COUNCIL Minutes

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING The Regular Council Meeting was held on May 24, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Hogan presiding. Council members present were Mr. Bonar, Mrs. Russell, Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Leary, Mr. McGiffin, Mrs. Williams, Mr. Salters, and Mr. Ruane. Council staff members present were Police Chief Hosfelt, Ms. Russell, Mrs. Mitchell, Mrs. Townshend, Fire Chief Christiansen, Mr. DePrima, City Solicitor Rodriguez, and Mrs. McDowell. Mayor Carey was also present. OPEN FORUM The Open Forum was held at 7:15 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Hogan declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council is not in official session and cannot take formal action. Ms. Sue Monaco, resident of Marydel, Delaware, stated that she serves as Partnership Assistant for the U.S. Census Bureau and addressed members regarding the enumeration process and provided an open invitation to partner with the Census Bureau in encouraging community participation (Exhibit #1). She advised members that approximately 69% of the Census Forms issued in the Dover area were returned, with lower returns received from Simon Circle, the Delaware State University area, and Dover Air Force Base. The invocation was given by Chaplain Dixon, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Leary moved for approval of the agenda as presented, seconded by Mr. Bonar and unanimously carried. Mr. McGiffin moved for approval of the consent agenda, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. ADOPTION OF MINUTES - SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 3, 2010 The Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of May 3, 2010 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. McGiffin, seconded by Mr. Salters and bore the written approval of Mayor Carey. ADOPTION OF MINUTES - ANNUAL COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 10, 2010 The Minutes of the Annual Council Meeting of May 10, 2010 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. McGiffin, seconded by Mr. Salters and bore the written approval of Mayor Carey. PRESENTATION - RELIABLE PUBLIC POWER PROVIDER (RP3®) AND SAFETY AWARDS Mayor Carey presented Reliable Public Power Provider (RP3®) and Safety Awards to Mr. Ronald Lunt, Director of Public Utilities, and Mr. Richard Gardner, Line Crew Superintendent. Mr. Lunt accepted the award on behalf of the Electric Department and relayed appreciation for

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 2 the recognition. He advised members that Mr. Gardner submitted the application and could provide further details. Mr. Gardner indicated that the application includes measurements regarding reliability, workforce development, safety and system improvements, etc. He advised members that over 2,000 utilities nationwide submitted applications and the City is one (1) of 94 companies that received the award. This is the second time that the City has received this award. Mayor Carey noted an additional safety award was received by the Electric Department from the American Public Power Association for providing 60,000-109,999 hours of exposure without any safety problems. Mr. Gardner stated that there are 44 employees within the Electric Department and that these employees have worked incident free for over 12 months and deserve recognition. He also relayed appreciation to City Council for providing the funds for necessary safety equipment. PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WHITE OAK ROAD, SOUTH OF MOURNING DOVE LANE, OWNED BY TLFD MANAGEMENT, LLC A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider rezoning of property located on the south side of White Oak Road, south of Mourning Dove Lane, owned by TLFD Management, LLC. The property is currently zoned R-20 (One Family Residence) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) and the proposed zoning is R-8 (One Family Residence) and subject to the SWPOZ. The Tax Parcel is LC05-068.00-01-18.00-000 and the Planning reference is Z-10-01. Mr. Salters moved that the Final Reading of the proposed rezoning ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried. (The First Reading of this Ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of February 22, 2010. This item was tabled by the Planning Commission on March 15, 2010, and on April 12, 2010, the Public Hearing was rescheduled for this time and place). Planner's Review Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed the petition to amend the zoning district and the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission (Exhibit #2). The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning request. Responding to Mr. Ruane regarding the 1999 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Dover and the State of Delaware as it relates to density and development, Mrs. Townshend stated that the MOU discourages development east of Route 1 and specifically designates that area for low density development. She noted that, according to the City=s Comprehensive Plan, the R-8 and R-20 categories are consistent with the low density classification, as they are both one-family, detached, residential districts. Considering the minimum lot area requirement, Mrs. Townshend indicated that the R-8 zoning classification

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 3 could potentially provide more units per acre than the R-20. She explained that staff=s recommendation for approval of the request is due to the R-8 zoning classification being a low density, one-family residence zone and the inclusion of site constraints (such as maintaining woodlands). Mrs. Townshend noted that, although there could be more units, they would typically be clustered on a smaller portion of the site and more likely to have contiguous woodland under the R-8 zoning classification than the R-20 zoning classification. Mr. Ruane questioned how the R-8 zoning classification can be both residential low density and residential medium density, and if the property would be classified as residential low density or residential medium density. Responding, Mrs. Townshend stated that the request is for the property to be residential low density and the matrix was developed to provide some degree of flexibility in how the zoning and comprehensive plan relate to each other. Its purpose is to serve as a guide to what would be consistent without constraints. In response to Mr. Leary, Mrs. Townshend stated that many of the Preliminary Land Use Service (PLUS) comments submitted by the State relate specifically to site development. Other than the State=s objection to the rezoning request, the remainder of the PLUS comments would be reviewed upon submission of the site plan. She noted that, if the rezoning application is approved, the applicant would submit a conceptual subdivision plan to the Planning Commission and the PLUS comments would be addressed prior to this submission. Concurring with Mr. Salters, Mr. McGlumphy relayed concern with the State approving the City=s Comprehensive Plan yet objecting to the rezoning application for this parcel. Responding, Mrs. Townshend stated her feeling that the State would object to any increase in density east of Route 1. She assured members that the requested rezoning is consistent with the parameters set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Ruane noted that the City of Dover is a signatory to the MOU and that this document is the basis for the State=s comments. He questioned if staff felt that there was an obligation to follow the MOU. Responding, Mrs. Townshend stated she did not believe that the MOU was too prescriptive to allow the City to consider rezoning actions in this area. She stated her interpretation that the MOU prohibits the City=s consideration of commercial or high/medium density residential applications, which would create a greater impact. Mr. Ruane felt that the City must follow the MOU and that, if Council wishes to develop the area, staff should be instructed to renegotiate a modified MOU. In response to Mr. McGiffin, Mrs. Townshend confirmed that it was staff=s opinion that the rezoning application complies with the obligation to adhere to the existing Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations for the area east of SR 1 and was consistent with low density development. Public Hearing Council President Hogan declared the hearing open. Mr. Frank DiMondi, an owner of TLFD Management, reiterated the comments he made at the Planning Commission meeting held on April 19, 2010, which were provided to members.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 4 Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. DiMondi stated that he attempted to contact the State Planning Office twice and received no response. There being no one else present wishing to speak, Council President Hogan declared the hearing closed. Mr. Bonar moved for approval of the rezoning request, as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters and, by a roll call vote of eight (8) yes and one (1) no (Mr. Ruane), Council adopted Ordinance #2010-04, as follows: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WHITE OAK ROAD, SOUTH OF MOURNING DOVE LANE. WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property within the limits of the City of Dover; and WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted use of property described below from R-20 (One Family Residence Zone) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) to R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 1. That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance of the City of Dover have been amended by changing the zoning designation from R-20 (One Family Residence Zone) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) to R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) on that property located on the south side of White Oak Road, south of Mourning Dove Lane consisting of 12.78+/ acres, owned by TLFD Management, LLC. (Tax Parcel: LC05-068.00-01-18.00-000; Planning Reference: Z-10-01) ADOPTED: MAY 24, 2010 Mr. Ruane moved that the Planning Staff be directed to meet with the State Planning Office to seek clarification as to how the MOU should be interpreted and/or to obtain a modification of the MOU, using this rezoning request as an example. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bonar. Mr. McGiffin reminded members that it is the City Planner=s understanding that the requested rezoning is consistent with the MOU; therefore, it was his opinion that there was no need for a

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 5 modification to the MOU or the type of action suggested by Mr. Ruane. The motion directing the Planning Staff to meet with the State Planning Office, to seek clarification as to how the MOU should be interpreted and/or obtain a modification to the MOU, using this rezoning request as an example, was carried by a roll call vote of five (5) yes and four (4) no (Mrs. Russell, Mr. McGiffin, Mrs. Williams, and Mr. Salters). PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HAZLETTVILLE ROAD, WEST OF WYOMING MILL ROAD, OWNED BY MULTIPLE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider rezoning of property located on the south side of Hazlettville Road, west of Wyoming Mill Road and consisting of 88.10+/- acres, owned by multiple individual property owners. The property is currently zoned RM-1 (Medium Density Residence) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) and the proposed zoning is R-8 (One Family Residence) and subject to the SWPOZ. The Planning reference is Z-10-02. Mr. Bonar moved that the final reading of the proposed rezoning ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried. (The First Reading of this ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of March 8, 2010). Planner's Review Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed the petition to amend the zoning district and the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission (Exhibit #3). The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning request. Public Hearing Council President Hogan declared the hearing open. Mr. Alex Martin, 121 Derbyshire Avenue, stated that the residents of Nottingham Meadows are concerned about the development and seek assurance that it will remain the type of neighborhood that they had originally purchased. There is fear that someone else will purchase the remaining property and develop it in such a way that would be detrimental to residents. Ms. Lynne Widdowson, 15 Derbyshire Court, reiterated how grateful the residents are for the response provided by City Council, State Representatives, and Mayor Carey regarding the concerns of the residents. She explained that the residents are unable to form a homeowners association since their development is not fully developed. She reminded members that the developer of Nottingham Meadows has not been able to complete the subdivision due to the current economic situation. She requested those in attendance from Nottingham Meadows to stand to be recognized (it is noted that several individuals stood) and, on their behalf, requested the City to assist them with this request. Mr. Pete Thomas, 22 Brittingham Drive, responded to Mr. Salters, indicating that there are 76

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 6 homeowners who have had to take this action and relayed appreciation for the support provided by the City. There being no one else wishing to speak, Council President Hogan declared the hearing closed. Mr. Leary moved for approval of the rezoning request, as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters and by a unanimous roll call vote, Council adopted Ordinance #2010-08, as follows: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HAZLETTVILLE ROAD, WEST OF WYOMING MILL ROAD. WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property within the limits of the City of Dover; and WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted use of property described below from RM-1 (Medium Density Residence Zone) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) to R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 1. That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance of the City of Dover have been amended by changing the zoning designation from RM-1 (Medium Density Residence Zone) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) to R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) on that property located on the south side of Hazlettville Road, west of Wyoming Mill Road, consisting of 88.10+/- acres, owned by multiple owners. (Planning Reference: Z-10-02) ADOPTED: MAY 24, 2010 PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1059 HORSEPOND ROAD, SOUTH OF LAFFERTY LANE, OWNED BY DAVID AND SHERRY BLAKE A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider rezoning of property located at 1059 Horsepond Road, south of Lafferty Lane and consisting of 1.8612+/- acres, owned by David and Sherry Blake. The property is currently zoned M (Manufacturing) and subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone) and the proposed zoning is C-3 (Service Commercial) and subject to the AEOZ. The Tax Parcel is ED05-078.13-01-17.00-000 and the

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 7 Planning reference is Z-10-03. Mr. McGlumphy moved that the final reading of the proposed rezoning ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried. (The First Reading of this Ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of March 22, 2010). Planner's Review Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, City Planner, reviewed the petition to amend the zoning district and the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission (Exhibit #4). The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning request. Public Hearing Council President Hogan declared the hearing open. Mr. David Blake, 69 Nanticoke Drive, stated that he is the owner of the property and relayed appreciation for the assistance provided by the City. He stated that the Manufacturing zoning classification is not consistent with his business and that the structure was recently renovated to be suitable for office space. There being no one else wishing to speak, Council President Hogan declared the hearing closed. Mr. Salters moved for approval of the rezoning request, as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Leary and by a unanimous roll call vote, Council adopted Ordinance #2010-09, as follows: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1059 HORSEPOND ROAD WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property within the limits of the City of Dover; and WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted use of property described below from M (Manufacturing) and subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone) to C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) and subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 1. That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance of the City of Dover have been amended by changing the zoning designation from M (Manufacturing) and subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 8 Overlay Zone) to C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) and subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone) on that property located at 1059 Horsepond Road (on the east side of Horsepond Road, south of Lafferty Lane), consisting of 1.8612+/- acres, owned by David E. Blake and Sherry A. Blake. (Tax Parcel: ED05-078.13-01-17.00-000; Planning Reference: Z-10-03) ADOPTED: MAY 24, 2010 PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1169 SOUTH STATE STREET, OWNED BY YOUNG MEN=S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF DELAWARE, INC. (YMCA) A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider rezoning of property located at 1169 South State Street, consisting of 0.6899+/- acres, owned by the Young Men=s Christian Association of Delaware, Inc. (YMCA). The property is currently zoned RG-O (General Residence and Office) and the proposed zoning is IO (Institutional and Office). The subject property is located on the east side of South State Street, north of Roosevelt Avenue/Wyoming Avenue. The tax parcel is ED05-077.17-05-58.00-000 and planning reference is Z-10-04. Mr. Bonar moved that the final reading of the proposed rezoning ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried. (The First Reading of this Ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of March 22, 2010). Planner's Review Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, City Planner, reviewed the petition to amend the zoning district and the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission (Exhibit #5). Public Hearing Council President Hogan declared the hearing open. Mr. Gregg Moore of Becker Morgan Group, representing the YMCA, stated that the rezoning request is necessary for the addition of a fitness center and additional parking. There being no one else wishing to speak, Council President Hogan declared the hearing closed. Mr. McGlumphy moved for approval of the rezoning request, as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Williams and by a unanimous roll call vote, Council adopted Ordinance #2010-10, as follows: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1169 SOUTH STATE STREET

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 9 WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property within the limits of the City of Dover; and WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted use of property described below from RG-O (General Residence and Office Zone) to IO (Institutional and Office Zone). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 1. That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance of the City of Dover have been amended by changing the zoning designation from RG-O (General Residence and Office Zone) to IO (Institutional and Office Zone) on that property located at 1169 South State Street (east side of South State Street, north of Roosevelt Avenue/Wyoming Avenue), consisting of 0.6899+/- acres (30,0523+/- square feet), owned by Young Men's Christian Association of Delaware, Inc. (YMCA) (Tax Parcel: ED05-077.17-05-58.00-000; Planning Reference: Z-10-04) ADOPTED: MAY 24, 2010 PUBLIC HEARING - VIOLATION OF THE DANGEROUS BUILDING ORDINANCE - PROPERTY LOCATED AT 715 SLAUGHTER STREET, OWNED BY THE ESTATE OF ISAIAH FREEMAN, JR. A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider a violation of the Dangerous Building Ordinance at 715 Slaughter Street, owned by the Estate of Isaiah Freeman, Jr. Mr. Scott Koenig, Public Services Manager/Director of Public Works, stated that the property consists of a single family, wood-framed dwelling that has been in a serious state of disrepair and decline for a number of years. The file indicates the electric service to this property was terminated in 2004. There is a long series of code violations on the property and no attempt has been made to correct the violations. Staff believes that the property owner is deceased and no action has been performed by the estate. Mr. Koenig noted that many, if not all, notices have been returned to the City as unclaimed mail. Mr. Koenig provided a Presentation (Exhibit #6) which included slides depicting the condition of the structure. Staff provided a preliminary estimate of $10,000-$15,000 required for demolition of the structure. Staff recommended that City Council: 1) declare this building dangerous and all accessory buildings on the property dangerous; 2) order the property repaired or demolished by July 1, 2010 by the owner or equity owner at their own risk; 3) order the Building Inspector to cause the repair or demolition of the structures if not completed by the owner within (10) days of the date set by Council (this action is dependent upon the adoption of the FY-2011 Operating Budget for funding); and 4) order the City Manager, with the assistance of the City Solicitor, to cause the

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 10 cost of repairs or demolition to be charged against the land on which the building exists as a municipal lien or cause such cost to be added to the tax duplicate as an assessment, or to be levied as a special tax, or to be recovered in a suit at law against the owner. Mrs. Russell indicated that she spoke to the homeowner, Mr. Freeman, on May 23, 2010, and requested that the City attempt to make contact prior to taking action, explaining that Mr. Freeman has been traveling. She suggested that attempts be made to preserve the property. Responding to Mr. Koenig, Mrs. Russell indicated that she would provide staff with contact information for Mr. Freeman. Mr. Salters noted that attempts have been made by the City to contact the homeowner. It was his feeling that the homeowner should contact staff tomorrow morning in an attempt to resolve this issue. If the homeowner fails to contact staff in a timely manner, he suggested that the City move forward with staff=s recommendation. Council President Hogan declared the public hearing open. There was no one present wishing to speak during the public hearing. Council President Hogan declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Ruane noted that staff=s recommendation would not authorize the demolition of property; however, it does specify a date for action to be taken by the property owners for the repairs or demolition of the property. He stated that this type of action is sometimes necessary in order to get property owners to make repairs. Mr. Bonar moved to table action regarding the violation of dangerous building ordinance for property located at 715 Slaughter Street until the next Council Meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and failed by a roll call vote of five (5) no and four (4) yes (Mr. Bonar, Mrs. Russell, Mr. McGlumphy, and Mr. McGiffin). Mr. McGiffin moved that the structure located at 715 Slaughter Street be declared a dangerous building and subject to demolition, as recommended by staff, with the exception of amending Recommendation #3 to allow the owner 30 days from July 1, 2010 (rather than 10 days). The motion was seconded by Mr. Leary and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. PUBLIC HEARING - VIOLATION OF THE DANGEROUS BUILDING ORDINANCE - 749 WEST NORTH STREET, OWNED BY THE ESTATE OF KNOWLES D. HARMON A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider a violation of the Dangerous Building Ordinance at 749 West North Street , owned by the Estate of Knowles D. Harmon. Mr. Scott Koenig, Public Services Manager/Director of Public Works, advised members that the property consists of a multi-story wood-framed dwelling that was damaged by fire in November of 2006. There are numerous code violations such as broken window glass, holes in the walls, holes in the roof, extensive fire damage throughout the structure, and overall deterioration to the structure from being left open to the weather. He noted that the structure is also a fire hazard and

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 11 a danger to residents in the surrounding area. Mr. Koenig noted that numerous notifications have been sent to the property owners, and no progress or effort has been made to resolve the code violations and bring the property into compliance. Staff is also receiving complaints from citizens regarding the current condition of the property. Mr. Koenig provided a Presentation (Exhibit #7) which included slides depicting the condition of the structure. Staff provided a preliminary estimate in the amount of $30,000-$35,000 to demolish the structure. Staff recommended that City Council: 1) declare this building dangerous and all accessory buildings on the property dangerous; 2) order the property repaired or demolished by July 1, 2010 by the owner or equity owner at their own risk; 3) order the Building Inspector to cause the repair or demolition of the structures if not completed by the owner within (10) days of the date set by Council (this action is dependent upon the adoption of the FY-2011 Operating Budget for funding); and 4) order the City Manager, with the assistance of the City Solicitor, to cause the cost of repairs or demolition to be charged against the land on which the building exists as a municipal lien or cause such cost to be added to the tax duplicate as an assessment, or to be levied as a special tax, or to be recovered in a suit at law against the owner. Council President Hogan declared the public hearing open.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 12 Mr. Knowles D. Harmon, Jr., advised members that his father purchased the property in the early 1950=s and that he was raised in that house. After his father and mother divorced, his father remarried and, upon his death in 1968, he willed the property to his wife and, upon her death, the property was to be left to him and his siblings. At this time, he stated that the property owner is Ms. Anna M. Perry. Mrs. Russell indicated that Ms. Perry is recently deceased. Responding, Mr. Harmon stated that ownership of the property should be transferred to him and his siblings and assured members that they would take care of the property. Mr. Salters suggested that this matter be deferred to allow Mr. Harmon the opportunity to meet with staff to resolve this issue. There being no one else wishing to speak, Council President Hogan declared the public hearing closed. Mrs. Williams moved to refer the matter regarding the violation of dangerous building ordinance for property located at 749 West North Street back to staff, since this meeting has revealed that there is new ownership of the property. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bonar and unanimously carried. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REPORT - MAY 24, 2010 The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met on May 24, 2010 with Chairman McGlumphy presiding. Except for the following time sensitive issue, the Committee Report from May 24, 2010 will be presented to Council during their Regular Meeting of June 14, 2010 for Council=s review and consideration. Proposed Ordinance #2010-11 - Adoption of Business License Fee Schedule (Referred back to Committee by Council on April 26, 2010 to allow public discussion; due to time constraints, this item has been placed on the Council agenda for the meeting being held later in the evening.) During their meeting of April 12, 2010, the Committee recommended adoption of Ordinance #2010-11 adopting the business license fee schedule. When the Committee=s recommendation was presented to Council during their Regular Meeting of April 26, 2010, Council referred the matter back to the Committee to allow for public discussion. Mr. Anthony DePrima, City Manager, reminded members that Ordinance #2010-11 would provide for an automatic update of business license fees on July 1st of each year based on the published inflation rate for the previous calendar year. He stated that if the Proposed Ordinance is passed, there would be a 3.3% increase in business license revenues on July 1st, which equates to approximately $48,000 additional revenue to the City of Dover. Mr. DePrima advised members that there has not been an increase in business license fees since 2004. He reminded members that he has submitted previous requests to increase these fees, in accordance with the City=s Revenue Manual, which indicates that the City should update business license fees every three (3) years.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 13 Mr. DePrima explained that this matter was referred back to the Committee to allow for public discussion, since the Chamber of Commerce did not feel that they were provided adequate advance notice of the Proposed Ordinance to allow for comments; however, he assured members that staff provided the Chamber of Commerce advance notice. Mr. DePrima provided and reviewed a Presentation - Business License Overview. For informational purposes, members were also provided a proposed Fiscal Year 2011 Business License Fee Schedule to become effective July 1, 2010. He explained that the automatic escalation in fees would apply to approximately 60% of the City=s business license holders who currently pay a fixed license fee. Mr. DePrima noted that the remaining 40% of license holders pay fees based on gross revenues or gross product purchased, which increase with inflation automatically. Responding to Dr. Jones regarding the issue of fairness, Mr. DePrima stated that the business license fees were developed during the 1960=s and that research has not been conducted to determine how these fees were established. Dr. Jones suggested that staff may wish to re-examine the fees to consider their redevelopment by taking into account business earnings, etc. Mr. Phil McGinnis, Owner/President of McGinnis Commercial Real Estate Company, 555 E. Loockerman Street, and Chair of the Kent County Association of Realtors Smart Growth Working Group, provided and reviewed a presentation to members. He noted that the revenue generated by business license fees in 2005 was $1.2M and that for 2010 $1.4M is reflected. He explained that this is a 17% increase resulting from natural growth, which equates to 3.4% per year. Therefore, Mr. McGinnis stated that the City receives a natural fee increase based on the availability of businesses conducting business within the City and felt there is no need for the City to raise fees to receive an increase. He also indicated that the City is proposing an increase during a period of a declining market, which is substantiated by the number of building permits issued and transfer tax revenues. He advised members that a declining market is not the time to institute an increase in business license fees. Dr. Joel Halpern, Halpern Eye Associates, 855 S. Governors Avenue, concurred with the suggestion made by Dr. Jones to review the fees as they relate to business earnings, etc. He felt that the costs incurred by medical establishments in conducting business have increased significantly over the years, stating that there are few "Cadillac doctors" any more. Dr. Halpern encouraged Council to ensure that business license fees are fair for everyone. Mrs. Judy Diogo, Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce, 435 N. DuPont Highway, reiterated that businesses can not handle any type of increase in fees during these challenging economic times. She urged members to reject any proposed increase at this time and that there not be any escalation language included in an ordinance, feeling that there is a need to review fees annually.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 14 Ms. Lisa Hastings, Faw Casson and Company, 160 Greentree Drive, reminded members that increases in business license revenues have been realized by the City throughout the years because the unit of measure, which is the number of businesses, has increased, and felt that an actual increase in the fees was not necessary to accomplish an increase. Referring to the escalation clause, Ms. Hastings stated that there are times when such a clause is beneficial for a short period of time; however, the current language does not provide for the opportunity for a review. As an example, she explained that the City would never consider a contract with a company that had a perpetual increase; however, would consider a contract that included an increase for two (2) to three (3) years. Mr. Tom Burns, Burns and Ellis Realtors, 490 N. DuPont Highway, noted how wonderful the City of Dover is, including its staff and elected and appointed officials, and he urged members not to grow beyond its small-town, well-run government. He stated that the people want good government but not more government, and when there is more money going to the government, the result is more government. He felt that, due to the difficult economic times, this is not the time to consider any increase. Responding to Mr. Salters regarding Page 8 of the presentation provided by Mr. DePrima, Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, advised members that the substantial increase in the CAFR audit fees from 2006 to 2007 was due to the change in accounting standards. She confirmed that the City has a five (5) year contract for the audit, that there is an annual escalator included in the contract, and that the escalator was included in prior contracts as well. In response to Dr. Jones, Mr. DePrima indicated that there is a relationship between the proposed fees and the development of the portion of the City=s budget attributed to services provided. However, he stated that the escalator clause had more to do with creating equity between the kinds of businesses that have a natural inflation factor and those that do not. He concurred that business license revenues have increased; however, he explained that there are two (2) reasons for the increase: 1) the number of businesses in the City has grown; and 2) 40% of businesses pay fees based on gross receipts, and these have increased. With regards to the comments regarding the re-examination of business license fees, Mr. DePrima suggested that Council could assign this to him as a goal for the upcoming year. He stated he understood the reluctance to incorporate an escalation clause in perpetuity and suggested that a fixed time, such as three (3) to five (5) years, could be established for review and re-evaluation. The Committee recommended striking the language in Section 26-36 regarding the annual increase in the fees (lines 168-174 in red font). The Committee recommended adoption of Ordinance #2010-11, as amended. In response to Mr. Leary, Dr. Jones suggested that the business community be invited to participate when the reconsideration and review of the business licenses is conducted. Mr. McGlumphy moved for approval of the Committee=s recommendation to strike the language

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 15 in Section 26-36 regarding the annual increase in the fees (lines 168-174 in red font), seconded by Mr. Leary. Mr. Leary clarified that the proposed increase for FY 2011 is not excluded in the motion. He also noted that the proposed fees include amounts such as $124.99 and suggested that these amounts be rounded to the nearest 50 cents. Referring to lines 10-16 of the Proposed Ordinance, Mr. Ruane suggested the need for their deletion since it appears that the escalating clause is mentioned twice in the Ordinance. The motion to approve striking the language in Section 26-36 regarding the annual increase in the fees (lines 168-174 in red font) was carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mrs. Williams move to strike the language in Section 26-35 regarding the annual increase in the fees (lines 10-16 in red font), seconded by Mr. Leary and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Leary moved to amend Section 26-35 to increase the fees according to the proposed index schedule provided, stipulating that amounts be rounded to the nearest 50 cents, seconded by Mr. Ruane and carried by a roll call vote of seven (7) yes and two (2) no (Mr. McGlumphy and Mrs. Williams). Mr. Salters moved for the adoption of Ordinance #2010-11 as amended, seconded by Mr. Leary and carried by a roll call vote of seven (7) yes and two (2) no (Mr. McGlumphy and Mrs. Williams). (The Final Reading and adoption of the Ordinance will take place during the latter part of the meeting). Mr. McGlumphy moved for acceptance of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried. MONTHLY CIP REPORT - MARCH 2010 Mr. McGiffin moved for acceptance of the Monthly CIP Report for March 2010, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. SET PUBLIC HEARING - ELECTRIC FUND BUDGET A public hearing on the Electric Revenue Fund Budget is required for compliance with the 1985 Electric Revenue (Refunding) Bonds Resolution - Annual Budget Section (as amended by 1990 Bond Resolution) prior to adoption of the budget. Staff recommended that the public hearing be set for June 14, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Ruane clarified that the recommendation is to set a public hearing for the Electric Fund Budget and does not include approval of such. Mr. Salters moved to set a public hearing for June 14, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. for the City of Dover Electric Fund Budget, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 16

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 17 COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - COUNCIL PRESIDENT Council President Hogan submitted his recommendations for committee appointments and requested approval, as follows: Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Utility Committee Thomas J. Leary, Chairman Eugene B. Ruane, Chairman James G. McGiffin, Jr. David L. Bonar Reuben Salters James G. McGiffin, Jr. Daniel Shevock (civilian member) Richard Snaman (civilian member) Bobby Jones (civilian member appointed by Major Richard Kosior (civilian member Committee Chair) appointed by Committee Chair) Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Civilian Pension Board Committee Thomas J. Leary Sophia R. Russell, Chairwoman William P. McGlumphy Eugene B. Ruane William P. McGlumphy Construction Code Board of Appeals Ann Horsey (civilian member) James G. McGiffin, Jr., Chairman David A. Lewis, Jr. (civilian member appointed by William P. McGlumphy Committee Chair) Police Pension Board Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee Thomas J. Leary Beverly C. Williams, Chairwoman William P. McGlumphy David L. Bonar Sophia R. Russell John J. Davis (civilian member) Mark D. Harmon (civilian member appointed by Committee Chair) Mr. McGiffin moved for approval of the Committee Appointments for 2010/2011, as recommended by the Council President, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. MISCELLANEOUS APPOINTMENTS - COUNCIL PRESIDENT Council President Hogan requested approval of the committee appointments, as follows: Liaison to Chamber of Commerce and Greater Dover Committee Liaison to Kent County (City/County Carleton E. Carey, Sr., Mayor Committee) Kenneth L. Hogan, Council President Carleton E. Carey, Sr., Mayor Kenneth L. Hogan, Council President Kent County Tourism Thomas J. Leary Kenneth L. Hogan, Council President William P. McGlumphy Reuben Salters Anthony J. DePrima, City Manager Mr. McGiffin moved for approval of the Miscellaneous Appointments for 2010/2011, as recommended by the Council President, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 18 APPOINTMENT RECOMMENDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT HOGAN - CHAPLAIN WALLACE DIXON - CITY CHAPLAIN (ANNUAL APPOINTMENT EXPIRES JUNE 2011) Council President Hogan recommended the reappointment of Chaplain Wallace Dixon to serve as the City Chaplain for a term to expire June 2011. Mr. McGiffin moved for approval of the reappointment of Chaplain Wallace Dixon, as recommended by Council President Hogan. The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. REZONING REQUESTS/FIRST READINGS Requests were received to rezone the following properties. Prior to amending the zoning ordinances and zoning map of the City of Dover, a public hearing is required. Staff recommended referral of the rezoning requests to the Planning Commission on June 21, 2010 and that a Public Hearing be set for July 12, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. Property Located on Saulsbury Road, South of Forrest Avenue, Owned by Route 8 & Saulsbury Road, LLC A rezoning request for property located on Saulsbury Road, south of Forrest Avenue, consisting of 1.01+/- acres, owned by Route 8 & Saulsbury Road, LLC. The property is currently zoned CPO (Commercial/Professional Office) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) and the requested zoning is C-2A (Limited Central Commercial) and subject to the COZ-1. (Tax Parcel: ED05-076.11-01-24.00-000; Planning Reference: Z-10-05). By motion of Mr. McGlumphy, seconded by Mrs. Williams, Council unanimously referred the following rezoning request to the Planning Commission for June 21, 2010 and set a public hearing for July 12, 2010 at 7:30 p.m.: In accordance with Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment as read by the City Clerk, by title only, as follows: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON SAULSBURY ROAD, SOUTH OF FORREST AVENUE. Property Located at 217 and 223 McKee Road, Owned by Mor-Kath-Ric, LLC A rezoning request for property located at 217 and 223 McKee Road, consisting of 1.12+/- acres, owned by Mor-Kath-Rie, LLC. The property is currently zoned R-7 (One Family Residence) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) and the requested zoning is RM-1 (Medium Density Residence) and subject to the COZ-1. (Tax Parcel: ED05-067.15-02-02.00-000; Planning Reference: Z-10-06). By motion of Mr. McGlumphy, seconded by Mr. Bonar, Council unanimously referred the

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 19 following rezoning request to the Planning Commission for June 21, 2010 and set a public hearing for July 12, 2010 at 7:30 p.m.: In accordance with Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment as read by the City Clerk, by title only, as follows: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 217 AND 223 McKEE ROAD. Property Located at 40-60 Ridgely Street, Owned by Robert A. and Nancy H. Kauffman A rezoning request for property located at 40-60 Ridgely Street, consisting of 2.0047+/- acres, owned by Robert A. and Nancy H. Kauffman. The property is currently zoned M (Manufacturing) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) and the requested zoning is C-3 (Service Commercial) and subject to the COZ-1. (Tax Parcel: ED05-076.08-01-26.01-000; Planning Reference: Z-10-07). By motion of Mr. McGlumphy, seconded by Mr. Leary, Council unanimously referred the following rezoning request to the Planning Commission for June 21, 2010 and set a public hearing for July 12, 2010 at 7:30 p.m.: In accordance with Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment as read by the City Clerk, by title only, as follows: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 40-60 RIDGELY STREET. FINAL READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2010-11 The First Reading of the following Proposed Ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of April 26, 2010. Council President Hogan noted that the Council=s action taken previously during their consideration of the Committee=s recommendation regarding this matter included amendments; therefore, adoption of the Ordinance will include all amendments. #2010-11 - Adoption of Business License Fee Schedule Mr. Leary moved that the Final Reading of the Proposed Ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried. Mr. Ruane moved for adoption of Ordinance #2010-11 - Adoption of Business License Fee Schedule (Exhibit #8), seconded by Mr. Leary and carried by a roll call vote of seven (7) yes and two (2) no (Mr. McGlumphy and Mrs. Williams). COUNCIL MEMBERS ANNOUNCEMENTS

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 20 Mr. McGiffin reminded members to mark their calendars for June 26, 2010 for the next African American Festival. Mr. Ruane referred to the comments regarding the 2010 Census made during the Open Forum and requested that residents be cooperative and suggested that the invitation provided be posted on the City=s Website. He noted that the amount of aid provided to the City is directly dependent upon the numbers obtained through the Census. Concurring, Mr. Leary advised members that the Census information is also utilized to determine voting districts and indicated that it is critical that this information is accurate. Referring to the specific areas mentioned in regards to the lack of responses received for the Census data thus far, Mr. Salters objected to this information being mentioned and suggested that with only a 69% return, responses throughout the City have been low. Mrs. Russell announced that the Dover Housing Authority, in partnership with the Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity, will be hosting a "1-2-3 A-B-C Community Event". Participants will be going throughout the community within a 20 block area, making small improvements to properties. She suggested that anyone interested in obtaining an application contact herself or Mr. William Neaton, Economic Development Director. Mr. Bonar noted that members of Council will be facing many decisions in the near future regarding the budget. He stated he intends to conduct a survey to determine the opinions of City residents. Mr. Leary moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried. Meeting Adjourned at 9:14 P.M. TRACI A. McDOWELL CITY CLERK All orders, ordinances, and resolutions adopted by City Council during their Regular Meeting of May 24, 2010, are hereby approved. CARLETON E. CAREY, SR.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 2010 PAGE 21 MAYOR /TM/jg mag4605.wpd Exhibits Attached to Original Minutes and File Copy Exhibit #1 - U.S. Census Bureau Open Invitation Exhibit #2 - Rezoning Petition - White Oak Road, Owned by TLFD Management, LLC Exhibit #3 - Rezoning Petition - Hazletteville Road - Nottingham Meadows Exhibit #4 - Rezoning Petition - 1059 Horsepond Road - David and Sherry Blake Exhibit #5 - Rezoning Petition - 1169 South State Street - YMCA Exhibit #6 - Presentation - Violation of Dangerous Building Ordinance - 715 Slaughter Street Exhibit #7 - Presentation - Violation of Dangerous Building Ordinance - 749 West North Street Exhibit #8 - Ordinance #2010-11 - Adoption of Business License Fee Schedule

EXHIBIT #1 Regular Council Meeting of 05/24/2010

EXHIBIT #2 Regular Council Meeting of 05/24/2010 PETITION TO AMEND ZONING DISTRICT Before the Dover City Council May 24, 2010 Applicants/Owners: TLFD Management, LLC PO Box 578 Dover, DE 19903 Location: White Oak Road, East of Delaware Route 1 Property Addresses: White Oak Road Dover, DE 19901 Tax Parcel ID #: LC-05-068.00-01-18.00-000 Size: 12.78± acres Present Zoning: R-20 (One-Family Residence) and SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) Proposed Zoning: R-8 (One-Family Residence) and SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) Present Use: Vacant/Wooded Comprehensive Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Proposed Use: Single Family Residences Planning Commission Recommendation: Following a public hearing on March 15, 2010 and April 19, 2010, the Planning Commission moved to approve the request to rezone the subject property from R-20 with AEOZ to R-8 with AEOZ. The motion was carried 5-0, with two members absent and two members abstaining because they missed the first meeting where the item was discussed. File Number: Z-10-01

This zoning change is being requested by TLFD Management, LLC. The subject parcel is currently zoned R-20 (One Family Residence Zone). The applicant is request R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) zoning. Tax Parcel: LC-05-068.00-01-18.00-000. Existing Property: The subject parcel is currently vacant and wooded. Surrounding Land Uses: The land adjacent to the site to the east is a neighborhood of single-family detached homes, zoned R-8 (One-Family Residence Zone). To the south and southeast, there is land zoned A (Agriculture Zone) in the City of Dover. The property immediately west is zoned RM-2, and is known as Bay Village. The City has received a sketch plan submission for this as a Planned Neighborhood Design (PND), but as of this writing it has not yet been reviewed by City Council. The parcels along White Oak Road to the east and west of the subject parcel are zoned R-20 (One-Family Residence Zone). The White Oak Salvage Yard, across White Oak Road is zoned IG (General Industrial Zone) in Kent County and other lands across White Oak Road are zoned AR (Agricultural Residential Zone) in Kent County. The subject parcel and surrounding lands are within the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone), Tier 2 Primary Wellhead Protection Area. Comprehensive Plan: In the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, the Land Development Plan recommends that this property be used for Low Density Residential uses. The requested R-8 (One-Family Residence Zone) is consistent with this category of uses. Preliminary Land Use Service (PLUS) Review State agencies reviewed the proposed rezoning application and associated development proposal through the PLUS process, on Wednesday, February 24, 2010. The City has not yet received written comments from this review, but at the meeting the Office of State Planning Coordination stated opposition to the rezoning, and the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control expressed concerns regarding drainage in the area and potential wetlands on the site. These factors may affect the development of the site and would be reviewed upon receipt of a development application. Previous Rezoning Application This site was the subject of a rezoning application in 2006, which City Council denied on November 13, 2006. The motion to deny was as follows: Mr. Ruane moved to deny the rezoning request based on the importance of the Garrison Tract as an economic development asset, the 1999 Garrison Tract 0HPRUDQGXPRI8QGHUVWDQGLQJDQGWKH6WDWH¶VRSSRVLWLRQWRWKHUHTXHst. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hogan and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Since this time, the City has begun planning of the Garrison Oak Technical Park, and following adoption of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, City Council voted favorably to rezone the land to the

Z-10-01 Lands of TLFD Management, LLC Report to City Council ± May 24, 2010 Page 3 immediate west from A (Agriculture) to RM-2 (Medium Density Residence). The State continues to oppose the rezoning request of the subject property. Request for R-8 (One-Family Residence Zone) The types of permitted uses in the R-8 (One-Family Residence Zone) mirror those in the current R-20 (One-Family Residence Zone); however the bulk standards differ. Article 4, Section 4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance address bulk standards for the One-Family Residence Zones. The bulk standards are as follows: Section 4.1. [One-family residence zones.] Bulk and parking regulations for one-family residence, R-20, R-15, R-10, R-8 and R-7 zones [are as follows] (see also article 12, definitions; article 5, supplementary regulations; and article 6, off- street parking, driveways and loading facilities): TABLE INSET: For Dwellings In: R-20 R-15 R-10 R-8 R-7 Minimum required: Lot area (sq. ft.) 20,000 15,000 10,000 8,000 7,000 Lot width (ft.) 120 100 80 70 50 Lot depth (ft.) 150 125 110 100 100 Front yard (ft.) 30 30 25 25 20 Minimum side yard (ft.) 25 20 15 10 5 Total both side yards (ft.) 50 40 30 20 10 Rear yard (ft.) 40 40 30 30 30 Livable floor area/DU (sq. ft.) 1,200 1,200 Off-street parking spaces/dwelling units 3 3 2 2 2 Maximum permitted: Building height Stories 2 1/2 2 1/2 2 1/2 2 1/2 2 1/2 Feet 35 35 35 35 35 Lot coverage 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Recommendation of the Planning Staff and Planning Commission: This request is to rezone land from R-20 (One-Family Residence Zone) to R-8 (One-Family Residence Zone). The only difference between the current zone and requested zone is the bulk standards, primarily the lot coverage, minimum lot size, and lot dimensions. With the difference in bulk standards, a higher density development could potentially be built under the R-8 (One- Family Residence Zone).

Z-10-01 Lands of TLFD Management, LLC Report to City Council ± May 24, 2010 Page 4 The requested zoning is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan; however, Staff has some FRQFHUQVDERXWWKHLQFUHDVHLQGHQVLW\JLYHQWKHVLWH¶VORFDWLRQDQGVLWHFKDUDFWHULVWLFV7KHVLWH is almost entirely wooded, and the State Wetland Maps, developed by the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, indicate the presence of wetlands on the site. While these maps are not a definitive determination of wetland presence, they are an indication of the presence of wetlands and wet soils on the site. The applicant indicates that a wetland delineation has been conducted and reveals that there are no wetlands on the site. They have provided a copy to staff. Staff acknowledges that the land use picture has somewhat changed in this area since the City Council denied a rezoning request in 2006. Under the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, adjacent lands were designated as Residential Medium Density and subsequently rezoned to RM-2 (Medium Density Residential). Additionally, the City has begun actively planning for the development of the Garrison Oak Technical Park, northwest of the subject property. Staff recommendation was made prior to public hearing. Following a public hearing held on March 15, 2010, and held open until April 19, 2010, the Planning Commission moved to approve the request to rezone the subject property from R-20 with AEOZ to R-8 with AEOZ. The motion was carried 5-0, with two members absent and two members abstaining because they missed the first meeting where the item was discussed. Excerpts from the meeting minutes are below for reference: Excerpt from Planning Commission Minutes of April 19, 2010: Z-10-01 Lands of TLFD at White Oak Road - Continuation of the Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council on a rezoning application consisting of one parcel of land consisting of a total of 12.78 acres ±. The property is currently zoned R-20 (One Family Residence Zone) and SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) Tier 2. The proposed zoning is R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) and SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) Tier 2. The subject area is located on the south side of White Oak Road, south of Mourning Dove Lane. The owner of record is TFLD Management, LLC. Tax Parcel: LC05- 068.00-01-18.00-000. Council District 3. This item was tabled by the Planning Commission at the March 15, 2010 meeting until the April meeting. Representative: Mr. Frank DiMondi, Property Owner. Mr. Tolbert moved to lift from the table Application Z-10-01 Lands of TLFD at White Oak Road, seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion was unanimously carried. 0UV7RZQVKHQGSURYLGHGDQXSGDWHRQWKHDSSOLFDWLRQUHJDUGLQJWKH6WDWH¶V3/86&RPPHQWV along with a packet of information provided by the applicant addressing issues and concerns that were brought up at the last meeting. Mr. DiMondi stated that with regards to the issue of trees and wetlands, no matter what the property is zoned, they will still have to go through Site Plan approval. We have been over the Wetlands Study and will have to address that during Site Plan approval.

Z-10-01 Lands of TLFD Management, LLC Report to City Council ± May 24, 2010 Page 5 Mr. DiMondi further stated that with regards to the PLUS review, it boils down to the understanding that the State, back in 2006 when City Council rejected their request, is the 6WDWH¶VUHMHFWLRQRIUH]RQLQJLQUHIHUHQFHWRWKH0HPRUDQGXPRI8QGHUVWDQGLQJEHWZHHQWKH State, City, and County which defines the lands east of Route 1 as agricultural and low density residential lands. The Memorandum of Understanding states and concludes that the combination of City, State and County governments would agree to growth controls to protect the areas east of SR 1 from overdevelopment. The City of Dover agreed to strongly adhere to the Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations for the areas east of SR 1 which is agricultural and low density development. The Memorandum of Understanding supports low density development in the east area of SR 1. The TLFD property that they own on White Oak 5RDGPHHWVWKH&LW\¶VGHVLJQDWLRQRIORZGHQVLW\DVFRQILUPHGE\WKH&LW\RI'RYHU¶V6WDII during a meeting dated March 8, 2010. The Land Use and Zoning Matrix chart in the 2003 Comprehensive Plan shows that R-8 is considered residential low density. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that low density residential should be directed to peripheral suburban rural fringe areas similar to the land owned by TLFD Management. It also states that low density residential uses are recommended in areas immediately adjacent to existing low density residential neighborhoods for reasons of compatibility. The TLFD Property, according to Staff, falls into both Level 2 and 3 categories concerning development potential in the City of Dover. $SURSHUW\LQ/HYHOPHHWVWKH&LW\¶VSUHVHQWGHYHORSPHQWSODQVDQGD/HYHOSODQZRXOG support development in a long range plan. The property has City of Dover water and sewer available to it. The request for the properties of TLFD Management are consistent with the adjacent properties and is adjacent to a large subdivision zoned R-8 known as Simpson Log Homes. R-8 property is located across the street along with IPM-2 zoning. Most recently, as most of you know, 78 acres of adjacent property of AR was recently converted to RM-2 (Residential Medium and High Density). 0U'L0RQGLIXUWKHUVWDWHGWKDWWKH6WDWH¶VOHWWHUDOVRWDONHGDERXWFRPELQLQJZLWKJUHHQHQHUJ\ initiatives. One of our companies is the leader in the local area and the State of Delaware for green energy efficiency in that we use ICF forms and are producing homes that reduce the energy up to seventy-five (75) percent for heating and cooling costs. We think it would be excellent if we could team up with the solar power across the street which is what we are currently doing. We believe that the combination of our type of energy efficient construction teamed up with the solar power at Garrison Oak Solar Farm would create an ultimate green community that would be available for State and federal green house credits. Mr. DiMondi further stated that in conclusion, their land is surrounded and borders adjacent properties zoned R-8. Our request to rezone to R-8 is compatible to the surrounding properties. Our properties are adjacent to 78 acres of RM-2 and a proposed Site Plan that creates 462 homes which includes a mix of apartments, townhomes, duplexes, and single family detached homes that would be called Bay Village. Our property meets Level 2 and 3 categories concerning development potential in the City of Dover. City of Dover water and sewer is available to the site. Our proposed zoning is considered low density which is supported by the &LW\¶V&RPSUHKHQVLYHPlan, the Zoning Matrix Chart, and the current Zoning Map that is SUHVHQWO\RQWKH&LW\¶VZHEVLWHWKDWVKRZVORZGHQVLW\7KH6WDWH¶VVWDWHPHQWDOVRVD\VWKDWWKH FXUUHQW]RQLQJGHVLJQDWLRQLVFRQVLVWHQWZLWK'RYHU¶V&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQDQGLVPRUHLQ keeping with long standing policies of encouraging land conservation activities east of Route 1. What the State does not understand is that the current zoning designation of our property and WKHSURSRVHG]RQLQJFKDQJHERWKPHHWWKH&LW\¶V&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQIor low density. The 6WDWH¶VREMHFWLRQOHWWHUFODVVLILHVWKH³QHZPRGLILHGSRVLWLRQ´WKDWWKH6WDWHLVWDNLQJFRQFHUQLQJ the rezoning of the adjacent 78 acres from AR to RM-DVD³XQLTXH´RSSRUWXQLW\DQGDVSHFLDO

Z-10-01 Lands of TLFD Management, LLC Report to City Council ± May 24, 2010 Page 6 circumstance as stated in their letter. As a land developer doing business in the City of Dover, it is critical that we believe land planning decisions are consistent and adhere to the existing Comprehensive Plan that is presently in place. Although the State objects to the rezoning, it is the &LW\¶VULJKWWRGHWHUPLQHLIWKHUH]RQLQJUHTXHVWPHHWVWKH&LW\¶V&RPSUHKHQVLYH development plans for the area. It is clear that if our property is rezoned to R-8 it will be FODVVLILHGE\WKH&LW\DVORZGHQVLW\ZKLFKPHHWVHYHQWKH6WDWH¶VDFFHSWDEOHGHsignation for development east of Route 1. The findings of fact completely support our basis for our rezoning request. 0U+HPPLJVWDWHGWKDWEHFDXVHKHZDVQRWDWODVWPRQWK¶VPHHWLQJDQGGLGQRWKDYHWKH opportunity to hear the public testimony, he is not going to participate in discussion and will abstain from the vote. Mr. Holt questioned who overrides who? The State obviously does not want development east of Route 1. What kind of precedence would we be setting if we approve this? Responding to Mr. Holt, Mr. Friedman stated that we have the authority in the City to do what is most appropriate according to our codes. We balance it out by looking at surrounding areas and infrastructure. Also responding to Mr. Holt, Mrs. Townshend stated that the State has delegated land use DXWKRULW\WRORFDOJRYHUQPHQWVVRLWLVWKH&LW\¶VGLVFUHWLRQ7KH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ¶VUROHLQ this is advisory to City Council. You would be making a recommendation to City Council that ultimately in terms of the land use within the City to the degree that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as the jurisdiction of the City. Mr. Friedman opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak closed the public hearing. Mrs. Townshend stated for the record, Mr. Hemmig would be abstaining from the vote as he ZDVQRWSUHVHQWDWODVWPRQWK¶VPHHWLQJ0U6KRPRZDVDOVRQRWSUHVHQW0U1LFKROV0U Friedman, Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Holt, and Mr. Baldwin DUHWKH&RPPLVVLRQHU¶VZKRDUHDEOHWR participate in the vote on this matter. Mr. Holt questioned if there would be any further public testimony for this application? Responding to Mr. Holt, Mr. Friedman stated that no not for this application. We are recommending to City Council a rezoning only. 0UV7RZQVKHQGVWDWHGWKDWVKHZRXOGOLNHWRUHVSRQGLQUHVSRQVHWR0U+HPPLJ¶VTXHVWLRQ regarding access to Governors Avenue, on the DelDOT comments, their second comment indicates that no direct access will be granted to individual parcels on South Governors Avenue and South State Street. These are things that in the future, when a Site Plan comes through, DelDOT will be looking at this issue. Responding to Mrs. Townshend, Mr. Moore stated that what he interpreted this to mean was that we could access those parking lots if they stay there which they likely will; however, they do not want individual accesses to other parts of our campus that are disconnected. Mr. Baldwin moved to forward approval to City Council application Z-10-01 Lands of TLFD at White Oak Road, seconded by Mr. Tolbert and the motion was unanimously carried 5-0 with Mr. Hemmig and Mr. Shomo abstaining from the vote due to being absent at the last monthly meeting. Mr. Ambruso and Colonel Welsh were absent.

Z-10-01 Lands of TLFD Management, LLC Report to City Council ± May 24, 2010 Page 7 Excerpt from Planning Commission Minutes of March 15, 2010: Z-10-01 Lands of TLFD - Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council on a rezoning application consisting of one parcel of land consisting of a total of 12.78 acres ±. The property is currently zoned R-20 (One Family Residence Zone) and SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) Tier 2. The proposed zoning is R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) and SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) Tier 2. The subject area is located on the south side of White Oak Road, south of Mourning Dover Lane. The owner of record is TLFD Management, LLC. Tax Parcel: LC05-068.00-01-18.00-000. Council District 3. Representatives: 0U)UDQN'L0RQGLDQG0U7HG/D\WRQ2ZQHU¶VRI7/)'0DQDJHPHQW Mrs. Townshend presented an overview of the application and noted receipt of a PLUS preview letter from the Office of State Planning Coordination dated 3/9/10. Mr. DiMondi stated that he would recap some of the history for this property because he feels that it is important with regards to their most recent rezoning request. Three and a half years ago was our first original request for rezoning from R-20 to R-8. Back in September 2006, Dover Staff recommended rezoning from R-20 to R-8. Staff comments for rezoning were in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. On October 19, 2006 TLFD which is the management company that owns the property, received notice from the City that the Dover Planning Commission unanimously approved the rezoning request. The matter went to City Council on October 23, 2006 in which there was a motion to grant approval of the request where there was a second. It was not until another Council member had a question or issue with regards to clarification of the Memorandum of Understanding between the City, State and County and how it regarded what type of development would take place east of Route 1. What happened in that meeting was the application was tabled and moved to the next City Council meeting where a letter dated 11/9/06 ZDVVXEPLWWHGE\WKH6WDWHRI'HODZDUHWKDWVWDWHG³WKHUHTXHVWWRLQFUHDVHUHVLGHQWLDOGHQVLty in this area is contrary to the provision of the 1999 Memorandum of Understanding which identifies the most desirable future land uses east of Route 1 as agricultural, low-GHQVLW\UHVLGHQWLDO´7KH OHWWHUZHQWRQWRVWDWHWKDW³ZHFDQVXSSRUWQRLQFUHDVHLQGHQVLW\LQWKLVDUHD´$VDUHVXOWWKH&LW\ &RXQFLORQ1RYHPEHUUHMHFWHGWKHUH]RQLQJGXHWRWKH6WDWH¶VSRVLWLRQ Mr. DiMondi further stated that the Memorandum of Understanding states and concludes that the combination of the City, State and County governments would agree to have growth controls to protect the areas east of SR-1 from over development. As a result, the City of Dover strongly agreed to adhere to the Comprehensive Plan and zoning designation for the areas east of SR-1. The Memorandum of Understanding supports low-density development in the areas east of SR-1 and according to the 2003 Comprehensive Plan, their rezoning request meets the definition of low- density development. At the time of rejection, what continues today, is that the TLFD property PHHWVWKH&LW\¶VGHVLJQDWLRQRIORZ-density as confirmed by the City of Dover Staff during a most recent meeting dated March 8, 2010. The Land Use and Zoning Matrix Chart also shows that R-8 is considered residential low-density. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that low-density residential should be directed towards a peripheral suburban rural fringe similar to the land owned by TLFD Management. It also states that low-density residential uses are recommended in areas immediately adjacent to existing low-density residential neighborhoods for reasons of compatibility. The TLFD property, according to Staff, falls into both Level 2 and Level 3 categories concerning the development potential for the property. A property in LeveO  PHHWV WKH &LW\¶V SUHVHQW development plans and Level 3 would support development in a long range plan. The property has City of Dover sewer and water availability to it as it exists. The request for rezoning of the TLFD

Z-10-01 Lands of TLFD Management, LLC Report to City Council ± May 24, 2010 Page 8 property is consistent with adjoining properties. This property is adjacent to a large subdivision zoned R-8 known as Simpson Log Homes with R-8 property located across the street along with IPM zoning and most recently, seventy-eight (78) acres of adjacent AR which was converted to RM-2 zoning. Mr. DiMondi stated that their request today is to go from R-20 to R-8. R-20 is when they take into account any areas that may be wet or wooded where they could get eight (8) to nine (9) housing lots out of this particular piece. R-8 is when we take into account the tree ordinance where we would get between fifteen (15) and sixteen (16) units. Mr. Friedman interrupted at this time stating that Mr. DiMondi was re-iterating everything that this Commission already knows and could he please summarize his testimony. Mr. DiMondi further stated that in building his case, what you have is that their original case was turned down by City Council because of the Memorandum of Understanding. They have seventy- eight (78) acres adjacent to them that went from Agricultural to an RM-2 zoning. The State reversed their position on the Memorandum of Understanding and reversed their opinion in the letter that City Council used to reject their original proposal. Mr. DiMondi further stated that in conclusion, our proposed change from R-20 to R-8 will result only in an increase of six (6) to seven (7) lots after Site Plan meets City of Dover approval. A dramatic increase in bulk density should not be an issue. Our land surrounds and borders adjacent properties zoned R-8. Our request to rezone to R-8 is compatible to the surrounding properties. Our property is now adjacent to seventy-eight (78) acres of RM-2 and a proposed Site Plan that would create 462 homes of which would include a mix of apartments, townhomes, duplexes and single family detached homes that will be known as Bay Village. Our property meets Level 2 and Level 3 categories from concerning development potential in the City of Dover. City of Dover ZDWHU DQG VHZHU LV DYDLODEOH WR WKH VLWH  7KH 6WDWH¶V QHZ SRVLWLRQ of support of the rezoning of seventy-eight (78) acres of AR to RM-2 should no longer be a basis for a rejection of our proposed UH]RQLQJ7KH6WDWH¶VPRVWUHFHQWOHWWHUGDWHG0DUFKVSHFLILFDOO\VWDWHVWKDWWKHSURSRVHG White Oak Road subdivision will require rezoning from R-20 to R-8 which represents an increase in residential density which is not the case. Our proposed zoning is considered low density which is VXSSRUWHG E\ WKH &LW\¶V &RPSUHKHQVLYH 3ODQ WKH =RQLQJ 0DWUL[ &KDUW DQG WKH 0HPRUDQGXm of Understanding between the State and the City. Our request is to change the bulk standards which in our case, is a total of six (6) to seven (7) lots. The State also states that the current zoning GHVLJQDWLRQLVFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKH'RYHU¶V&RPSUHKHQsive Plan and is more in keeping with their long standing policy of encouraging land preservation and conservation activities east of Route 1. :KDWWKH6WDWHGRHVQRWXQGHUVWDQGLVWKDWWKHFXUUHQW]RQLQJGHVLJQDWLRQRIWKHLU WKHDSSOLFDQW¶V  property anG WKH SURSRVHG ]RQLQJ FKDQJH ERWK PHHW WKH &LW\¶V &RPSUHKHQVLYH 3ODQ IRU ORZ density. Our proposed zoning change according to Staff, the most recent Comprehensive Plan and existing MOU meets the definition of low density development. Mr. Friedman stated that it is a well known fact that the State of Delaware would prefer that there be no development east of SR-1 for a variety of reasons. You focused on some good points, one of them being that we always look for good infrastructure and that is in place there. We also look for compatibility to other areas, we would also note that the Garrison Oak Park has already moved IRUZDUGZLWKDVRODUHQHUJ\ILHOGDQGDGKHUHQFHWRWKH&LW\RI'RYHU¶V&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQ Mr. Holt stated that with regard to wetlands, he is confused because first they say that there are no wetlands and then the State says that there are wetlands. He believes that if you went out there

Z-10-01 Lands of TLFD Management, LLC Report to City Council ± May 24, 2010 Page 9 today they would be wet. Responding to Mr. Holt, Mr. Friedman stated that one of the points to be made regarding this issue is if you read the comments from Staff, this is that what they are telling the applicant. That, if this in fact this does goes forward, they need to be aware that there is a lot of other stuff that would need to be dealt with in Site Plan approval. Mr. DiMondi stated that this has been an issue between him and Staff back and forth. We did have an Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination done on the property and the Army Corps of Engineers stated that there are no wetlands on the property. Just like any other type of property, there are some wet areas on the property. Most of the post-development water run-off is going to be less than pre-development run-off. Once we develop the land, more than likely, we would control the water better after development than what it is being controlled right now. He has spoke with DNREC for clarification because two to three years ago we went through this with DNREC and made it very specific that if the Army Corps of Engineers did not have a problem with the site that they did not either. Mr. Tolbert stated that at this point, we are only considering rezoning so we do not have to even get into the issues regarding wetlands. Mr. Nichols stated that they have twelve (12) acres and they are only going to be able to use six (6) acres. By the time you put in a retention pond, that will probably be cut down to three (3) acres and then you will have to worry about drainage and he does not know where that will go. Right now your feasibility, even with the type of ground that you have, is going to be extremely low trying to get people to live there. Responding to Mr. Nichols, Mr. DiMondi stated that once again, we understand what the site looks like and what it contains. We have worked with our engineer and that is why we rely on him for his expertise. We have been told that the property is zoned R-20 and that we could expect eight (8) to nine (9) building lots out of it taking into account any wet depressed areas, roads, and stormwater management. If we go from R-20 to R-8 zoning, this number could go to fifteen (15) or sixteen (16) units. This is taking into account where the water would go. There is a big tax ditch in the back of the property that we have already contacted Kent Conservation District about out-falling to it which does not seem to be an issue. Mr. Nichols further questioned with regards to the Army Corps of Engineers, do you have this in black and white? Responding to Mr. Nichols, Mr. DiMondi stated that yes, they do. Colonel Welsh stated that he has a problem with this issue because we still do not have a response from the State on the PLUS comments. We are expected to render a decision tonight to go forward to City Council for a recommendation to approve or disapprove without having the benefit of the State review which by law they must do. It would seem to him that the appropriate thing to do until all agencies have reviewed it and given it recommendations would be to table the application. Mr. Friedman opened a public hearing. Mr. L.D. Shank ± Managing Partner of Bay Village, LLC ± If he were to speak on this application, he would be for it as an adjoining property owner not only because of a two generation relationship with the DiMondi family; however, also because of common sense. Water and sewer was placed out there twenty-five (25) years ago to be used; therefore he has no objections from his neighbors. Mr. Michael Mead ± 114 Brandywine Drive; and representing his Father who lives at 2196 White Oak Road ± +LVIDWKHU¶VSURSHUW\LVDGMDFHQWWRWKHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWDQGKHLVKHUH

Z-10-01 Lands of TLFD Management, LLC Report to City Council ± May 24, 2010 Page 10 on his behalf. He wanted to let the developers know that he is not opposed to anyone developing. His house has been there for fifty years and five years previous to that, we lived across the street so we know the area extensively better than anyone else even though we have been away and then came back. We have watched things develop. Water is the biggest problem that we have, and he has met with Mr. Koenig at the property and have talked with Mr. DePrima (City Manager); KHKDVVHQWWKHPYDULRXVOHWWHUVDQGSLFWXUHV+HKDGDSLFWXUHRIWKHIURQWRIKLVIDWKHU¶VSURSHUW\ that is an L-shaped ranch and their entrance runs right along the west side of the property and this is heading east and the rest of the development would be behind it. Just recently, over the past few years, what they see with the Corps of Engineers study, with all due respect, is because there is no real water management system in place at the Simpson Log Homes, is that the water has increased tremendously. The picture he presented has been in the paper twice because he has tried to point this out that the City of Dover should be concerned because on the more severe range, the road is completely covered with water. You do not really see it coming so when cars are traveling at excessive speeds there then they come up on this water with a splash there is problems with that. His only concern, like he has said is water. They are pro-development; they can build 100 houses back there if they want. That is not the problem. We just want to make sure, and it does not sound like tonight other than the study that has been made. Realistically, we would applaud if it would that some of the water that is collecting on the Simpson Log Homes site is taken away and the problem it is creating. There is no possible way that any additional homes can be built unless there is a better water management system or retention ponds that were mentioned. He would agree that if all of the findings are not in, he does not feel that you can make a real educated decision without knowing that. After seeing no one else wishing to speak Mr. Friedman stated that he would leave the public hearing open for the next meeting when that does occur. Colonel Welsh moved to table Z-10-01 Lands of TLFD until next month or until we have received the State PLUS review comments for the proposal and to also allow time to review the 30 page package that was placed on our desks this evening along with comments this evening, seconded by Mr. Nichols and the motion was unanimously carried 6-0 with Mr. Shomo, Mr. Hemmig, and Mr. Ambruso absent. Attachments: Exhibit Map PLUS Letter dated March 23, 2010 Supplemental Report Submitted by Applicant DAC Agency Reports

City of Dover Application No.: Z-10-01 Department of Planning & Inspections IPM R-8 IPM-2 Site R-20 RM-2 A Plan Title: Lands of JNK, LLC Location: White Oak Road Legend Plan Type: Rezoning Dover Boundary Tax Parcel: ED-05-068.00-01-18.00-000 Zoning: R-20 current, R-8 proposed Dover Parcels Owner: TLFD Management, LLC Zoning Date: 2-17-10 SWPOZ Tier 2 0 250 500 1,000 Feet «

     STATE OF DELAWARE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT  OFFICE OF STATE PLANNING COORDINATION       March 23, 2010 Mr. Jeffrey C. Williams Kercher Engineering 254 Chapman Road, Ste. 202 Newark, DE 19702 RE: PLUS review – 2010-02-01; White Oak Road Subdivision Dear Mr. Williams: Thank you for meeting with State agency planners on March 24, 2010 to discuss the proposed plans for the White Oak Road Subdivision to be located on the south side of White Oak Road, 1340 ft. west of Long Point Road, within the City of Dover. According to the information received, you are seeking a rezoning of 12.78 acres from R-20 to R-8 for 17 single family homes. Please note that changes to the plan, other than those suggested in this letter, could result in additional comments from the State. Additionally, these comments reflect only issues that are the responsibility of the agencies represented at the meeting. The developers will also need to comply with any Federal, State and local regulations regarding this property. We also note that as the City of Dover is the governing authority over this land, the developers will need to comply with any and all regulations/restrictions set forth by the County. Strategies for State Policies and Spending This project is located within a Level 2 and Level 3 according to the Strategies for State Policies and Spending and within the City of Dover. Investment Level 2 and 3 generally reflect areas where growth is anticipated by local, county, and State plans in the near to long term future. However, the project’s location East of Route 1 is a particular concern. It is the State’s policy to discourage new growth East of State Route 1. Starting with the historic Coastal Zone Act, State actions have encouraged natural resource and agricultural preservation rather than growth and development in this area of Kent County. 122WilliamPennStreet˜ThirdFloor˜Dover,DE19901 Phone(302)739Ͳ3090˜Fax(302)739Ͳ6958˜www.stateplanning.delaware.gov  

PLUS 2010-02-01 Page 2 of 10  When the State purchased the Garrison Oak tract for the City for the development of an employment center, it came with the understanding that the development of the tract would not encourage or enable further development East of Route 1. In the intervening years the State has modified this position by supporting the development of Evergreen Acres (PLUS 2009-06-03) as a unique opportunity for workforce housing tied to the development of the Garrison Oak Technology Park. In our letter about that project, dated July 22, 2009, we conditioned our support by stipulating that “There is a clear understanding by all parties that this development is a special circumstance which addresses both economic development and land conservation objectives, and does not in any way represent a policy shift which would allow or encourage other land developments E. of Route 1.” The proposed White Oak Road Subdivision will require a rezoning from R20 to R8, representing an increase in residential density. The current zoning designation is consistent with Dover’s certified comprehensive plan and is more in keeping with our longstanding policy of encouraging land preservation and conservation activities East of Route 1. The State does not support the rezoning of this parcel for these reasons. Code Requirements/Agency Permitting Requirements x It is important that the developer be aware of the Delaware Unmarked Human Remains Act of 1987, outlined in Chapter 54 of Title 7 of the Delaware Code, which pertains to the discovery and disposition of such remains. The unexpected discovery of unmarked human remains during construction can result in significant delays while the process is carried out. x Sediment and Stormwater Program. A detailed sediment and stormwater plan will be required prior to any land disturbing activity taking place on the site. It is strongly recommended that the owner and consultant contact the Kent Conservation District to schedule a project application meeting to discuss the sediment and erosion control and stormwater management components of the plan. The site topography, soils mapping, pre- and post-development runoff, and proposed method(s) and location(s) of stormwater management should be brought to the meeting for discussion. The plan review and approval as well as construction inspection will be coordinated through the Kent Conservation District. Contact Jared Adkins, Program Manager, at the Kent Conservation District at (302) 741-2600, ext. 3 for details regarding submittal requirements and fees. The property does not appear to extend to the tax ditch. Please discuss the proposed use of Prong B of the White Oak Tax Ditch as an outlet for the stormwater on this site at the project application meeting. x TMDLs. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for nitrogen and phosphorus have been promulgated through regulation for the Leipsic River watershed. A TMDL is the maximum level of pollution allowed for a given pollutant below which a “water quality limited water body” can assimilate and still meet water quality standards to the extent necessary to support use goals such as, swimming, fishing, drinking water and shell fish 

PLUS 2010-02-01 Page 3 of 10  harvesting. Although TMDLs are required by federal law, states are charged with developing and implementing standards to support these desired use goals. In the Leipsic River watershed, “target-rate-nutrient reductions” of 40 percent will be required for nitrogen and phosphorus. Additionally, “target-rate-reductions” of 75 percent will be required for bacteria. More on TMDLs is included in the “Recommendations” category. x Should dewatering points be needed during any phase of construction, a dewatering well construction permit must be obtained from the Water Supply Section prior to construction of the well points. In addition, a water allocation permit will be needed if the pumping rate will exceed 50,000 gallons per day at any time during operation. x All well permit applications must be prepared and signed by licensed water well contractors, and only licensed well drillers may construct the wells. Please factor in the necessary time for processing the well permit applications into the construction schedule. Dewatering well permit applications typically take approximately four weeks to process, which allows the necessary time for technical review and advertising. Ricardo Rios - (302) 739-9944, Ricardo.Rios@state.de.us Recommendations/Additional Information This section includes a list of site specific suggestions that are intended to enhance the project. These suggestions have been generated by the State Agencies based on their expertise and subject area knowledge. These suggestions do not represent State code requirements. They are offered here in order to provide proactive ideas to help the applicant enhance the site design, and it is hoped (but in no way required) that the applicant will open a dialogue with the relevant agencies to discuss how these suggestions can benefit the project. Department of Agriculture x Right Tree for the Right Place The Delaware Department of Agriculture Forest Service encourages the developer to use the “Right Tree for the Right Place” for any design considerations. This concept allows for the proper placement of trees to increase property values in upwards of 25% of appraised value and will reduce heating and cooling costs on average by 20 to 35 dollars per month. In addition, a landscape design that encompasses this approach will avoid future maintenance cost to the property owner and ensure a lasting forest resource. 

PLUS 2010-02-01 Page 4 of 10  x Do Not Plant List: Due to the high risk of mortality from insects and disease, the Delaware Forest Service does not recommend planting any of the following species: Callery Pear Leyland Cypress Red Oak (except for Willow Oak) Ash Trees Please contact the Delaware Forest Service for more information at (302) 698-4500. State Historic Preservation Office x According to observations and evaluation, there are no known historic or cultural resources in this project area, such as archaeological sites or National Register-Listed property on or near this proposed project site. x However, since Delaware has a strong agricultural and rural heritage, there is a possibility that could be a historic-period or prehistoric-period archaeological site historically associated with Delaware’s agricultural or rural heritage, which have not been found, but may contain important information about Delaware’s history. x Prior to any demolition or ground-disturbing activities, the developer may want to consider hiring an archaeological consultant to examine the parcel for archaeological sites, including a cemetery or unmarked human remains. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Terence Burns at 302-736-7404. DelDOT x DelDOT recognizes that that the internal streets would be City streets and therefore outside their jurisdiction. Nonetheless, they offer the following advisory comments regarding them. The proposed stub street leading to the Bay Village of Dover property is laudable, but it may not be in the best place. There is an existing stub street in the adjoining Oak Shadows subdivision that aligns with Lot 5 and the proposed stub street. If the subject development can only be connected to Oak Shadows or Bay Village, DelDOT would recommend that the connection be made to Oak Shadows because the stub exists and the connection can be made now. By comparison, there is no approved plan for Bay Village of Dover and no definite date for its construction. If possible, the subject development should be connected to both Oak Shadows and Bay Village of Dover and the stub street to Bay Village should be shifted south, perhaps to the cul-de- sac bulb, so as to discourage through traffic between Oak Shadows and Bay Village. x If the rezoning is approved, DelDOT recommends that the developer have their engineer contact the DelDOT Subdivision Manager for the north part of Kent County, Mr. Julio Seneus, for more detailed comments on the site plan as they develop it further. Mr. Seneus may be reached at (302) 760-2145. 

PLUS 2010-02-01 Page 5 of 10  DNREC Fish and Wildlife - Please contact Edna Stetzar at (302) 653-2880 ext. 101 or at Edna.Stetzar@state.de.us x Site Survey Request. The forest on the project parcel is potentially more than 70 years of age, which may be late successional to early mature depending on the composition of the plant community and development of the understory. According to 1937 aerial imagery the forest was in a stage of young growth at that time. Our community ecologist is interested in mapping the vegetation communities at this site as part of a state-wide effort to evaluate forest communities and map wildlife habitat. The survey would be conducted at no expense to the landowner. A report of the survey and vegetative community map would be generated for the applicant’s use in the planning of this project. If unique vegetative communities are observed during the survey, recommendations to reduce impacts will be offered for consideration. Please contact Edna Stetzar if the landowner will grant a site visit. Recommendations: x It is important to maintain connections between areas of habitat across the landscape. These areas provide cover and space for wildlife to travel during daily, seasonal, and migratory activities. This project is basically surrounded by parcels also being considered for development. Open space that occurs in small disconnected areas next to lots or that occurs as a narrow strip between developments is not as useful to wildlife as those areas of open space that are larger and connect to other undeveloped areas of open space. We recommend the applicant consider coordinating with adjacent landowners so that habitat connections can be maximized. DNREC further recommends that open space be permanently preserved so that future clearing is less likely. x Stormwater management methods that do not require tree removal should also be discussed with the district engineer or stormwater approval agency to determine if implementing them is feasible at this site. x Clearing should not occur between April 1st and July 31st to reduce impacts to birds and other wildlife that utilize forested areas for breeding. This recommendation would only minimize impacts to those species during one breeding season, because once trees are cleared the habitat will be lost to use by those species. x DNREC recommends native plantings, including tall grasses, wildflowers, shrubs, and trees at the edge and within an adequate buffer (15-30 feet in width) around the ponds to discourage nuisance waterfowl such as geese (to be planted in accordance with the Sediment and Stormwater Plan approval agency requirements). When the view of the surrounding area from the pond is blocked, geese can’t scan for predators and are less likely to reside and nest in the area of the pond. 

PLUS 2010-02-01 Page 6 of 10  x At this time, DNREC does not recommend using monofilament grids due to the potential for birds and other wildlife to become entangled if the grids are not properly installed and maintained. In addition, the on-going maintenance (removing entangled trash, etc.) may become a burden to the homeowners association or land manager. Soil and Water - Please contact James Sullivan at (302) 739-9921 or James.Sullivan@state.de.us x Drainage Program. Existing woodland provides valuable wildlife habitat as well as soil erosion protection, water quality filtering, and surface water uptake. Unless managed for timber, wooded areas typically were areas that were unprofitable for farming due to poor drainage. Without trees to absorb the surface water these areas tend to require intensive drainage. Over the years there have been many drainage concerns with the adjacent subdivision that have not been able to be resolved. There is the strong potential for this site to experience drainage problems. x The Drainage Program requests that the engineer take precautions to ensure the project does not hinder any off site drainage upstream of the project or create any off site drainage problems downstream by the release of onsite storm water. The Drainage Program requests that the engineer check existing downstream ditches and pipes for function and blockages prior to the construction. Notify downstream landowners of the change in volume of water released on them. x Have all drainage easements recorded on deeds and place restrictions on obstructions within the easements to ensure access for periodic maintenance or future re-construction. Future property owners may not be aware of a drainage easement on their property if the easement is only on the record plan. However, by recording the drainage easement on the deed, the second owner, and any subsequent owner of the property, will be fully aware of the drainage easement on their property. x The Drainage Program does not support the removal of trees for the creation of stormwater management areas. However, the Drainage Program does recognize that tree removal is unavoidable in some cases. Where practical, plant native trees and shrubs to compensate for the loss of nutrient uptake and stormwater absorption the removed trees provided. 

PLUS 2010-02-01 Page 7 of 10  Water Resources - Please contact John Martin at (302) 739-9939 or John.Martin@state.de.us x Soils Assessment. Tent is a poorly-drained wetland associated (hydric) soil with severe limitations for development; these soils are considered unsuitable for development and should be avoided (Figure 1). Figure1:NRCSsoil surveyupdate mappinginthe vicinityofthe proposedWhite OakRoad subdivision x Studies have shown a strong relationship between increases in impervious cover to decreases in a watershed’s overall water quality. It is strongly recommended that the applicant implement best management practices (BMPs) that reduce or mitigate some of its most likely adverse impacts. Reducing the amount of surface imperviousness through the use of pervious paving materials (“pervious pavers”) in lieu of asphalt or concrete in conjunction with an increase in forest cover preservation or additional tree plantings are some examples of practical BMPs that could easily be implemented to help reduce surface imperviousness. x TMDLs. The Pollution Control Strategy for the Leipsic watershed has not been formally completed to date. In the absence of a PCS during the intervening time period, the applicant is strongly encouraged to reduce nutrient and bacterial pollutants to help improve water quality through voluntary commitment to the implementation of the following recommended BMPs: 1) Maintaining 100-foot buffers from all delineated wetlands (State and federally- regulated wetlands 2) Maximizing the amount of passive wooded open space (i.e., significantly reducing the amount of forest cover removal) 

PLUS 2010-02-01 Page 8 of 10  3) Employ the use of pervious paving materials instead of asphalt or concrete to reduce surface imperviousness, wherever practicable 4) Utilize green-technology stormwater management technologies in lieu of open-water stormwater management structures The Department has also developed an assessment tool to evaluate how your proposed development may reduce nutrients and bacteria to help meet the TMDL requirements. Please contact Lyle Jones at 302-739-9939 for more information on the assessment tool. x Water Resource Protection Areas. DNREC Water Supply Section, Ground-Water Protection Branch (GPB) has determined that it falls entirely within a wellhead protection area for the City of Dover as delineated by DNREC. Although the City of Dover’s Source Water Protection Ordinance meets the minimum standards of protection, this protection does not extend over all the scientifically delineated wellhead areas. This project is located in one of these areas. x Given that this is a wellhead protection area, the City is strongly encouraged to apply impervious cover limitations on this development. The Developer states that the impervious cover for this project is approximately 19.3%. Impervious cover prevents precipitation from infiltrating through the soil to the water table aquifer. Impervious cover refers to structures including but not limited to roads, sidewalks, parking lots, and buildings. Any impervious cover within this wellhead protection area has the potential to have a negative effect on the quality and quantity of drinking water available to the City. x The DNREC Water Supply Section recommends that the portion of the new development within the scientifically delineated wellhead protection area not exceed 20% impervious cover (DNREC, 2005). Some allowance for augmenting ground-water recharge should be implemented if the impervious cover exceeds 20% but is less than 50%. However, the development should not exceed 50%. A water balance calculation should be required to determine the quantity of clean water recharged via a recharge basin (Kaufmann, 2005). The purpose of an impervious cover threshold is to minimize loss of recharge (and associated increases in storm water) and protect the quality and quantity of ground water and surface water supplies. 

PLUS 2010-02-01 Page 9 of 10  x In addition, because the project is located within a wellhead protection area and the wellhead is a source of public drinking water, the storage of hazardous substances or wastes should not be allowed within the area unless specific approval is obtained from the relevant state, federal, or local program. Air and Waste Management – Please contact Deanna Morozowich at (302) 739-9402 or Deanna.morozowich@state.de.us x Hazardous Waste Sites. Based on the close proximity of the salvage yard and the previous agricultural use of the proposed project site, which may have involved the use of pesticides and herbicides, SIRB recommends that a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment be performed prior to development. DNREC's Site Investigation and Restoration Branch (SIRB) has reviewed the proposed project. No SIRB sites were found within a ½-mile radius of the proposed development. One salvage yard, White Oak Salvage, is located 63 feet west of the proposed site. In addition, should a release or imminent threat of a release of hazardous substances be discovered during the course of development (e.g., contaminated water or soil), construction activities should be discontinued immediately and DNREC should be notified at the 24-hour emergency number (800-662-8802). SIRB should also be contacted as soon as possible at 302-395- 2600 for further instructions. Krystal Stanley - (302) 395-2644, Krystal.Stanley@state.de.us Recommendations: Additional air quality measures may be taken to substantially reduce the air emissions identified above. These measures include: x Constructing only energy efficient homes. Energy Star qualified homes are up to 30% more energy efficient than typical homes. These savings come from building envelope upgrades, high performance windows, controlled air infiltration, upgraded heating and air conditioning systems, tight duct systems and upgraded water-heating equipment. Every percentage of increased energy efficiency translates into a percent reduction in pollution. The Energy Star Program is excellent way to save on energy costs and reduce air pollution. x Offering geothermal and/or photo voltaic energy options. These systems can significantly reduce emissions from electrical generation, and from the use of oil or gas heating equipment. x Providing tie-ins to the nearest bike paths and links to any nearby mass transport system. These measures can significantly reduce mobile source emissions. x Funding a lawnmower exchange program. New lawn and garden equipment emits significantly less than equipment as little as 7 years old, and may significantly reduce 

PLUS 2010-02-01 Page 10 of 10  emissions from this new development. The builder could fund such a program for the new occupants. Additionally, the following measures will reduce emissions associated with the actual construction phase of the development: x Using retrofitted diesel engines during construction. This includes equipment that are on-site as well as equipment used to transport materials to and from site. x Using pre-painted/pre-coated flooring, cabinets, fencing, etc. These measures can significantly reduce the emission of VOCs from typical architectural coating operations. x Planting trees at residential units and in vegetative buffer areas. Trees reduce emissions by trapping dust particles and by replenishing oxygen. Trees also reduce energy emissions by cooling during the summer and by providing wind breaks in the winter, whereby reducing air conditioning needs by up to 30 percent and saving 20 to 50 percent on fuel costs. This is a partial list, and there are additional things that can be done to reduce the impact of the development on air quality. The applicant should submit a plan to the DNREC Air Quality Management Section which address the above listed measures, and that details all of the specific emission mitigation measures that will be incorporated into the White Oak Road development Following receipt of this letter and upon filing of an application with the local jurisdiction, the applicant shall provide to the local jurisdiction and the Office of State Planning Coordination a written response to comments received as a result of the pre-application process, noting whether comments were incorporated into the project design or not and the reason therefore. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions, please contact me at 302-739-3090. Sincerely, Constance C. Holland, AICP Director. Ofc. Of State Planning Coordination CC: City of Dover 

CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O D.A.C. MEETING DATE: January 28, 2010 T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Lands of TLFD at White Oak Road FILE#: Z-10-01 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Julio F. Seneus PHONE#: 760-2145 =============================================================== THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY'S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY & STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. DelDOT has no comments to the proposed rezoning. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) may be required, if the proposed development exceeds 50 VPH or 400 VPD. The department will require the applicant to provide proper forms, fees, and plans in order to be issued an entrance permit. According to Kent County Classification Maps, KCR 66 (White Oak Road) is classified as a local road, which requires a 60-foot wide right of way (30-feet from the centerline). The department will require a Right-Of-Way dedication to public use. 3URYLGHD¶SHUPDQHQWHDVHPHQWIRUDPXOWL-use path. If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person and the planning department as soon as possible.

K CITY OF DOVER E C DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE NO D APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY T N I STAFF MEETING DATE: January 28, 2010 S S E T R R V I A C APPLICATION: Lands of TLFD at White Oak Road T T FILE #: Z-10-01 REVIEWING AGENCY: Kent Conservation District I O N CONTACT PERSON: David C. Cahill PHONE #: 741-2600 ext.3 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY¶6$87+25,7< AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Kent Conservation District has no objection to rezoning of the above referenced site. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: The Following comments are advisory and apply to the development of a detailed site plan for this project. A detailed Sediment and Stormwater Management Plan must be approved by our office prior to any land disturbing activity (i.e. clearing, grading, filling, etc.) over 5000 square feet.

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 25, 2010 APPLICATION: Lands of TLFD at White Oak Road FILE #: Z-10-01 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Public Utilities Department CONTACT PERSON: Steve Enss - Electric Sharon Duca, P.E. - Water, Wastewater, Stormwater CONTACT PHONE #: 302-736-7070 T HE S UBJECT P ROPOSAL HAS BEEN R EVIEWED FOR C ODE C OMPLIANCE , P LAN C ONFORMITY AND C OMPLETENESS IN A CCORDANCE WITH THIS A GENCY ¶ S A UTHORITY AND A REA OF E XPERTISE . T HE F OLLOWING I TEMS HAVE BEEN I DENTIFIED AS E LEMENTS W HICH N EED TO BE A DDRESSED BY THE A PPLICANT : CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER 1. Our office has no objection to the rezoning of tax parcel LC05-068.00-01-18.00-000.. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER 1. None. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT ELECTRIC 1. None. WATER 1. City of Dover water service is available to this site. The applicant / developer is responsible for all costs associated with providing service to development on the site including any necessary system upgrades or extensions. WATER/ WASTEWATER 1. City of Dover gravity sanitary sewer service is available to this site. The applicant / developer is responsible for all costs associated with provided service to development on the site including any necessary system upgrades or extensions. I F Y OU H AVE A NY Q UESTIONS OR N EED TO D ISCUSS ANY OF THE A BOVE C OMMENTS , P LEASE C ALL THE A BOVE C ONTACT P ERSON AND THE P LANNING D EPARTMENT AS S OON AS P OSSIBLE .

EXHIBIT #3 Regular Council Meeting of 05/24/2010 PETITION TO AMEND AND ZONING DISTRICT Public Hearing before the Dover City Council May 24, 2010 Applicants/Owners: Multiple Owners ± Request brought forward by homeowners and sponsored by members of Council Location: South side of Hazletteville Road, west of Wyoming Mill Road Tax Parcel ID #: Multiple Size: 88.10+/- acres Present Use: Residential Subdivision ± Partially Built Proposed Use: Residential Subdivision Comprehensive Plan Designation: Residential Medium Density Present Zoning: RM-1 (Medium Density Residence Zone) with SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) Proposed Zoning: R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) with SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) Reason for Request: To ensure that undeveloped single family detached lots develop as such Planning Commission Recommendation: Following a public hearing on April 19, 2010 where three members of the public spoke in support of the rezoning request, Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the rezoning request with a vote of 7-0 (2 members absent) File Number: Z-10-02

This zoning change has been requested by residents of the Nottingham Meadows Subdivision, located on the south side of Hazletteville Road, west of Wyoming Mill Road. Four members of City Council sponsored the ordinance to amend the zoning on the subject property. The subject properties are owned by multiple owners, with Stover Homes, LLC owning the majority of the lots. Existing Property: The subject property consists of approximately 88.10 acres that is currently zoned RM-1 and is a platted and partially built residential subdivision including 211 residential lots. While the zoning would permit a variety of housing styles, including townhouses, duplexes and single family detached houses, the development was platted as lots for single family detached dwellings. The residents of Nottingham Meadows have received word that Stover Homes is no longer in operation. In order to ensure that the subdivision builds out as single family detached homes, residents of the subdivision have requested that the City rezone the property to R-8 (One Family Residence Zone). Surrounding Land Uses: The adjacent property to the west is agricultural and is in unincorporated Kent County. The properties located to the south/southeast of Nottingham Meadows are residential and vacant/wooded, also located in unincorporated Kent County. The property located east of Nottingham Meadows, across Wyoming Mill Road is zoned R-20 (One Family Residence Zone) and IO (Institutional and Office), and includes the Masonic Lodge and Schutte Park. Properties located north, across Hazletteville Road are zoned RM-1 (Medium Density Residence Zone) and are the developments of Village of Cannon Mills and Village of Westover, which include a mix of single family detached, duplex, townhouse and apartment units. Comprehensive Plan: In the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, the Land Development Plan recommends that this property be used for Medium Density Residential uses. The requested R-8 (One-Family Residence Zone) and the RM-1 (Medium Density Residence Zone) are both consistent with this category of uses. Request for R-8 (One-Family Residence Zone) The bulk standards (setbacks, building height, etc.) for one-family detached dwelling units within the R-8 (One Family Residence) zone are the same as those for one-family detached dwelling units within the RM-1 (Medium Density Residence) zone; however, the R-8 (One Family Residence) zone is more restrictive in the housing types it allows. The following are permitted within the RM-1 (Medium Density Residence) zone, but not within the R-8 (One Family Residence) zone: one-family lot-line dwellings, duplex dwellings, multiplex dwellings, townhouses, and roominghouses accommodating not more than five roomers. Recommendation of the Planning Staff and Planning Commission: The Planning Staff recommends in favor of the requested rezoning for the following reasons: The requested zoning classification is consistent with the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. The existing platted development is consistent with the R-8 (One Family Residence) zone in terms of the housing types and related bulk standards. Approval of the requested

Z-10-02 Nottingham Meadows Subdivision Report to City Council ± May 24, 2010 Page 3 rezoning would ensure that the undeveloped portion of the development develops in accordance with the one family detached housing style currently approved. Staff recommendation was made prior to public hearing. Following a public hearing held on April 19, 2010, where three members of the public spoke in favor of the proposed rezoning, the Planning Commission, moved to recommend approval of the request to rezone the subject property from RM-1 with SWPOZ to R-8 with SWPOZ. The motion was carried with a vote of 7-0 with two members absent. An excerpt from the meeting minutes is below for reference: Excerpt from Planning Commission Minutes of April 19, 2010: Z-10-02 Nottingham Meadows Subdivision at Hazlettville Road - Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council on a rezoning application brought forward by homeowners in Nottingham Meadows and sponsored by members of City Council. It consists of 217 parcels of land consisting of a total of 88.10 acres ±. The property is currently zoned RM-1 (Medium Density Residence Zone) and a portion of the properties are subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). The proposed zoning is R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) and properties subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) will remain so, those not currently subject to the SWPOZ will not have their zoning changed to include the SWPOZ. The subject area is located on the south side of Hazlettville Road, west of Wyoming Mill Road. The application involves multiple owners of record. The Tax Parcel ID numbers involved encompass the entire residential subdivision. Council District 2. Representatives: None Mrs. Townshend presented an overview of the application. Mr. Hemmig questioned if this would affect all the properties including the ones that are currently occupied. Responding to Mr. Hemmig, Mrs. Townshend stated yes. One thing she failed to mention is that there are a number of lots within the development that are subject to the Source Water Protection Overlay Zone (SWPOZ) and that overlay would remain in effect. Essentially it does not have a lot of impact at the moment because it is essentially already developed and would not come into play unless something came back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Friedman opened a public hearing. Mr. Alex Martin ± 121 Derbyshire Avenue ± Stated that they are a development that has been abandoned by the builder, Stover Homes. As a community, we got a petition that we sent to City Council that you will review tonight with around forty-eight (48) signatures of community people that live here requesting this zoning because we have really put our trust on that builder to have a certain kind of community space for us. We are concerned that someone else will come in and not live up to those expectations. He asked that those who were here for this application to stand up and be counted. (There were twenty-two (22) people in attendance in favor of this application.) Mr. James Murry ± 440 Bellvue Court ± Stated that when his wife and he first visited Nottingham Meadows we went to the sales office and what we liked was that when we went in they had a big layout of all single family homes. There were no townhomes or condominiums or multi-homes in the layout of the development. This is what we wanted and is why we wanted to go there. He EHOLHYHVWKDWLWZDV6WRYHU¶VSODQWRNHHSLWDOOVLQJOHIDPLO\DWWKDWWLPH8QIRUWXQDWHO\LWORRNVOLNH

Z-10-02 Nottingham Meadows Subdivision Report to City Council ± May 24, 2010 Page 4 he is out of the picture now and what we are trying to do is keep that stability of single family homes there. Mr. Peter Thompson ± 22 Brittingham Drive ± Stated that paragraph 2 on the covenant of their deed restrictions states that all lots shall be used only for single family dwelling homes and that is what we thought we were getting. We did not realize that it was not zoned as such until we looked at the survey. We want to make sure that we look out for our own interests. We have been abandoned by the developer and need your help. Mr. Friedman closed the public hearing after seeing no one else wishing to speak. Mrs. Townshend stated that Staff sent out a correspondence received in the meeting packet regarding an email from a Mr. Brian Hoyt at 337 Gillibrook Lane in which he expresses his support for the rezoning. Mr. Holt moved to forward to City Council approval of Z-10-02 Nottingham Meadows Subdivision at Hazlettville Road from RM-1 to R-8, seconded by Mr. Hemmig. (At this time there was further discussion) Mr. Hemmig stated that he would like to congratulate the residents of Nottingham Meadows this evening for coming together as a group and seeing them taking action. You should be proud of yourselves. Mrs. Townshend asked if the motion could be amended to reference the Source Water Protection Overlay Zone (SWPOZ). Mr. Holt stated that he would amend the motion to include the Source Water Protection Overlay Zone, seconded by Mr. Hemmig and the motion was unanimously carried 7-0 with Mr. Ambruso and Colonel Welsh absent. Attachments: Exhibit Map Property Address List Letter from Peter Thompson w/ signature attachment E-mail from Brian Hoyt DAC Agency Comments

Nottingham Meadows Subdivision RM-1 RM-1 RM-1 RM-1 Gagen ak e RM-1 r eld Sh on r Leste nn Ca M ill IO e ill RM-1 le t tv z Ha e al ond Der x Sa h bys ok ire ro i llb G e al euv B Br i tt RM-1 am om gh Wy in l Mil ing R-20 ¯ City of Dover Department of Planning Nottingham Meadows February 23, 2010 0 240 480 960 Feet

NottinghamHomes OwnerList PARCELID PropertyAddress OWNER OwnerAddress OWN_AD2 City State Zip ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ67.00 416 BEUVALELN MELSON,CHRISTIANP &ARMOUR,NICOLEM 416BEUVALELN DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ18.00 121 DERBYSHIREAVE MARTIN,ALEXANDERJ &HANGGI,SANDRAG POBOX571 DOVER DE 19903 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ13.00 101 DERBYSHIREAVE SARGEANT,RUTHE 101DERBYSHIREAVE DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ14.00 105 DERBYSHIREAVE CRAWFORD,TOMEKA 105DERBYSHIREAVE DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ15.00 109 DERBYSHIREAVE VANDERVEER,ALFRED 109DERBYSHIREAVE DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ06Ͳ15.00 11 BRITTINGHAMDR WHITE,DONALD&ERNESTINE 11BRITTINGHAMDR DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ06.00 11 DERBYSHIRECT HEREDIA,ALDEMAR&MARY 11DERBYSHIRECOURT DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ16.00 113 DERBYSHIREAVE HOPKINS,JESSEASR 113DERBYSHIREAVE DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ17.00 117 DERBYSHIREAVE FARRELL,EDWARDF&ODELLA 117DERBYSHIREAVE DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ19.00 125 DERBYSHIREAVE BHAYDE,SASMIT 125DERBYSHIREAVE DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ20.00 129 DERBYSHIREAVE HOFF,JAMESR&TAMARING 129DERBYSHIREAVE DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ06Ͳ16.00 15 BRITTINGHAMDR MAINA,LUCY&MARYANNE 15BRITTINGHAMDR DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ07.00 15 DERBYSHIRECT WIDDOWSON,BRYCEL&LYNNR 15DERBYSHIRECT DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ08.00 18 DERBYSHIRECT HALEY,THOMAS&LEON,CAROL 18DERBYSHIRECT DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ12.00 2 DERBYSHIRECT HITE,ANDREWE&GORDY,JENNIFER 2DERBYSHIRECT DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ52.00 829 BRINSLEYDR STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ51.00 825 BRINSLEYDR STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ50.00 821 BRINSLEYDR STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ49.00 817 BRINSLEYDR STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ48.00 813 BRINSLEYDR STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ47.00 809 BRINSLEYDR STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ46.00 805 BRINSLEYDR STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ45.00 801 BRINSLEYDR STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ44.00 ED05 076.03 700 NEWTHORPELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ43.00 704 NEWTHORPELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ42.00 708 NEWTHORPELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ41.00 712 NEWTHORPELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ40.00 716 NEWTHORPELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ39.00 720 NEWTHORPELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ38.00 724 NEWTHORPELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ37.00 728 NEWTHORPELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ36.00 732 NEWTHORPELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ35.00 733 NEWTHORPELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ34.00 729 NEWTHORPELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ33.00 725 NEWTHORPELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ32.00 721 NEWTHORPELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ31.00 717 NEWTHORPELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ30.00 713 NEWTHORPELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ29.00 709 NEWTHORPELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ28.00 705 NEWTHORPELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ27.00 701 NEWTHORPELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ26.00 600 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 Page1of6

NottinghamHomes OwnerList ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ25.00 604 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ24.00 608 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ23.00 612 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ22.00 616 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ21.00 620 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ20.00 624 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ19.00 628 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ17.00 636 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ16.00 637 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ15.00 633 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ14.00 629 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ13.00 625 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ12.00 621 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ83.00 50 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ82.00 54 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ81.00 58 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ80.00 62 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ79.00 66 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ78.00 70 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ77.00 74 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ76.00 78 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ75.00 82 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ74.00 86 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ73.00 90 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05 076.03 Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ72.00 94 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ71.00 98 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ70.00 102 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ69.00 106 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ68.00 110 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ67.00 114 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ66.00 118 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ65.00 122 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ64.00 123 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ63.00 119 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ62.00 800 BRINSLEYDR STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ61.00 804 BRINSLEYDR STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ60.00 808 BRINSLEYDR STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ59.00 812 BRINSLEYDR STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ58.00 816 BRINSLEYDR STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ57.00 820 BRINSLEYDR STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ56.00 824 BRINSLEYDR STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ11.00 617 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ10.00 613 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 Page2of6

NottinghamHomes OwnerList ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ09.00 609 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ08.00 605 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ07.00 601 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ06.00 500 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ05.00 504 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ04.00 508 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ03.00 512 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ02.00 516 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ01.00 520 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ87.00 524 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ86.00 528 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ85.00 532 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ84.00 536 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ83.00 540 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ82.00 3000541 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ81.00 537 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ80.00 533 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ79.00 529 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ78.00 525 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ77.00 521 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ76.00 517 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ75.00 513 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ74.00 509 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ73.00 505 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05 076.03 Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ72.00 501 LN STOVERHOMESLLC NETHERMERELN 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ71.00 400 BEUVALELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ70.00 404 BEUVALELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ69.00 408 BEUVALELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ66.00 420 BEUVALELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ64.00 428 BEUVALELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ59.00 445 BEUVALELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ56.00 433 BEUVALELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ47.00 312 GILLIBROOKLN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ45.00 320 GILLIBROOKLN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ43.00 328 GILLIBROOKLN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ41.00 336 GILLIBROOKLN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ38.00 329 GILLIBROOKLN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ37.00 325 GILLIBROOKLN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ33.00 309 GILLIBROOKLN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ32.00 305 GILLIBROOKLN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ98.00 BRITTINGHAMDR STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ94.00 34 BRITTINGHAMDR STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ92.00 42 BRITTINGHAMDR STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 Page3of6

NottinghamHomes OwnerList ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ91.00 55 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ90.00 51 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ89.00 47 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ88.00 43 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ87.00 39 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ86.00 35 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ85.00 31 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ84.00 27 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ06Ͳ14.00 7 BRITTINGHAMDR STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ06Ͳ13.00 3 BRITTINGHAMDR STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ06Ͳ18.00 BRITTINGHAMDR STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ06Ͳ12.00 12 BRITTINGHAMDR STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ06Ͳ11.00 7 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ06Ͳ10.00 11 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ06Ͳ09.00 15 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ06Ͳ08.00 19 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ06Ͳ07.00 22 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ06Ͳ06.00 26 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ06Ͳ05.00 30 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ06Ͳ04.00 34 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ06Ͳ03.00 38 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ06Ͳ02.00 42 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ06Ͳ01.00 46 WELLINGTONAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ99.00 BRINSLEYDR STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05 076.03 Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ98.00 189 DERBYSHIREAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ97.00 185 DERBYSHIREAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ96.00 181 DERBYSHIREAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ95.00 177 DERBYSHIREAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ94.00 173 DERBYSHIREAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ93.00 169 DERBYSHIREAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ92.00 165 DERBYSHIREAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ91.00 161 DERBYSHIREAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ90.00 157 DERBYSHIREAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ89.00 153 DERBYSHIREAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ88.00 149 DERBYSHIREAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ18.00 632 NETHERMERELN STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ06Ͳ17.00 BRITTINGHAMDR STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ99.00 DERBYSHIREAVE STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ55.00 828 BRINSLEYDR STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ54.00 832 BRINSLEYDR STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ53.00 836 BRINSLEYDR STOVERHOMESLLC 2099SDUPONTHWY DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ27.00 212 SAXONDALELN LAMOND,BEATRICEJ 212SAXONDALELN DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ26.00 216 SAXONDALELN SCOTT,RICHARDO&ANNIEL 216SAXONDALELANE DOVER DE 19904 Page4of6

NottinghamHomes OwnerList ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ97.00 22 BRITTINGHAMDR THOMPSON,PETEL&VICKIEJ 22BRITTINGHAMDR DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ25.00 220 SAXONDALELN BARKMAN,NORMAN 220SAXONDALELN DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ01.00 221 SAXONDALELN NAGASE,GEORGE 221SAXONDALELN DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ24.00 224 SAXONDALELN PACKHAM,CHARLTON&KRISTINA 224SAXONDALELN DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ02.00 225 SAXONDALELN MESTRO,TERRILYNN 225SAXONDALELN DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ23.00 228 SAXONDALELN SUBRAMANIYAM,VENKATARAMAN 228SAXONDALELN DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ30.00 23 BRITTINGHAMDR VEMULAPALLI,RAMESH 23BRITTINGHAMDR DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ22.00 232 SAXONDALELN GOGOLA,LINDA 232SAXONDALELN DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ04.00 233 SAXONDALELN VALECZ,LARRY&JOYCE 233SAXONDALELN DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ21.00 236 SAXONDALELN GAROFALO,DONALD&RUTHA 236SAXONDALELN DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ96.00 26 BRITTINGHAMDR GASTON,BRICE 26BRITTINGHAMDR DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ31.00 27 BRITTINGHAMDR JENSEN,ALLANC&BETTYL 27BRITTINGHAMDR DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ50.00 300 GILLIBROOKLN CATIPAY,BEUGENE&MARONA 300GILLIBROOKLN DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ49.00 304 GILLIBROOKLN MOROZOWICH,MILTONF 304GILLIBROOKLN DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ48.00 308 GILLIBROOKLN PEER,LAURENCEF&LORETTAT 308GILLIBROOKLN DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ34.00 313 GILLIBROOKLN OLIVER,CHARLIE&LILYB 313GILLIBROOKLN DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ46.00 316 GILLIBROOKLN PORTELLI,JOSEPH&CHERYLL 316GILLBROOKLN DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ35.00 317 GILLIBROOKLN COBURN,RONALDL&DAWN 317GILLIBROOKLN DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ36.00 321 GILLIBROOKLN CHEVERE,ROBERT 321GILLIBROOKLN DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ44.00 324 GILLIBROOKLN GLECKLER,WILLIAMB&MEAGANR 324GILLIBROOKLN DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ03.00 229 SAXONDALELN TRAFFORD,STUARTE 328BRADLEYRD DOVER DE 19901 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ42.00 332 GILLIBROOKLN BARKSDALE,SONYAT 332GILLIBROOKLN DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ39.00 333 GILLIBROOKLN HALPERN,MICHAELJ&BETHANY 333GILLIBROOKLN DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ40.00 337 GILLIBROOKLN HOYT,BRIAN&CRAIG,JULIE 337GILLIBROOKLANE DOVER DE 19904 ED05 076.03 Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ93.00 38 BRITTINGHAMDR ROBINSON,CHARLESD BRITTINGHAMDR 38BRITTINGHAMDR DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ68.00 412 BEUVALELN DAVIS,CHARLESSR 412BEUVALELN DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ51.00 413 BEUVALELN DEPUTY,TERRYL 413BEUVALELN DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ52.00 417 BEUVALELN NORTHERN,RAYVON 417BEUVALELN DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ53.00 421 BEUVALELN STANSBURY,MARTI 421BEUVALELN DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ65.00 424 BEUVALELN OKONEWSKI,DAVIDR&KARAE 424BAUVALELN DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ54.00 425 BEUVALELN GIBBS,JASONC 425BEUVALELN DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ62.00 436 BEUVALELN FAIR,BRENDAL&CAROLJ 436BEUVALELN DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ57.00 437 BEUVALELN BAKER,BELINDAR 437BEUVALELN DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ61.00 440 BEUVALELN MURRAY,JAMES&LOIS 440BEUVALELN DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ58.00 441 BEUVALELN EVANS,GINAF 441BEUVALELN DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ60.00 444 BEUVALELN BOSQUE,EDDIEP&CRESCELIAR 444BEUVALELN DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ11.00 6 DERBYSHIRECT PERRATTO,BONNIE 6DERBYSHIRECT DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ05.00 7 DERBYSHIRECT WEATHERSBY,BEVERLYL 7DERBYSHIRECT DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ05Ͳ95.00 30 BRITTINGHAMDR RICHTER,MARKS&DONNAJ 8408JOVINCIR SPRINGFIELD VA 22153 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ63.00 432 BEUVALELN GRAHAM,JOHNL& BENTLEYͲGRAHAM,ARLENE 432BEUVALELN DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ29.00 204 SAXONDALELN BANEZ,NOMER 204SAXONDALELN DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ10.00 10 DERBYSHIRECT SIMMONS,DAVIDF& PEREZ,EJULIE 10DERBYSHIRECT DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ55.00 429 BEUVALELN RODRIGUEZ,BENIGNOG& RODRIGUEZ,MILDREDC 429BEUVALELN DOVER DE 19904 Page5of6

NottinghamHomes OwnerList ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ28.00 208 SAXONDALELN SMITH,MICHAELL& SMITH,SARAHS 208SAXONDALELANE DOVER DE 19904 ED05Ͳ076.03Ͳ04Ͳ09.00 14 DERBYSHIRECT WEINBERG,BRADE& WEINBERG,JULIEE 9305CRANFORDDR POTOMAC MD 20854 Page6of6

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: APRIL 1, 2010 APPLICATION: Nottingham Meadows Subdivision FILE #: Z-10-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Public Utilities Department CONTACT PERSON: Steve Enss - Electric Sharon Duca, P.E. - Water, Wastewater, Stormwater CONTACT PHONE #: 302-736-7070 T HE S UBJECT P ROPOSAL HAS BEEN R EVIEWED FOR C ODE C OMPLIANCE , P LAN C ONFORMITY AND C OMPLETENESS IN A CCORDANCE WITH THIS A GENCY ¶ S A UTHORITY AND A REA OF E XPERTISE . T HE F OLLOWING I TEMS HAVE BEEN I DENTIFIED AS E LEMENTS W HICH N EED TO BE A DDRESSED BY THE A PPLICANT : CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER 1. Our office has no objection to the rezoning of this subdivision RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER 1. None. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER 1. Any replatting of this subdivision will require further review by the Public Utilities Department regarding electric design and water / wastewater utility plans. STORMWATER / GENERAL 1. Any replatting of this subdivision will require further review by the Public Utilities Department, on behalf of the Public Services Department, regarding storm sewer and road plans. I F Y OU H AVE A NY Q UESTIONS OR N EED TO D ISCUSS ANY OF THE A BOVE C OMMENTS , P LEASE C ALL THE A BOVE C ONTACT P ERSON AND THE P LANNING D EPARTMENT AS S OON AS P OSSIBLE .

CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O D.A.C. MEETING DATE: March 30, 2010 T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Nottingham Meadows Subdivision at Hazlettville Road FILE#: Z-10-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Julio F. Seneus PHONE#: 760-2145 =============================================================== THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY'S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY & STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. DelDOT has no comments to the proposed rezoning. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: x A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) may be required, if the proposed re-development exceeds 50 VPH or 400 VPD. x The department will require the applicant to provide proper forms, fees, and plans in order to be issued an entrance permit. x According to Kent County Classification Maps, KCR 73 (Hazlettville Road) is classified as a major collector road, which requires an 80-foot wide right-of-way (40-feet from the centerline). The department will require a Right-Of-Way dedication to public use. x Provide a 15’ permanent easement for a multi-use path. If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person and the planning department as soon as possible.

K CITY OF DOVER E C DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE NO D APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY T N I STAFF MEETING DATE: April 1, 2010 S S E T R R V I A C APPLICATION: Nottingham Meadows T T FILE #: Z-10-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: Kent Conservation District I O N CONTACT PERSON: David C. Cahill PHONE #: 741-2600 ext.3 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Kent Conservation District has no objection to rezoning of the above referenced site. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: The Following comments are advisory and apply to the development of a detailed site plan for this project. x A detailed Sediment and Stormwater Management Plan must be approved by our office prior to any land disturbing activity (i.e. clearing, grading, filling, etc.) over 5000 square feet.

EXHIBIT #4 Regular Council Meeting of 05/24/2010 PETITION TO AMEND ZONING DISTRICT Before the Dover City Council May 24, 2010 Applicants/Owners: David & Sherry Blake Address: 1059 Horsepond Road, Dover Location: East side of Horsepond Road, south of Lafferty Lane Tax Parcel ID #: ED05-078.13-01-17.00-000 Size: 1.8612+/- acres (81,073 S.F.) Present Use: Storage Proposed Use: Storage/Office Comprehensive Plan Designation: Industrial and Public Utilities Present Zoning: M (Manufacturing Zone) and AEOZ Proposed Zoning: C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) and AEOZ Reason for Request: To have the current usage of the property match the existing zoning Planning Commission Recommendation: Following a public hearing on April 19, 2010 where one member of the public spoke in favor of the proposed rezoning, Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the rezoning request with a vote of 7-0 (two members absent). File Number: Z-10-03

This rezoning application consists of one parcel of land owned by David & Sherry Blake. This property at 1059 Horsepond Road consists of a total of 1.8612 acres ± (81,073 S.F.). The property is currently zoned M (Manufacturing Zone) and is subject to the AEOZ Airport Environs Overlay Zone Accident Potential Zone as well as Noise Zone B. The proposed zoning is C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) and subject to the AEOZ Airport Environs Overlay Zone Accident Potential Zone as well as Noise Zone B. The subject area is located on the east side of Horsepond Road, south of Lafferty Lane. Tax Parcel: ED05-078.13-01-17.00-000 Existing Property: The subject parcel is currently used as storage. This use is a permitted use under the Manufacturing Zone. The applicant wishes to potentially expand this operation and to include an office to support the existing use. Surrounding Land Uses: The land adjacent to the site and across Horsepond Road is all zoned R-8 (One Family Residence Zone). It is all residential in nature though it should be noted that future development of residential properties is not permitted in the AEOZ. Lands to the north are located within Kent County jurisdiction and are zoned IG (General Industrial District). Lands to the east and south are located within Kent County and are zoned AC (Agricultural Conservation District). Comprehensive Plan: In the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, the Land Development Plan (Map 12-1 as amended) recommends that this property be used for Industrial and Public Utilities. The requested C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) is consistent with this category of uses. Request for C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) The following description of the C-3 zoning district is provided from Article 3 §15 of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 15. Service commercial zone (C-3). 15.1Uses permitted. No building or premises shall be used, and no building or part of a building shall be erected, which is arranged, intended, or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any purpose, except the following: 15.11 Service establishments including dry cleaning and laundry plants. 15.12 Wholesale, storage, and warehousing establishments. 15.13 Bowling alleys, and animal hospitals. 15.14 Motor vehicle, boat or farm equipment sales or service. 15.15 Motor vehicle service stations, subject to the following regulations: (a) The minimum lot size for such service stations shall be 20,000 square feet, and the minimum street frontage shall be 150 feet. (b) Entrance and exit driveways shall have an unrestricted width of not less than 16 feet, shall be located not nearer than ten feet from any property line and shall be so laid out as to avoid the necessity of any vehicle leaving the property to back out across any public right-of-way or portion thereof. (c) Vehicle lifts or pits, dismantled and disabled automobiles and all parts or supplies shall be located within a building enclosed on all sides. (d) All service or repair of motor vehicles, other than such minor servicing as change of tires or sale of gasoline or oil, shall be conducted in a building fully enclosed on all sides. This requirement shall not be construed to mean that the doors to any repair shop must be kept closed at all times.

Z-10-03 Lands of Blake Report to City Council ±May 24, 2010 Page 3 (e) The storage of gasoline or flammable oils in bulk shall be located fully underground in accordance with applicable provisions of the National Fire Protection Association Code. (f) No gasoline pumps shall be located nearer than 15 feet to any street line. (g) No building permit for a motor vehicle service station shall be issued [for a station] with a fuel dispenser system located closer than 100 feet from a property line of any school, day care, church, hospital, nursing home, or place of public assembly designed for the simultaneous use and occupancy by more than 100 persons. 15.16 Manufacturing, assembling, converting, altering, finishing, cleaning or any other processing of products for sale on or off the premises, provided that not more than 25 persons shall be engaged in such activity; and provided further, that any such use shall be subject to the performance standards procedure as set forth in article 5, section 8. 15.17 Newspaper and job printing. 15.18 Ministorage facilities, subject to the following regulations: (a) No unit shall be placed within 30 feet of any other structure on the lot or a residential property line. (b) No outside storage, except for recreational vehicles, boats or personal automobiles, when completely screened from view and parked in specifically approved locations. Parking for these vehicles shall not count toward the required parking set forth in subsection (e) below. (c) No individual unit may be used for retail, garage sale or any other commercial activities. (d) No storage of flammable, explosive, corrosive or other hazardous products may occur in the individual unit. (e) Parking must be provided at a ratio of one space for each 25 rental units, plus a minimum of three spaces for an office outside of the enclosure. One row of parallel parking is permitted between buildings at a ratio of one space per 25 feet. (f) All other bulk requirements of this ordinance are [to be] met. 15.2Uses prohibited. The following uses are prohibited: Residences, other than living quarters for not more than one family incidental to each permitted building on each lot for the use of the owner or caretaker of such building or of the owner or caretaker of the permitted use or uses housed in such building. 15.3Performance standards. All uses are subject to performance standards as set forth in article 5, section 8.1. 15.4Site development plan approval. Site development plan approval in accordance with article 10, section 2 hereof shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits for the erection or enlargement of all structures and prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for any change of use. 15.5Landscaping. A landscaped strip of open space no less than ten feet wide shall be maintained along all street lines, except where crossed by necessary access drives. (Ord. of 3-22-1993; Ord. of 5-22-2000; Ord. Of 5-22-2000; Ord. of 7-10-2000; Ord. of 2-12-2001; Ord. of 7-23-2001) Recommendation of the Planning Staff and Planning Commission: The zoning requested is consistent with the 2008 Comprehensive Plan as amended 2009 and it is compatible with the surrounding land uses and zoning classifications. For this reason, staff supports the rezoning request. The existing use of the property, as storage, is permitted under the current M (Manufacturing Zone) as well as under the C-3 (Service Commercial Zone). However, the applicant proposes to extend the use with office space in the future, which would only be possible with C-3 zoning under the current land use. Staff recommendation was provided prior to public comment. On April 19, 2010, following a public hearing where one member of the public spoke in favor of the proposed rezoning, the

Z-10-03 Lands of Blake Report to City Council ±May 24, 2010 Page 4 Planning voted to recommend approval of the rezoning as requested by the applicant with a vote of 7-0 (2 members absent). An excerpt from the meeting minutes is below for reference: Excerpt from Planning Commission Minutes of April 19, 2010: Z-10-03 Lands of Blake at 1059 Horsepond Road - Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council on a rezoning application consists of one parcel of land consisting of a total of 1.8612 acres ±. The property is currently zoned M (Manufacturing Zone) and AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone). The proposed zoning is C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) and AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone). The subject property is located on the east side of Horsepond Road, south of Lafferty Lane. The owners of record are David and Sherry Blake. Property Address: 1059 Horsepond Road. Tax Parcel: ED05-078.13-01-17.00-000. Council District 2. Representative: Mr. David Blake, Property Owner. Mr. Albert presented an overview of the application. There were no questions from any Planning Commission members. Mr. Friedman opened a public hearing. Mr. Chris Coker ± Stated that he owns adjoining property and the farm located behind this project and is supportive of what he (the applicant) wants to do. Mr. Tolbert moved to recommend to City Council approval of rezoning rom M to C-3 with AEOZ Z-10-03 Lands of Blake at 1059 Horesepond Road, seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion was unanimously carried 7-0 with Mr. Ambruso and Colonel Welsh absent. Attachments: Exhibit Map DAC Agency Comments

City of Dover Application No.: Z-10-03 Department of Planning & Inspections HO N EPO RS C-3 DR D OA D BULL OG D RIVE R-8 Site M IPM Legend Plan Title: Lands of Blake Dover Parcels Location: Horsepond Road Zoning Plan Type: Rezoning County Parcels Tax Parcel: ED05-078.13-01-17.00-000 Noise Zone A Zoning: M and AEOZ Noise Zone B Proposed Zoning: C-3 and AEOZ Noise Zone C Owner: David & Sherry Blake Noise Zone D Date: 3-11-10 APZ I « APZ II 0 170 340 680 Feet CZ

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: APRIL 1, 2010 APPLICATION: Lands of Blake, 1059 Horsepond Road FILE #: Z-10-03 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Public Utilities Department CONTACT PERSON: Steve Enss - Electric Sharon Duca, P.E. - Water, Wastewater, Stormwater CONTACT PHONE #: 302-736-7070 T HE S UBJECT P ROPOSAL HAS BEEN R EVIEWED FOR C ODE C OMPLIANCE , P LAN C ONFORMITY AND C OMPLETENESS IN A CCORDANCE WITH THIS A GENCY ¶ S A UTHORITY AND A REA OF E XPERTISE . T HE F OLLOWING I TEMS HAVE BEEN I DENTIFIED AS E LEMENTS W HICH N EED TO BE A DDRESSED BY THE A PPLICANT : CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER 1. Our office has no objection to the rezoning of tax parcel ED05-078.13-01-17.00-000. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER 1. None. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT ELECTRIC 1. None. WATER / WASTEWATER 1. Should redevelopment occur on this site, the applicant / developer will be responsible for all costs associated with provided the appropriate service to the site based upon the use including any necessary system upgrades or extensions. I F Y OU H AVE A NY Q UESTIONS OR N EED TO D ISCUSS ANY OF THE A BOVE C OMMENTS , P LEASE C ALL THE A BOVE C ONTACT P ERSON AND THE P LANNING D EPARTMENT AS S OON AS P OSSIBLE .

CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O D.A.C. MEETING DATE: March 30, 2010 T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Lands of Blake at 1059 Horsepond Road FILE#: Z-10-03 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Julio F. Seneus PHONE#: 760-2145 =============================================================== THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY'S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY & STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. DelDOT has no comments to the proposed rezoning. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: x A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) may be required, if the proposed development exceeds 50 VPH or 400 VPD. x The department will require the applicant to provide proper forms, fees, and plans in order to be issued an entrance permit. x According to Kent County Classification Maps, KCR 66 (Horsepond Road) is classified as a major collector road, which requires a 80-foot wide right of way (40-feet from the centerline). The department will require a Right-Of-Way dedication to public use. If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person and the planning department as soon as possible.

K CITY OF DOVER E C DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE NO D APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY T N I STAFF MEETING DATE: April 1, 2010 S S E T R R V I A C APPLICATION: Lands of Blake @ 1059 Horsepond Road T T FILE #: Z-10-03 REVIEWING AGENCY: Kent Conservation District I O N CONTACT PERSON: David C. Cahill PHONE #: 741-2600 ext.3 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Kent Conservation District has no objection to rezoning of the above referenced site. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: The Following comments are advisory and apply to the development of a detailed site plan for this project. x A detailed Sediment and Stormwater Management Plan must be approved by our office prior to any land disturbing activity (i.e. clearing, grading, filling, etc.) over 5000 square feet.

EXHIBIT #5 Regular Council Meeting of 05/24/2010 PETITION TO AMEND ZONING DISTRICT Before the Dover City Council May 24, 2010 Applicants/Owners: Young Men’s Christian Association of Delaware, Inc. (YMCA) Address: 1169 South State Street, Dover Location: East side of South State Street, north of Roosevelt Avenue/Wyoming Avenue Tax Parcel ID #: ED-05-077.17-05-58.00-000 Size: 0.6899+/- acres (30,052 S.F.) Present Use: Vacant land; Previous dwelling on property was demolished Proposed Use: YMCA expansion (Building and Parking) Comprehensive Plan Designation: Mixed Use Present Zoning: RGO (General Residence and Office Zone) Proposed Zoning: IO (Institutional and Office Zone) Reason for Request: To have all YMCA properties with the same zoning classification Planning Commission Recommendation: Following a public hearing on April 19, 2010, the Planning Commission moved to approve the request to rezone the subject property from RGO to IO. The motion was carried 7-0, with two members absent. File Number: Z-10-04

Z-10-04 Lands of YMCA, Inc. at 1169 South State Street Planning Commission Recommendation Report to City Council for May 24, 2010 Page 2 This rezoning application consists of one parcel of land owned by Young Men’s Christian Association of Delaware, Inc. (YMCA). This property at 1169 South State Street consists of a total of 0.6899 acres ± (30,052 S.F.). The property is currently zoned RGO (General Residence and Office Zone). The proposed zoning is IO (Institutional and Office Zone). The subject area is located on the east side of South State Street, north of Roosevelt Avenue/Wyoming Avenue. Tax Parcel: ED05-077.17-05-58.00-000 Existing Property: The subject parcel is currently vacant. The previous two story house and accessory structure located on the property were demolished under Demolition Permit #09-1474.The site has been stabilized with the planting of grass. Surrounding Land Uses: The land directly adjacent to the subject site on the north is the existing location of the YMCA building and its associated parking lot and outdoor play and game court areas. This YMCA property is zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone). The adjacent property to the east is also zoned IO and is currently vacant. There is a residential community known as Morris Estates is located to the east which is zoned R-8 (One Family Residence Zone). The property located immediately south of the subject site is the Ambruso Funeral Home; this parcel is zoned R-8 (One Family Residence Zone). To the west across South State Street is a series of properties with the residential zoning of R-8 and to the northwest several properties zoned RGO utilized as offices. Comprehensive Plan: In the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, the Land Development Plan (Map 12-1 as amended, dated 11/23/2009) recommends that this property be used for Mixed Use. In the text of Chapter 12, the Comprehensive Plan discusses Mixed Uses Areas as areas where a variety of intermingled land uses such as residential, commercial, office and institutional uses may exist. Goals for Mixed Use Areas are to encourage neighborhood centers and to create areas featuring a mix of uses that are pedestrian-friendly public environments with opportunities for transit and walkable from surrounding neighborhoods. In Table 12-1: Land Use and Zoning Matrix for the Land Use Category of Mixed-Use there are a range of possible zoning districts ranging from certain residential and commercial zones to office and institutional zones. The requested IO (Institutional and Office Zone) is consistent with this category of uses. Previous Applications The YMCA recently acquired and is the current owner of this subject property at 1169 South State Street and also the owner of the property at 1145 South State Street. Under previous ownership, the property was the subject of several proposed development applications in conjunction with the adjoining property to the east known as 1145 South State Street. The site was the subject of a Site Plan application for State Street Office Building. The Site Plan (S-05- 37) was granted conditional approval by the Planning Commission December 19, 2005; however, that plan approval has expired. In 2008, this site was the subject of a Conditional Use application C-08-07 State Street Senior Apartments to develop the property as a Planned Neighborhood Design: Senior Citizen Housing Option. Following referral from the City Council on March 24, 2008, the Board of Adjustment granted a waiver of the forty foot perimeter buffer requirement of the PND in May 2008. Then the application was tabled by the Planning

Z-10-04 Lands of YMCA, Inc. at 1169 South State Street Planning Commission Recommendation Report to City Council for May 24, 2010 Page 3 Commission on June 16, 2008; the application was closed by Staff in June 2009 as a result of transfer of property ownership. Request for IO (Institutional and Office Zone) The types of permitted uses in the IO (Institutional and Office Zone) are given Article 3 §10 of the Zoning Ordinance. The permitted uses include business, professional, and governmental offices; research, design and development laboratories; public and institutional uses; restaurants as assessor uses; and day care center. For this zone, Conditional Uses include Planned Senior Housing Developments, fire arm ranges, correctional facilities, public incinerators, hotels, and restaurants. Article 4, Section 4.15 of the Zoning Ordinance address bulk standards for the IO Zone. The bulk standards are as follows: IO (Institutional and Office Zone) Minimum required: Lot area Lot width (ft.) 50 Lot depth (ft.) 100 Front yard (ft.) 20 Side yard (ft.) 10 Rear yard (ft.) 15 or equal to bldg. height Side or rear yards which adjoin a 30 residence zone (ft.) Off-street parking Per 300 sq. ft. floor area or 1 Per employee (whichever is greater) 1 Maximum permitted: Building height Stories 10 Feet 130 Floor area ratio 4.0 Lot coverage 85% Recommendation of the Planning Staff: This request is to rezone land from RGO (General Residence and Office Zone) to IO (Institutional and Office Zone). The zoning requested is consistent with the 2008 Comprehensive Plan as amended 2009 and it is compatible with the surrounding land uses and zoning classifications. For this reason, staff supports the rezoning request. The proposed use of the property, as an expansion of the YMCA facilities, is not clearly allowed under the current RGO (General Residence and Office Zone), but would be permitted under the IO (Institutional

Z-10-04 Lands of YMCA, Inc. at 1169 South State Street Planning Commission Recommendation Report to City Council for May 24, 2010 Page 4 and Office Zone). The rezoning would also place the three contiguous properties of the YMCA into the same zoning classification. Staff recommendation was made prior to public hearing. Planning Commission Recommendation: Following a public hearing held on April 19, 2010, the Planning Commission moved to approve the request to rezone the subject property at 1169 South State Street from RGO to IO. The motion was carried 7-0, with two members absent. Excerpts from the meeting minutes are below for reference: Excerpt from Planning Commission Minutes of April 19, 2010: Z-10-04 Lands of the YMCA at 1169 South State Street - Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council on a rezoning application consists of one parcel of land consisting of a total of 0.6899 acres ± (30,052 S.F.). The property is currently zoned RGO (General Residence and Office Zone). The proposed zoning is IO (Institutional and Office Zone). The subject area is located on the east side of South State Street, north of Roosevelt Avenue/Wyoming Avenue. The owner of record is Young Men’s Christian Association of Delaware, Inc. Property Address: 1169 South State Street. Tax Parcel: ED05-077.17-05-58.00-000. Council District 2. Representatives: Mr. Gregg Moore, Becker Morgan Group; and Mr. Rick Gould, Executive Director of Central Delaware YMCA. Mrs. Melson-Williams presented an overview of the application. Mr. Moore stated that the YMCA hosted a community meeting where they notified the neighbors of a greater extent than what the City requires to update them on what is happening at the YMCA. Mr. Nichols questioned if this area was going to be all building or a combination of building and construction? Responding to Mr. Nichols, Mr. Moore stated that it would be a combination of both. The YMCA is looking into a small addition of a gymnasium for basketball and a couple of multi-use rooms that could be aerobics dance and then an addition to the fitness center. We would attempt to add parking to offset the deficit of parking that they currently have. Mr. Friedman opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak closed the public hearing. Mr. Tolbert moved to forward to City Council approval Rezoning RGO to IO of Z-10-04 Lands of the YMCA at 1169 South State Street, seconded by Mr. Hemmig and the motion was unanimously carried 7-0 with Mr. Ambruso and Colonel Welsh absent. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT (From DAC Report of April 8, 2010): 1) The applicant shall be aware that approval of any rezoning application does not represent Site Development Plan or Record Plan approval. A separate Site Development Plan and Minor Lot Line Adjustment Plan must be submitted and approved if development activities are proposed on the property. 2) The applicant shall be aware that approval of any rezoning application does not represent a Building Permit or other construction activity permit approval. A separate application

Z-10-04 Lands of YMCA, Inc. at 1169 South State Street Planning Commission Recommendation Report to City Council for May 24, 2010 Page 5 submission showing all improvements is required before issuance of permits by the City of Dover. 3) The applicant shall be aware that any request for variances necessary for site development activities must complete the Board of Adjustment application and review procedure prior to consideration of a site development application by the Planning Commission. 4) The completion of a Parcel Consolidation Plan (Minor Lot Line Adjustment Plan) for recordation (Record Plan) to consolidate the parcels held in ownership by the YMCA into one tract of land is recommended. The Parcel Consolidation Plan may be submitted for review during the site development plan process. Record Plan sheet will also be required to show the any necessary easements including utility infrastructure easements. Attachments: x Development Advisory Committee Comments from: Public Utilities, DelDOT, and Kent Conservation District x Exhibit Map

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: APRIL 1, 2010 APPLICATION: Lands of the YMCA, 1169 South State Street FILE #: Z-10-04 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Public Utilities Department CONTACT PERSON: Steve Enss - Electric Sharon Duca, P.E. - Water, Wastewater, Stormwater CONTACT PHONE #: 302-736-7070 T HE S UBJECT P ROPOSAL HAS BEEN R EVIEWED FOR C ODE C OMPLIANCE , P LAN C ONFORMITY AND C OMPLETENESS IN A CCORDANCE WITH THIS A GENCY ¶ S A UTHORITY AND A REA OF E XPERTISE . T HE F OLLOWING I TEMS HAVE BEEN I DENTIFIED AS E LEMENTS W HICH N EED TO BE A DDRESSED BY THE A PPLICANT : CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER 1. Our office has no objection to the rezoning of tax parcel ED05-077.17-05-58.00-000. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES ELECTRIC / WATER / WASTEWATER 1. None. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT ELECTRIC 1. None. WATER / WASTEWATER 1. Should this site be redeveloped, the applicant / developer is responsible for all costs associated with providing the appropriate service to this site based upon the use including any necessary system upgrades or extensions. Should the existing services no longer be required based upon the proposed use, they must be properly abandoned at the mains in accordance with all City of Dover Public Utilities Department standards and specifications. I F Y OU H AVE A NY Q UESTIONS OR N EED TO D ISCUSS ANY OF THE A BOVE C OMMENTS , P LEASE C ALL THE A BOVE C ONTACT P ERSON AND THE P LANNING D EPARTMENT AS S OON AS P OSSIBLE .

CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O D.A.C. MEETING DATE: March 30, 2010 T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Lands of the YMCA at 1169 South State Street FILE#: Z-10-04 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Julio F. Seneus PHONE#: 760-2145 =============================================================== THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY'S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY & STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. DelDOT has no comments to the proposed rezoning. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: x No direct access will be granted on S. State Street for this parcel. Proposed accesses for the site must be from the entrance easement. x A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) may be required, if the proposed development exceeds 50 VPH or 400 VPD. x The department will require the applicant to provide proper forms, fees, and plans in order to be issued an entrance permit. x According to Kent County Classification Maps, KCR 25 (South State Street) is classified as a minor arterial, which requires a 80-foot wide right of way (40-feet from the centerline). The department will require a Right-Of-Way dedication to public use. If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person and the planning department as soon as possible.

K CITY OF DOVER E C DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE NO D APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY T N I STAFF MEETING DATE: April 1, 2010 S S E T R R V I A C APPLICATION: Lands of YMCA South State Street T T FILE #: Z-10-04 REVIEWING AGENCY: Kent Conservation District I O N CONTACT PERSON: David C. Cahill PHONE #: 741-2600 ext.3 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Kent Conservation District has no objection to rezoning of the above referenced site. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: The Following comments are advisory and apply to the development of a detailed site plan for this project. x A detailed Sediment and Stormwater Management Plan must be approved by our office prior to any land disturbing activity (i.e. clearing, grading, filling, etc.) over 5000 square feet.

City of Dover Application No.: Z-10-04 Department of Planning & Inspections NE K LA PAR RGO MORRIS DRIVE IO STATE STREET ORCHARD AVEN UE Site WYO MIN R-8 GA VE NU E C-2A ROOSEVELT AVEN UE C-4 C-1A SC-2 Plan Title: Lands of YMCA Location: 1169 South State Street Legend Plan Type: Rezoning Tax Parcel: ED05-077.17-05-58.00-000 Dover Parcels Zoning: RGO (General Residence and Office Zone) Proposed Zoning: IO (Institutional and Office Zone) Zoning Owner: Young Men's Christian Association of Delaware, Inc. Date: 3-11-10 County Parcels 0 87.5 175 350 Feet «

EXHIBIT #6 Regular Council Meeting of 05/24/2010 Violation of Dangerous Building Ordinance 715 Slaughter Street Public Services Department EXHIBIT #6 Dover, Delaware Regular Council Meeting of 05/24/2010

715 Slaughter Street Case History  The property has been in a continuous state of disrepair for many years.  Tall grass and weed violations date back to at least 1999. In recent years, the City has continuously cut the grass.  Electric service to the house was terminated in 2004.  No corrective actions have been taken by the estate to repair or maintain the property.  All recent notices to the property owner have been returned to the City as unclaimed.

Dangerous Building Code – Chapter 22 Article XI, Sec. 22-381  (5) Unfit for habitation.  (6) Light, air, sanitation.  (9) General welfare.  (10) Code violations.  (12) Unoccupied buildings.

Recommended Council Action  Declare this building and all accessory buildings on the property dangerous.  Order the property repaired or demolished by July 1, 2010.  Order the Building Inspector to cause the repair or demolition of the structure if not completed by the owner within (10) days of the date set by Council. This action is dependent upon the adoption of the FY-2011 Operating Budget for funding.  Order the City Manager with the assistance of the City Solicitor to cause the cost of repairs or demolition to be charged against the land on which the building exists as a municipal lien or cause such cost to be added to the tax duplicate as an assessment, or to be levied as a special tax, or to be recovered in a suit at law against the owner.

EXHIBIT #7 Regular Council Meeting of 05/24/2010 Violation of Dangerous Building Ordinance 749 West North Street EXHIBIT #7 Public Services Department Dover, Delaware Regular Council Meeting of 05/24/2010

749 West North Street Case History  Multi-story, wood framed dwelling damaged by fire in November 2006.  Numerous code violations including: – Broken window glass – Holes in the walls – Holes in the roof – Extensive fire damage throughout the structure – Overall deterioration  Numerous complaints received by the City regarding the condition of the property.  No efforts by property owners to repair the damage and bring the building into code compliance.

Dangerous Building Code – Chapter 22 Article XI, Sec. 22-381  (2) Damaged walls, etc.  (4) Fire damage, etc.  (5) Unfit for habitation.  (6) Light, air, sanitation.  (9) General welfare.  (10) Code violations.  (12) Unoccupied buildings.

Recommended Council Action  Declare this building and all accessory buildings on the property dangerous.  Order the property repaired or demolished by July 1, 2010.  Order the Building Inspector to cause the repair or demolition of the structure if not completed by the owner within (10) days of the date set by Council. This action is dependent upon the adoption of the FY-2011 Operating Budget for funding.  Order the City Manager with the assistance of the City Solicitor to cause the cost of repairs or demolition to be charged against the land on which the building exists as a municipal lien or cause such cost to be added to the tax duplicate as an assessment, or to be levied as a special tax, or to be recovered in a suit at law against the owner.

EXHIBIT #8 Council Meeting of 05/24/2010 CITY OF DOVER ORDINANCE #2010-11 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: That Appendix F – Fees and Fines, Chapter 26-Businesses, Article II-Licenses, be amended to read as follows: Chapter 26--Businesses, Article II--Licenses Fines not paid within 14 days of the day the fine was issued, including the day the fine was issued, shall be automatically doubled in amount. Sec. 26-35 License required; fees Subsec. Businesses licensed (d)(1) Advertising agency.......... $95.00 Amusement operator.......... $157.00 Architect.......... $250.00 Attorney-at-law.......... $313.00 ATM machines (third-party or off bank $50.50 premises).......... Auctioneer.......... $157.00 Automobile race operator.......... $375.00 Bank, or loan and trust company.......... $313.00 Barber.......... $63.00 each additional chair $4.00 over two.......... Beautician.......... $63.00 each additional chair $4.00

over two.......... Broadcasting station.......... $313.00 Broker.......... $157.00 Car wash $188.00 Certified public accountant.......... $250.00 Cesspool cleaner.......... $125.00 Chiropractor.......... $313.00 Clinical social worker.......... $96.00 Coin-operated amusement machine owner Per machine.......... $3.00 Coin-operating vending machine owner Per machine $3.00 Coin-operated electronic video machine Per machine $125.00 Commercial sign business.......... $125.00 Computer-related services.......... $125.00 Consultant.......... $50.50 Day care operator: Center or home provider with greater than six $50.50 children.......... Dentist.......... $313.00 Distributor.......... $63.00 Dray person or mover.......... $125.00 Eating establishment and/or eating establishment $125.00 operator.......... Employment agency.......... $125.00 Entertainer: One--three entertainers $50.50 per group.......... Four--nine entertainers $95.00 per group.......... Ten or more.......... $125.00 Entertainment agent.......... $188.00

Finance or small loan agency.......... $250.00 Fitness trainer.......... $69.00 Funeral director.......... $250.00 Gaming position.......... $155.00 Gas, light, power, cable TV and telephone $938.00 company.......... General repairman.......... $63.00 Health spa or health club.......... $188.00 Home day care operator.......... $25.50 Hotel: Per room.......... $9.50 Per suite.......... $12.50 Income tax consultant.......... $188.00 Incorporator.......... $125.00 Insurance adjustor office.......... $125.00 Itinerant merchant, per event.......... $41.50 Janitorial and cleaning service: One--three $50.50 employees.......... Four--nine $95.00 employees.......... Ten or more $125.00 employees.......... Landscape service company: One--three $50.50 employees.......... Four--nine $95.00 employees.......... Ten or more $125.00 employees.......... Laundry service operator: Primary facility.......... $125.00 Additional drop-off $50.50 locations.......... Linen supplier.......... $125.00

Manicurist.......... $32.00 Manufacturer's agent or representative.......... $125.00 Mercantile agency or collection agency.......... $125.00 Mobile home park, per space.......... $7.00 Motel, per room.......... $7.00 Motion picture theater.......... $188.00 Motor vehicle serviceman.......... $95.00 Nursing, rest or convalescent home.......... $188.00 Open market operator: First 20 spaces, per $22.50 rented space.......... 21st--50th space, per $11.50 rented space.......... Each space over 50, per $6.00 rented space.......... Outdoor tables, per $6.00 table.......... Optometrist.......... $313.00 Pawnbroker.......... $188.00 Pest control services.......... $95.00 Pharmacist.......... $188.00 Photographer.......... $125.00 Physical therapist.......... $188.00 Physician and/or surgeon.......... $313.00 Plant nursery and florist.......... $95.00 Podiatrist.......... $313.00 Pool table operator, per table.......... $63.00 Maximum fee.......... $189.00 Printer.......... $125.00 Private investigator agency.......... $188.00 Professional counselor.......... $63.00 Professional engineer.......... $250.00 Professional land surveyor.......... $250.00 Psychologist.......... $313.00

Public accountant.......... $188.00 Public stenographer.......... $38.00 Publisher.......... $313.00 Real estate broker, appraiser, and manager.......... $157.00 Real estate development corporation.......... $344.00 Real estate property manager: One--three units $50.50 managed.......... Four--ten units $125.00 managed.......... Ten + units $125.00 managed.......... Real estate salesperson or associated broker.......... $50.50 Rental service.......... $125.00 Sales representative $50.50 School and educational service (nonvocational).......... $63.00 School and educational service (vocational).......... $125.00 Scientific laboratory.......... $250.00 Scrap and waste material service.......... $125.00 Secondhand dealer of precious metals.......... $125.00 Security service.......... $188.00 Self-service laundry or dry cleaner.......... $125.00 Shoe repairman.......... $50.50 Sound truck, per hour.......... $33.00 Tailor and garment service.......... $50.50 Taxicab or bus operator: First vehicle.......... $26.00 Each additional $26.00 vehicle.......... Tourist home, per room.......... $7.00 Trailer park, per space.......... $7.00 Travel agency.......... $125.00 Veterinarian.......... $313.00 Warehouseman.......... $250.00

Wholesale news agency.......... $63.00 All other businesses not listed: One--three $50.50 employees.......... Four--nine $95.00 employees.......... Ten--50 $125.00 employees.......... 51--100 $313.00 employees.......... Subsec. Manufacturers/contractors rate: $0.00046 of aggregate Minimum fee $125.00 (d)(2) gross receipts . . . . Subsec. Merchants/bottlers rate: $0.00046 of aggregate gross Minimum fee $63.00 (d)(3) purchases for resale Sports betting and horse racing (Simulcast), each Subsec. Minimum license fee activity: rate of $0.00046 of the aggregate gross (d)(4) $125.00 receipts (defined as commission) for the activity.......... A penalty fee in the amount of ten percent per month of the Sec. 26-42 Penalty for late payment of license fee.......... amount of the licensee fee until the same is paid ADOPTED: MAY 24, 2010