind his second to the motion. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend based on the City Solicitor’s opinion that if it is permissible that council waives the 30-day Notice, Letter of Intent, and the matter go straight to council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried. Mr. Sudler recused himself and left Council Chambers at 6:47 p.m. Mayor Christiansen stated the discussions on revising the Dangerous Building Ordinance of procedures and building code appeals had begun. Mayor Christiansen noted he met with the Planning Director and hopefully, council will have those revisions brought to them by the early part of September for council action. Mayor Christiansen stated he has spoken with a party that is interested in the property located on Loockerman Street which may help the city recoup their money once those expenses are in. Mayor Christiansen stated he would be willing to issue an Executive Order to have the building on Loockerman Street torn down. Mayor Christiansen explained the building needed to be taken down, that he was there the night of the fire, and every day he drives by it he believes it looks worse and worse. Request for Waiver - Appendix A - Subdivisions, Article VI - Subdivision - General Requirements and Design Standards, Section A - Streets (Right-of-Way known as Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue) - Waiver of Requirements for the Reduction of the Minimum Street Right-of-Way Width, Increase in Maximum Length of a Dead-End Street (Cul-de-Sac), and the Elimination of Sidewalk on One Side of a Public Street associated with a Site Development Plan for the improvements to the rights-of-way of Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue to allow for further development of the properties that these streets will give access. (Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner) Mr. Taylor introduced Attachment #1- Petition Against the Request for Waiver submitted by adjacent property owners. Ms. Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Request for Waiver for Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue regarding planning reference: S-22-04.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JULY 26, 2022 PAGE 7 The Planning Commission recommended approval with Conditions of the Request to Reduce the Minimum Street Right-of-Way Width, Increase in Maximum Length of a Dead-End Street, and the Elimination of Sidewalk on One side of a Public Street. Mr. Neil noted that he had sent his question to the Planning Commission in preparation for this meeting. Mr. Neil stated there was a key to opening the property for development and that was through the waivers. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Melson- Williams stated zoning around Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue is a collection of different residential zoning districts. The lands that are owned by the Patel properties, Patel College Road Properties, are zoned RG-5, which is a general residence zone for mid-rise apartments. So, apartments are permitted use. That RG5 zone also allows for the uses that are allowed in the one-family resident zone. So, that means things like one-family detached houses could go there. There are also several, non-residential uses that could happen through a conditional use process, which is a specialized review process. These include things like schools and places of worship and daycare centers for children and adults. Things like public utilities could go in the area and wireless communication facilities. Ms. Melson-Williams explained under the current zoning of that land area, you have got a series of residential, and then some non-residential uses. Ms. Melson- Williams noted it would not allow for what you would think of as normal commercial businesses, like a retail component, or even manufacturing or industrial use under its current zoning. Ms. Melson-Williams explained there are other properties in this area that have some of our other residential zones, both RM-2 and R-8. There are several properties that are zoned IO, which is institutional, and office, which has other uses. So, it's predominantly a road network, if you will, on the east side of the railroad tracks that are flanked by properties that are residentially zoned. Ms. Melson- Williams further explained there are several properties that are not within the corporate limits of the City of Dover and fall under Kent County's jurisdiction. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Melson-Williams stated the fact that the Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has a current study underway. She explained several years ago, they did a study focused on the rail network throughout Kent County and were looking at properties that were adjacent to the railroad that carried with them a zoning classification that would be amenable to rail-side usage by a developer. They most recently have been revisiting that study and looking more specifically at what land mass adjacent to the railroad remains undeveloped and have potential. Ms. Melson-Williams noted the area near Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue is certainly an area that has land that is not developed. However, the current zoning of this large tract of land that's adjacent to the railroad is for residential use. Ms. Melson Williams further explained for the property to be used for some type of manufacturing or industrial zoning, it would take a rezoning application. And likely, in the case of some of these properties, an amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Melson-Williams stated there is a process, but that is not what is before council this evening with this request for subdivision waivers related to the street network. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Melson-Williams stated if the Request for Waivers were not approved the applicant would be able to proceed in building the apartment complex. Ms. Melson-Williams noted they may be limited in the number of units. She explained in the case of the sidewalk, they would have to build the sidewalk on both sides of the street, and they would follow the Dover

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JULY 26, 2022 PAGE 8 Code of Ordinances. Ms. Melson-Williams further explained the question of right-of-way width, the applicant is technically providing that right-of-way where they can and where they have ownership of the land that is directly adjacent to it. She noted that would not be unusual, for a property to dedicate additional right-of-way for the area that is in front of their parcel. Ms. Melson- Williams stated the city cannot force the applicant to dedicate right-of-way in front of somebody else's property. Ms. Melson-Williams stated the biggest question would be the length of the cul-de-sac. There are probably ways to work around that by creating a larger street network in that area so that you eliminate the length of the dead end that exists, but this area is also encumbered by some significant environmental concerns. She explained there is a brownfield area, floodplain, and wetland on the subject site that limit development. Ms. Melson-Williams noted the choices for redesigning the site and the road network are somewhat limited. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Melson-Williams stated alternative ways to reach this property, those outreach efforts, did not happen. Ms. Melson-Williams stated from experience that an at-grade crossing of the railroad at a different location, she probably would not see in my lifetime. Typically, new railroad crossings and at-grade crossings are not being created. And if you want to create a new one, it means closing one that already exists. So, crossing that railroad from the west to get to this area is probably not an option. Ms. Melson Williams stated that looking at other locations, such as crossing a tract of land owned by Delaware State University that has an Athletic Annex Building just immediately after where the railroad crosses College Road, it would be on the left if you are heading towards DuPont Highway. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that any improvements to that existing entrance, or creation of a new road in that area would be subject to Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) review because College Road is a state-maintained road, and she did not believe that DelDOT would even consider something that close to the railroad crossing. She further explained if it puts cars basically sitting on a railroad track to make a left, that is not something they are going to approve from a traffic transportation-design standpoint. Ms. Melson-Williams stated other options for reaching the site really were not considered because it is adjacent to a public street right-of-way that exists. She noted there were early conversations with the applicant and DelDOT related to, how do you get to the site? And that involves making use of the existing road network there at Mishoe Street. Ms. Melson-Williams explained Mishoe Street has a dedicated left-turn lane and wider-width street standards. Ms. Melson-Williams further explained that the city and the county were also involved in some of those early conversations because they had to move through an annexation process to ensure that the street right-of-way area was located within the corporate limits of the City of Dover. Ms. Melson Williams stated last year the city went through a clarifying annexation process to clarify that these rights-of-way were in fact intended to be part of the city and would be mapped as such. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Melson-Williams confirmed that even if the waivers are denied that the property will still be developed. She explained with apartment buildings the owner can reach a certain number of units and then will need to have two access points to a public street network. Ms. Melson-Williams noted there could be two access points on Railroad Avenue but with the waiver, design-wise, it would be much easier to achieve.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JULY 26, 2022 PAGE 9 Ms. Melson-Williams referred to the map on page 23 in the packet and explained the area of land that is adjacent to the property, several properties owned by Mishoe Cove Apartments. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that is the area where the additional right-of-way is not being proposed because this applicant does not have control of those adjacent land areas. The existing 35-foot right-of-way is what it is in that area. Part of it we already maintain as a city street for about half of that area. Ms. Melson-Williams referred to the map on page 24 of the packet that shows where the existing road of Mishoe Street and Raymond Street is shown in green. She explained that where the actual right-of-way property of the road is shown in the red-hatched area. Ms. Melson-Williams explained that what is out there today does not totally match up with where the right-of-way technically is and any improvements to Raymond Street would be done where the right-of-way exists for that road. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams stated Railroad Avenue is currently unimproved meaning it exits on paper, but there is no pavement, gravel, et cetera, out there at this present time. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that Raymond Street dead ends on the map on page 24 of the packet, shown in green, and ends on the property owned by Mishoe Cove. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams referred to the map on page 24 of the packet and stated where the proposed street would be is not owned by Mishoe Cove, it is shown in red hatch marks. Ms. Melson-Williams stated this area is property of the street, the right-of-way. She further explained that Raymond Street is part city dedication and part a public right-of-way that is yet to be improved, so if their activities are happening in the right-of-way that exists, then there is no agreement that would need to be made with the adjacent property owner. Responding to Mr. Hosfelt, Ms. Melson-Williams stated the right-of-way of it would be 60 feet. She explained that the paved section of the road is required to be a minimum of 24 feet in width from curb to curb. Ms. Melson-Williams noted that is with no parking. Ms. Melson-Williams explained if the applicant would want to have parking on that street, then the width increases, of the paved part of it. Responding to Mr. Hosfelt, Ms. Melson-Williams stated the Dover Code of Ordinances outlines provisions for what the width of that street section must be to have on-street parking. So, with a paved width of 24 feet, that means no parking. She explained if there is to be on-street parking on one side of the street or both then you get into that increased paved width which is in code. It is a code requirement as to what that width would need to be. Responding to Mr. Hosfelt, Ms. Melson-Williams stated there would be potentially two access points to the property, but that is not what Council is here to discuss, because they do not have a design for what that complex looks like. If the applicant is looking to have more than a certain number of units then they need two access points, and design will dictate where those access points can happen. Ms. Melson-Williams noted the plans are also reviewed through the Department of Public Works for the city since it would be a city street that they're taking access from. Responding to Mr. Hosfelt, Ms. Melson-Williams stated the paved width or the right-of-way width for 60 feet has been in the City of Dover land subdivision regulations for some time. She noted

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JULY 26, 2022 PAGE 10 there has not been any recent change in the last 20 years, there were some changes related to on- street parking and what those qualifications would need to be. But the right-of-way width has not changed for a street such as this. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Melson-Williams referred to the map on page 23 of the packet and stated the request for a waiver of eliminating a sidewalk is in an area that is not improved with sidewalks presently. Railroad Avenue is unimproved meaning there is nothing out there on the landscape. Ms. Melson-Williams explained they are seeking to eliminate the sidewalk where it would be adjacent to the railroad tracks. She further explained they are going to provide it on the other side of the road, which would be adjacent to where potential development happens. There are existing sidewalks along College Road, along Mishoe, and there is a little bit, along parts of Raymond Street that do exist. With this project, they are proposing sidewalks along the frontage of Railroad Avenue and building the sidewalk network that does not exist along Raymond Street for a portion of Raymond Street on both sides. And then along, the south side of Raymond Street, which is the side that is closer to College Road. Ms. Melson-Williams noted should this property develop, there would be a sidewalk network that a resident of that property could walk on down Railroad Avenue, down Raymond Street, and down Mishoe Street to get to College Road, where there is an existing sidewalk system. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Melson-Williams confirmed the applicant is seeking to eliminate the requirement to build a sidewalk on one of the sides of Railroad Avenue. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Melson-Williams stated if the waiver was not approved then it would require having a sidewalk on both sides of Railroad Avenue as well as a little corner where a sidewalk would then have to be constructed also as Raymond Street intersects with Railroad Avenue. Ms. Melson-Williams noted that if the right-of-way does not accommodate that, they are not going to add a sidewalk that impacts an adjacent property. So, there is going to be a leftover piece of Raymond Street that does not have a sufficient right-of-way to get the paved width of a street and a sidewalk on both sides implemented. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Melson-Williams stated the code states when you build a public street, you have sidewalks on both sides. In this situation, they're asking for relief because the road that they hope to build is right next to the railroad tracks. Ms. Melson-Williams further explained this is probably not where they would want people walking anyway, or they probably would not walk in that area. Ms. Melson-Williams stated they certainly do not want them trying to cross the tracks to get to whatever is on the other side, because there is not a pedestrian crossing of the tracks in that area either. Mr. Hare stated he did not have a problem not having a sidewalk running alongside the railroad track. Mr. Hare noted the police station and new post office in downtown Dover do not have sidewalks on the other side of the street by the courthouse along the railroad tracks. Mr. Hare stated he agreed with Mr. Hosfelt and the streets should not be like Mayfair where the streets are narrow and have on-street parking on both sides. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mayor Christiansen stated it would be difficult to get a fire apparatus down a 35-foot street in an emergency with vehicles parked. Mayor Christiansen explained the wider the street the easier it is for fire apparatus, police vehicles, EMS, and paramedics.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JULY 26, 2022 PAGE 11 Mayor Christiansen stated the bulk of traffic that is on College Road and adding a street that feeds into it will be a nightmare. Mayor Christiansen asked who would be putting a light on Mishoe Street. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Melson-Williams stated Council could certainly act on each waiver individually. However, the reduction in the minimum street right of way is for the right of way, which is the property of the street. It does not impact the paved width requirement. They would be subject to what the code says for paved width, depending on if it has no parking or parking on one or both sides. That dictates what the minimum paved width of the street needs to be. Mr. Neil stated Council has brought up a concern in terms of an emergency basis, and it would depend upon the developer’s willingness to make whatever has to happen, to make sure that they have an additional width on that property to ensure that emergency vehicles will be able to get through for the protection of those people who will be living in that apartment. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams referred to the map on page 22 of the packet and stated that 400 feet is the measurement of the length of the cul-de-sac and the measurement begins at Raymond Street. Ms. Melson-Williams stated she did not know the measurement of the distance between the railroad tracks and the street. Mr. James Paige, 355 Rita Wilma Road, stated from what he has heard so far, it is opening Pandora's box as far as he is concerned. He explained that once that box is opened and things are in place, Patel's can do what they want to because it is done. Mr. Paige asked how many people are satisfied with where they live, and how many have been there for 10 years or more. Mr. Paige also asked if you have been living where you live for 10 years and love their neighborhood. Mr. Paige asked how you would like for him to come into your neighborhood, some will take up your sidewalks, I'm going to do this to your land. I'm going to do this and this. And it seems as though I cannot be stopped. And the only people that can stop it are Council. Mr. Paige said they are going to put in 150 apartments and if they do not get all these waivers done, they will only be able to have 125 apartments. Mr. Paige suggested the Patel Group build 125 apartments and all parties would be satisfied. Mr. Paige asked do you know how much traffic that going to bring in our neighborhood, with no stop lights? Mr. Paige stated the neighborhood does not want that Dr. Wilma Mishoe stated she had been to Council three times and is really tired. Dr. Mishoe stated part of this Raymond Street that has been discussed is not even in the City of Dover, it is in Kent County. Dr. Mishoe stated she has the maps, pays taxes on the property, and owns the land that is being discussed. Dr. Mishoe explained when Raymond Street stops being a paved curve, that is where the City's portion of it ends. Don't believe her, ask Mr. Raymond, who is here. The street was named after him. Raymond Fisher. Greg Rishell, Engineer, Pennoni Associates Inc., representing Patel Properties, thanked everyone tonight and hopefully, they got their questions answered as best they could. Mr. Rishell thanked Ms. Melson-Williams, who did a fantastic job answering pretty much all those questions.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JULY 26, 2022 PAGE 12 Mr. Rishell stated he wanted to clarify one item that came up in the conversation about emergency vehicle access. Mr. Rishell clarified the road that's being proposed is not being narrowed, it will be 24 feet on Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue. Mr. Rishell stated the only thing that's technically getting narrower is where the applicant is proposing and dedicating a full 60-foot right of way where it narrows down to a 35-foot right of way or as what Ms. Melson-Williams referred to as the property of the road. Mr. Rishell stated that is the only thing that is narrowing, which is really an imaginary line. Mr. Rishell stated regarding emergency vehicle access, the 24-foot width is a minimum standard set by the City of Dover which is also consistent with the minimum width of a fire lane that is required by the Office of the State Fire Marshal, that is a fire lane width in front of a building. Mr. Rishell explained for actual access to a property, the state regulations, the Office of State Fire Marshal says for two-way access it only needs to be 20 feet wide and 16 feet wide for one way. So even if someone was illegally parked on the side of the road, a fire truck could still get by. Mr. Rishell confirmed that no parking is being proposed. This would be part of a site plan application, and there have been no decisions made yet on the development of the property, really, as far as that. But there was no discussion or desire to have any on-street parking as part of the applicant’s part. Mr. Rishell noted that streets could be always signed as No Parking, so, if someone's parking illegally, they cannot control that. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Rishell stated to his knowledge a title search and boundary survey have been done and the work that is being proposed in the right-of-way is public land. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams referred to the map on page 24 in the packet and stated shows in the red hatched area the public right of way, property of the road where development activity would happen. What exists out there on the land shows that paved areas currently are located on private property. However, with this development project, they would be limited to working within the right of way, which is the red hatched area. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that there is a portion of Raymond Street that is already accepted for city maintenance and that ends about halfway, probably right around the second entrance to the Mishoe Towers, kind of the bump that's there, that's already in the city's maintenance. Ms. Melson- Williams explained that with this area being plotted in the 1890s, it is not surprising that ownership questions arise. The property of the road went through an annexation process to clarify that those land areas are now within the City of Dover. Typically, when the property is annexed any adjacent right away is brought in and made part of the City. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that once the property is annexed the right- of-way is owned by the public and the City of Dover acts on behalf of the public in ownership. She explained they do not call dedication for maintenance until that formal process happens after the street has been built to the City’s standards. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams explained the red hatched lines are showing through deed research and survey shows where the property of the road, the right-of-way exists today.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JULY 26, 2022 PAGE 13 Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Rishell stated they have not considered Mr. Paige’s proposal of 125 apartments because they have not really explored full development options of the property, other than just looking at developing the property by right. Mr. Rishell explained that as far as density goes and requirements as far as that, they must explore their development options. Mr. Rishell noted that he did not believe there was any consideration given to the reduction in density, as it relates to this application. Mr. Rishell stated they are primarily focused on accessing the property using public lands in trying to meet city standards and requirements as much as possible and improving a scenario in a situation that is much better than exists today. Mr. Rishell explained that as you can see the road, as it exists today is half on private property and asking for a few waivers that are due to basically existing conditions that are out of anyone's control just because of the way the properties were plotted. Reverend Raymond Fisher a property owner on Raymond Street stated years ago, that the City named the street after him because he lived there so long. Mr. Fisher stated he was concerned about traffic and agreed with Dr. Mishoe and her brother, Mr. Paige. Mr. Fisher stated for over 60 years, that is where he raised his children, his oldest son is 60 years old, and they have not had traffic problems. Mr. Fisher stated as Brother Paige said, if you open the door, you'll never get it closed. Mr. Fisher stated he knew they would not want it or anybody else running through their street at all times of night, with all kinds of noise and everything. Mr. Fisher noted he did not think my heart could stand it; he is too old now to try to go through that kind of process. Mr. Fisher stated his objection is to get rid of those apartments or limit the number. Mr. Fisher stated the gentleman would want him to come into his territory and he sees it is going to be a problem. Mr. Fisher stated he thinks they need quietness as a community, just like everybody else, and are not asking for any favors. They are just asking for what is right for them as what is right for you and your family and your community. Ms. Bennett read Mr. Anderson’s comment on WebEx that stated “I am troubled by the number of exceptions and waivers sought. It shows me that the infrastructure is inadequate for the density of the project. The safety concerns are inescapable to me. I want to support growth. I believe in property rights. I also believe in common sense safety rules. I would like to see a couple of single- family homes. If this is to be developed, the safety and infrastructure concerns and environmental sensitivity of the land mitigate against high-density development.” Mr. Neil moved for the recommendation the approval of the Planning Commission’s recommendation to accept the Request for Waivers to include the elimination of the sidewalk and extension of the cul-de-sac and denying the Request for Waiver for the Reduction of the Minimum Street Right-of-Way Width, Increase in Maximum Length of a Dead-End Street (Cul-de-Sac). The motion was seconded by Mr. Boggerty and the motion failed by a roll call vote of 1-6. (Mr. Neil voted yes) (Mr. Anderson and Ms. Arndt were absent, and Mr. Sudler recused himself prior to this Agenda item) Mr. Taylor moved for adjournment of the Safety, Advisory, and Transportation Committee meeting; hearing no objection, the meeting adjourned at 8:04 p.m.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JULY 26, 2022 PAGE 14 Mr. Sudler reentered the meeting at 8:04 p.m. Mr. Sudler moved for adjournment of the Council Committee of the Whole meeting; hearing no objection, the meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Roy Sudler, Jr. Council President RS/re Attachment #1 - Petition Against the Request for Waiver submitted by adjacent property owners.