Dokiman ki tache

EXHIBIT #1 SpecialCouncil Meeting of 11/02/2009 Townshend, Ann Marie From: murphyhill@comcast.net Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 12:48 PM To: CompPlan Subject: Fwd: 2009 Comprehensive Rezoning | am not sure if you are the person to contact but perhaps you can forward this email on to that person....I'm writing in regards to a decision for Rezoning land off of west Rt 8. Several properties are being récommended for rezoning and | feel that we do not need the type of rezoning being requested. {| know there is a meeting on Nov 2 for a Public Hearing at City Council but | cannot make the meeting and | do not know who will be addressed. Please help me to contact them and give my thoughts on the proposed rezoning. There are so many high density properties around that side of Rt 8 west, and to rezone the requesting properties to high density that also include apartments, will overload the current area and require additional emergency and public services that currently are barely adequate to handle the existing amount of households. !t keeps being mentioned that the services will be upgraded to meet any future demands, yet when an upgrade is needed, there never seems to be enough money and we have to do with what exists. The current budget and probably future budgets will never provide what monies are needed to improve existing infrastructures. We have land for a new high school on W Rt 8 but currently not the money to complete it. The current project scope did not include the possibility of the density being requested for 7 properties off W Rt 8. Please do not change the zoning. We need to end the sprawl! that currently exists in West Dover. Please, do not endorse the change of zoning. Apartments do no bring in the revenue needed to accommodate them in the services needed. Once the zoning is changed, the area will quickly change. The rezoning will have a negative effect to the area. Thank you, Diane Murphy-Hill 668 Artist Dr Dover, DE 19904

Albert, Michael From: BILL WROTEN [BILL@TVFIX.BIZ] Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 1:25 PM To: CompPlan Cc: bjw7407@aol.com Subject: REZONING OF PARCEL EDQ5-077.18-02-70.00 FROM C-1ATOC-1 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged William T. Wroten 125 Roosevelt Ave. Dover, De. 19901 302-677-1955 302-242-0951 Dear Board Members, | am writing over concern of our property being rezoned from C-1A to C-1._ When we purchased the property in 1992 we requested the zoning from residential to C-1A so we could run our business from there as well as our Primary Residence which it has been since 1997. We had our business here also until Jan . 2005. Which we have since moved it to another location. We have had the property as our primary residence since then alone with no business here. We have no plans to lease, sell, or start another business here at this time. As you know C-1A allows Primary Residence but C-1 does not. | met with a young lady on the planning staff July 20, 2009 about my concerns and she said that maybe after the zoning was changed it would be plausible for a amendment be made for us as we do live here as our Primary Residence. While we understand the purpose of the rezoning as to what types of business's are allowed to operate here and we are ok with the rezoning if an amendment for Primary Residence is allowed. We trust that you understand our concern. Thank you, Wm. T and Jacqueline Wroten

Townshend, Ann Marie From: mrcoolcats@comcast.net Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 4:06 PM To: CompPlan Subject: City of Dover Comprehensive Rezoning Dear Ms. Townshend: Thank you very much for the notice regarding the City of Dover's proposed Comprehensive Rezoning Plan. My wife and | have particular interest in the proposed rezoning of the property ID #271. That property abuts a cluster of custom homes (we are at 23 Laurel Drive) that were built in a beautiful and quiet wooded setting. The proposed rezoning from R-10 (One Family Residence Zone) to IO (Institutional and Office Zone) for ID #271 would permit a more intensive use , without the "conditionally permitted" restriction as currently found under the R-10 zoning. Further, the "conditionally permitted" uses contained in the |O zoning could allow for undesirable additional uses ("Planned Senior Housing Developments, fire arm ranges, correctional facilities, public incinerators, hotels and restaurants"). Such additional uses should not be allowed to be considered for placement in close proximity to a residential neighborhood. We respectfully request that consideration be given to our objections and that the proposed rezoning of ID # 271 from R-10 to IO not be approved. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Richard M. and Marsha Zuckerman