Regular City Council Packet REVISED

CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 22, 2024 at 6:30 PM City Hall Council Chambers, 15 Loockerman Plaza, Dover, Delaware AGENDA THIS AGENDA AND PACKET HAVE BEEN REVISED BY AMENDING ITEM #19 - COMMITTEE AMENDMENT #1 - PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2024-13 - CHAPTER 80 - PERSONNEL, ARTICLE IV - PENSION PLANS AND RETIREMENT BENEFITS (EXCEPT POLICE), DIVISION 3 - GENERAL EMPLOYEE PENSION PLAN VIRTUAL MEETING NOTICE This meeting will be held in the City Hall Council Chambers with electronic access via WebEx. Public participation information is as follows: Dial: 1-650-479-3208 Link: https://rb.gy/avr797 Event number: 2537 570 3197 Event password: DOVER (if needed) If you are new to WebEx, get the app now at www.webex.com/ to be ready when the meeting starts. The meeting can also be viewed on Comcast Channel 14, Verizon Channel 20, and on the City's Streaming Player located at www.cityofdover.com under "Quick Links". OPEN FORUM - 15 Minutes Prior to Official Meeting (6:15 p.m.) The “Open Forum” segment is provided to extend the opportunity to the general public to share their questions, thoughts, comments, concerns, and complaints. Discussion of any item appearing on the agenda as a public hearing is prohibited during the Open Forum as an opportunity will be provided during consideration of that item. Citizen comments are limited to three (3) minutes. Council is prohibited from taking action since they are not in official session; however, they may schedule such items as regular agenda items and act upon them in the future. INVOCATION - Elder Ellis B. Louden PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Councilman Anderson ADOPTION OF AGENDA ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA Page 1

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - April 22, 2024 PAGE 2 All Consent Agenda items are considered routine and non-controversial and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of Council so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered a separate item. PROCLAMATIONS 1. Drinking Water Week 2. Military Spouse Appreciation Day PUBLIC HEARING / FINAL READING PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - The First Reading of the Proposed Ordinance was accomplished during the Council meeting of December 11, 2023. The Public Hearing/Final Reading was deferred from February 12, 2024, until April 22, 2024, during the February 12, 2024, Regular Council Meeting. The ordinance is available at the entrance of the Council Chambers and on the City's website at www.cityofdover.com under "Government", or by contacting the City Clerk's Office at 302- 736-7008 or cityclerk@dover.de.us. 3. Proposed Ordinance #2023-12- Lands of Draper Farm Properties, LLC at 1617 Forrest Avenue Ordinance #2023-12- Review of Rezoning application for a parcel of land consisting of 5.04+/- acres. The property is zoned R-10 (One-Family Residence Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The proposed zoning for the property is C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The property is located on the north side Forrest Avenue adjacent to Cranberry Run Drive.(The owner of record is Draper Farm Properties, LLC. Property Address: 1617 Forrest Avenue. Tax Parcel: ED-05-075.00-01-07.00-000. Planning Reference: Z-23-02. Council District 1) FINAL READING - The First Reading of the Proposed Ordinance was accomplished during the Regular Council Meeting of January 22, 2024. A Public Hearing was held during the March 11, 2024, Regular Council Meeting. The Final Reading was deferred from March 11, 2024, until April 22, 2024, during the March 11, 2024, Regular Council Meeting. The ordinance is available at the entrance of the Council Chambers and on the City's website at www.cityofdover.com under "Government", or by contacting the City Clerk's Office at 302-736-7008 or cityclerk@dover.de.us. 4. Proposed Ordinance #2024-03-Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2024-Consideration of Amendment to Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map Ordinance #2024-03-Review of an Amendment to the 2019 Comprehensive Plan with consideration of an amendment of Map 12-1: Land Development Plan to revise the Land Use Classification of the property located at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard. The Request is to revise the Land Use Classification from Office to Mixed Use on Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map. (Property Owner: Dover Federal Credit Union and equitable owner Charles Chiang. Property Address: 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard. Tax Parcel: ED-05-067.12- 02-04.00-000. This is associated with Rezoning Application Z-24-02. Council District 4.) Page 2

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - April 22, 2024 PAGE 3 PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - The First Reading of the Proposed Ordinance was accomplished during the Council meeting of January 22, 2024. The Public Hearing/Final Reading was deferred from March 11, 2024, until April 22, 2022, during the March 11, 2024, Regular Council Meeting. The ordinance is available at the entrance of the Council Chambers and on the City's website at www.cityofdover.com under "Government", or by contacting the City Clerk's Office at 302-736-7008 or cityclerk@dover.de.us. 5. Proposed Ordinance #2024-04-Lands of Dover Federal Credit Union at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard: CPO to C-2A Ordinance #2024-04-Review and Recommendation of a Rezoning application for a parcel of land consisting of 5.04 acres+/-. The property is zoned CPO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone). The proposed zoning is C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). The property is located at the eastern terminus of Silver Lake Boulevard. (The owner of record is Dover Federal Credit Union and equitable owner Charles Chiang. Property Address: 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard. Tax Parcel: ED-05-067.12-02-04.00-000. This is associated with Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application MI-24-01. Planning Reference: Z-24-02 Council District 4.) CONSENT AGENDA ADOPTION OF MINUTES 6. Regular City Council Meeting of April 08, 2024 COMMITTEE REPORTS 7. Council Committee of the Whole Report of April 09, 2024 Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement 8. MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS - March 2024 A. Council President Hare B. First District C. Second District D. Third District E. Fourth District F. At-Large G. Mayor Christiansen Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee 9. Discussion - The National League of Cities (NLC) Service Line Program for the City of Dover (Dennis Lyon, Regional Director) Page 3

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - April 22, 2024 PAGE 4 (Committee Recommendation: Refer to staff for evaluation) 10. Evaluation of Bids - North Bradford Street Rehabilitation Project (Jason Lyon, Water/Wastewater Director) (Committee Recommendation: Award the contract to Sam's Construction, LLC, for the City of Dover North Bradford Street Rehabilitation Project, Bid #24-0025PW, for the amount of $1,103,390.70) 11. Proposed Ordinance #2024-07 - Amending Chapter 80 - Personnel, Article IV - Pension Plans and Retirement Benefits, Division 3 - General Employee Pension Plan (Committee Recommendation: Approval of Proposed Ordinance #2024-07) 12. Downtown Development District Renewal Application (David S. Hugg, III, City Manager and Ann Marie Townshend, Senior Project Manager at the Rossi Group) (Committee Recommendation: Approve the application as presented) 13. The Delaware Marijuana Control Act - Overview and Options for Dover (David S. Hugg, III, City Manager and Ann Marie Townshend, Senior Project Manager at the Rossi Group) (Committee Recommendation: For Staff to come back with recommendations based on what was heard and to include other zoning options) QUARTERLY REPORTS 14. Quarterly Revenue Report as of March 31, 2024 (Staff Recommendation: Acceptance of Quarterly Revenue Report) 15. Quarterly Review - Capital Investment Plan (CIP) (January, February, and March) (Staff Recommendation: Acceptance of Quarterly Review-Capital Investment Plan) SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS 16. Semi-Annual Inspection by City Manager - Robbins Hose Company (David S. Hugg, City Manager) (Staff Recommendation: Acceptance of the Semi-Annual Inspection Report) SPECIAL ELECTION TO FILL VACANCY-ROBBINS HOSE COMPANY - SECOND FIRE LINE CAPTAIN (TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 10, 2024) 17. DREW KUNTZI Page 4

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - April 22, 2024 PAGE 5 ITEMS NOT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA 18. Setting of Public Hearing - Removal of certain parcels (22 Acres) from the Downtown Development District (Staff Recommendation: That a Public Hearing be set for May 13, 2024 at 6:30 p.m.) ORDINANCES FIRST READING - The First Reading of the Proposed Ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of APRIL 08, 2024. The ordinance is available at the entrance of the Council Chambers and on the City's website at www.cityofdover.com under "Government." 19. Committee Amendment #1 - Proposed Ordinance #2024-13 - Chapter 80 - Personnel, Article IV - Pension Plans and Retirement Benefits (except Police), Division 3 - General Employee Pension Plan ( During its meeting of April 09, 2024, the Legislative, Finance and Administration Committee divided Proposed Ordinance #2024-07 into two parts. A portion of the ordinance was referred back to the General Pension Board for review. The second portion of Proposed Ordinance #2024-07 is advancing as Committee Amendment #1 Proposed Ordinance #2024-13.) (Committee Recommendation: Adopt Committee Amendment #1 for Proposed Ordinance 2024-13) FIRST READING REFERRAL - The First Reading is offered on the Proposed Ordinance. It is recommended for referral to the Planning Commission for a Public Hearing on MAY 20, 2024 and that a Public Hearing before City Council be set for JUNE 10, 2024 at 6:30 p.m., at which time the Final Reading and Council action will take place. The ordinance is available at the entrance of the Council Chambers, on the City's website at www.cityofdover.com under "Government," or by contacting the City Clerk's Office at 302-736-7008 or cityclerk@dover.de.us. 20. Proposed Ordinance #2024-11 - Lands of Chiang & Sons Properties, LLC at 1241 College Park Drive Ordinance #2024-11 - Review and Recommendation of a Rezoning application for a parcel of land consisting of 1.1024 acres +/-. The property is zoned C-PO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone). The proposed zoning for the property is IO (Institutional and Office Zone). The property is located on the east side of College Park Drive (a private street) and north of State College Road. (The owner of record is Chiang & Sons Properties, LLC. Property Address: 1241 College Park Drive. Tax Parcel: ED-05-067.00-02-12.08-000. Council District 4.) FINAL READING - The First Reading of the Proposed Ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of APRIL 08, 2024. The ordinance is available at the entrance of the Council Chambers and on the City's website at www.cityofdover.com under "Government." 21. Proposed Ordinance #2024-08 - Amending Appendix C - Downtown Redevelopment, Article II - Definitions, Section 4. - Target Area (David S. Hugg, III, City Manager) Page 5

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - April 22, 2024 PAGE 6 CITY MANAGER’S ANNOUNCEMENTS MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS COUNCIL MEMBERS’ ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT THE AGENDA ITEMS AS LISTED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. PURSUANT TO 29 DEL. C. §10004(e)(2), THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, WHICH ARISE AT THE TIME OF THE MEETING Page 6

Item #1. Page 7

Item #2. Page 8

Item #3. PETITION TO AMEND ZONING DISTRICT Public Hearing Before the Dover City Council February 12, 2024 Recommendation from Planning Commission Meeting of January 16, 2024 With Staff and Development Advisory Committee Review Application: Lands of Draper Farm Properties, LLC at 1617 Forest Avenue: Rezoning to C-1A and COZ-1 Zone Owner: Draper Farm Properties, LLC Address: 1617 Forrest Avenue, Dover DE Location: North side of Forrest Avenue, east of Cranberry Run Drive Tax Parcel: ED-05-075.00-01-07.00-000 Size: 5.04 acres+/- Present Use: Vacant (Previous residence demolished and with associated agricultural outbuildings and land in cultivation) 2019 Comprehensive Plan Designation – Land Use Category: Mixed Use Present Zoning: R-10 (One-Family Residence Zone) and COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) Proposed Zoning: C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) and COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) Reason for Request: To amend the zoning of the 5.04+/- acre parcel at 1617 Forrest Avenue, Dover DE 19904 from R-10 to C-1A (while retaining COZ-1 Overlay). File Number: Z-23-02 Ordinance Number: 2023-12 Page 9

Item #3. Z-23-02 Lands of Draper Farm Properties, LLC at 1617 Forrest Avenue: Rezoning to C-1A and COZ-1 Planning Commission Recommendation Report of January 16, 2024 Page 2 Planning Commission Recommendation: The Application Z-23-02 for Rezoning of Lands of Draper Farm Properties, LLC of 5.04 acres at 1617 Forrest Avenue was represented by Jonathan Street (of the Becker Morgan Group) and John Paradee, Esq. (of Baird Mandalas, Brockstedt & Federico). A Public Hearing was conducted on January 16, 2024 where ten (10) members of the public spoke, and one written comment was received regarding the Rezoning application. The Planning Commission’s motion to recommend denial of the proposed Rezoning from R-10/COZ-1 to C-1A/COZ-1 resulted in a 6-2 vote in favor of denial. (Draft Meeting Minutes attached.) APPLICATION: Z-23-02 Lands of Draper Farm Properties LLC at 1617 Forrest Avenue This Rezoning Application was referred to the Planning Commission as per Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 §5. The Planning Commission is required to provide a Review Report to City Council. The following document and attachments are provided as the Review Report and Planning Commission Recommendation. I. APPLICATION SUMMARY This Rezoning Application Z-23-02 is for a parcel of land consisting of 5.04 acres. The property is zoned R-10 (One Family Residence Zone) subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The proposed zoning is C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The property is located on the north side of Forrest Avenue and adjacent to Cranberry Run Drive. The owner of record is Draper Farm Properties LLC. Property Address: 1617 Forrest Avenue. Tax Parcel: ED-05-075.00-01-07.00-000. Council District 1. Ordinance #2023-12 The First Reading was completed by the City Council on December 11, 2023 referring the Application to the Planning Commission for Public Hearing, Review, and Recommendation. Existing Property: The property consisted of 5.04 acres is located at the northeast corner of Forrest Avenue and Cranberry Run Drive. The property has frontage of over 750 feet along Forrest Avenue/Route 8 and frontage of over 300 feet on Cranberry Run Drive. The property has a farmstead location (previous dwelling now demolished) and a series of accessory structures that appeared to have served as agricultural buildings. A majority of the property has been in agricultural cultivation. Both street frontages have existing sidewalks and existing curb cuts for the former dwelling location (from Forrest Avenue) and to the field/accessory structures (from Cranberry Run Drive). This application only seeks rezoning of the property from R-10 to C-1A; the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) zoning designation will remain. The applicant is seeking rezoning to allow for future mixed-use development of the property. Any redevelopment of the site will be subject to a separate application submission for plans or permits. See attached Applicant’s submission Letter of October 31, 2023. Previous Applications: This property was subject to a Request during the review process for the adoption of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan. As Request for Changes to DRAFT 2019 Comprehensive Plan - Request Page 10

Item #3. Z-23-02 Lands of Draper Farm Properties, LLC at 1617 Forrest Avenue: Rezoning to C-1A and COZ-1 Planning Commission Recommendation Report of January 16, 2024 Page 3 #1, the property owner requested a change in the Land Use Classification (on Land Development Plan Map 12-1) from the proposed Residential Medium Density Land Use Classification to Mixed Use or Commercial Land Use Classification. On December 16, 2019, the Planning Commission recommended (by a vote of 5-2) a Land Use Classification of Mixed Use. Then, the Land Use Classification Category of Mixed Use for this property was approved by the City Council on January 13, 2020 as part of the review and adoption of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan document and maps. The Land Use Classification of the property is Mixed Use. In 2021, a Rezoning Application (Z-21-05) was considered for this 5.04 acre property at 1617 Forrest Avenue. The Application Z-21-05 sought to rezone the property from R-10 (One Family Residence Zone) subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) to the C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The Planning Commission on June 21, 2021 recommended denial of the Rezoning request to C-2A with COZ-1 for property by a vote of 8-0 (one member absent) following a Public Hearing where thirteen (13) members of the public spoke and over twenty-one (21) written comment items were received. Then following a rescheduled Public Hearing (originally set for July 12, 2021) and consideration on August 9, 2021, the City Council’s motion to adopt the Rezoning Ordinance #2021-14 failed (vote of 1-8). Thus, the Rezoning Application Z-21-05 for 1617 Forrest Avenue to C-2A and COZ-1 was unsuccessful, and the property remained zoned as R-10 and subject to the COZ-1 zone.1 Surrounding Land Uses The surrounding parcels are zoned residential. The properties immediately adjacent on the north and to the west of the property are zoned R-10 (One Family Residence Zone). This is a residential subdivision of single family detached dwellings known as Cranberry Run. Adjacent to the east are properties zoned RM-1 (Residential Medium Density Zone) as another residential subdivision of Heatherfield consisting of single family detached dwellings and duplexes along Stoney Drive. There are more residential developments along Forrest Avenue as you move east until reaching the extensive commercial corridor which starts about Mifflin Road and continues east. Across Forrest Avenue/Route 8 to the south of the subject site are a series of nine (9) parcels with eight (8) single family detached dwellings located under Kent County’s jurisdiction. Also, to the south (and surrounding these residences) is the campus of the Dover High School. Access to the Dover High School, is via Dover High Drive with its signalized intersection with Forrest Avenue (0.36 miles west of the subject site) and at the campus entrance with HAWK Signal at the intersection of Heatherfield Way and Forrest Avenue. II. COMPRENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE REVIEW In the 2019 Comprehensive Plan, the Land Development Plan (Map 12-1) recommends that this property be used for Mixed Use. Regarding Mixed Use Areas and the Land Use Classification of Mixed Use, this is discussed in Chapter 12 – Land Development Plan beginning on page 12-7. The goals and for Mixed Use Areas Land Use are listed in the 2019 Comprehensive Plan excerpts presented below: Goals: Mixed Land Use The overall goals for Mixed Use areas are: 1 It is noted that on August 27, 2021 Case # 2021-0740-JRS Draper Farm Properties, LLC v. City of Dover was filed with the Court of Chancery. Page 11

Item #3. Z-23-02 Lands of Draper Farm Properties, LLC at 1617 Forrest Avenue: Rezoning to C-1A and COZ-1 Planning Commission Recommendation Report of January 16, 2024 Page 4 1. Encourage creation of neighborhood centers. 2. Within the close-knit neighborhood fabric there are opportunities for the creation of urban centers. These centers should be established along major roadways and feature mixed use development, pedestrian-friendly public environments and opportunities for connection to future transit. 3. In order to encourage non-automobile access to the center, the activities should be clustered within a one-half mile radius (or 10-minute walk) and be located so as to draw upon residents from a number of surrounding neighborhoods. 4. Develop strategies that will encourage the creation of well-defined public street spaces and pedestrian-friendly village areas that encourage walking and bicycle use. This may include on-street and behind building parking, and the creation of build-to lines for new development. 5. Improve access that limits public access to open spaces areas such as pedestrian, bicycle, and transit networks to parks and natural areas. 6. Encourage the Mixed Use of residential and commercial uses in the Downtown area. The Comprehensive Plan notes that Mixed Use Areas “can be an area where a new development should foster walkability and close interactions among activities and uses in a traditional neighborhood setting.” Chapter 9 – Transportation Plan from the Comprehensive Plan identifies Forrest Avenue/Route 8 as a Minor Arterial Street and the need to focus efforts on improvements along the Route 8 corridor “that would improve safety, better manage access, reduce congestions, and provide improved traffic flow.” The development and implementation of strategies for addressing East/West Traffic in the City is Recommendation 7 from that Chapter. The Rezoning Request to C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) is consistent with the Land Use Classification of Mixed Use. Table 12-1: Land Use and Zoning Matrix (from the 2019 Comprehensive Plan) specifies that the following zones are compatible with this land use classification. See the excerpt from Table 12-1 given below. It is noted that Table 12-1 for the Mixed Use Land Use Category identifies a number of zoning districts that allow for a mix of commercial and residential uses with some zoning districts being more limiting in the specific types of uses permitted. C-2 (Central Commercial) (Downtown Redevelopment Target Area Only) C-2A (Limited Central Commercial) TND (Traditional Neighborhood Design) C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) C-1A (Limited Commercial) RGO (General Residence and Office) (Downtown Redevelopment Target Area Only) Mixed-Use R-8 (One Family Residence) R-10 (One Family Residence) RG-1 (General Residence) RG-2 (General Residence) RG-4 (General Resident - Multi-Story Apartments) C-3 (Service Commercial) CPO (Commercial and Professional Office) IO (Institutional and Office) Page 12

Item #3. Z-23-02 Lands of Draper Farm Properties, LLC at 1617 Forrest Avenue: Rezoning to C-1A and COZ-1 Planning Commission Recommendation Report of January 16, 2024 Page 5 III. ZONING REVIEW Request for C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) Zoning The types of permitted uses and conditional uses in the C-1A zone are given Article 3 §12 of the Zoning Ordinance. See the following code excerpt. Article 3 Section 12. – Limited Commercial Zone (C-1A). 12.1 Uses permitted. In a limited commercial zone (C-1A), 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: (a) Retail stores. (b) Personal service establishments. (c) Service establishments. (d) Restaurants. (e) Business, professional, and governmental offices. (f) One family residences, including attached and semi-detached dwellings, complying with the bulk standards of the RG-1 (General Residence) zone. (g) Apartments and multi-family dwellings. 12.2 Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted, conditional upon the approval of the planning commission in accordance with the procedures and subject to the general conditions set forth in article 10, section 1: (a) Drive-throughs accessory to a permitted use. 12.3 Uses prohibited. The following uses are prohibited: (a) Fuel pumps and motor vehicle storage, sales, or repairs. 12.4 Enclosed buildings. All permitted uses and all storage accessory thereto, other than offstreet parking, shall be carried on in buildings fully enclosed on all sides, except for outdoor eating areas associated with restaurants and outdoor sales areas approved by the city plan ner. 12.5 Performance standards. All uses are subject to performance standards as set forth in article 5, section 8.1. 12.6 Site 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. (Ord. of 6-25-1984; Ord. of 3-24-1986; Ord. of 7-10-2000; Ord. of 2-12-2001; Ord. No. 2014-08, 7-14-2014 ) COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) The provisions of the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) are established to “promote superior urban corridor development and the highest quality-built environment.” There are a series architectural, parking, and landscaping guidelines that would be required by the COZ-1 zoning district, if development of the property is proposed. The purpose and requirements of the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) are given in Article 3 §27 of the Zoning Ordinance. See the following code excerpt. Page 13

Item #3. Z-23-02 Lands of Draper Farm Properties, LLC at 1617 Forrest Avenue: Rezoning to C-1A and COZ-1 Planning Commission Recommendation Report of January 16, 2024 Page 6 Article 3 Section 27. – Corridor Overlay Zone 1 (COZ-1) 27.1 Purpose. The corridor overlay zone (COZ) is established for the following reasons: (a) To promote superior urban corridor development and the highest quality built environment; (b) To foster coordination and linkage among corridor properties and with adjacent lands; (c) To preserve the functionality and efficiency of the roadway for traffic movement; and (d) To achieve a visually balanced streetscape environment which is friendly to the pedestrian and motorist alike. 27.2 Superior urban design. For the purposes of this ordinance the term "superior urban design" shall meet the following criteria: (a) Superior urban design places a strict and primary importance on the pedestrian. The concept should lend itself to interconnectivity while presenting building structures as aspects of the street, not simply islands existing in the "sea of roads". The design should encourage fewer car-trips, as well as promote automobile trips on an interconnected local street system rather than trips that utilize the arterials. In demonstrating superior urban design, an applicant must show that the plan presented exceeds the requirements of the zoning ordinance in at least two of the following areas: (i) Transportation amenities for bicycles, pedestrians and transit that exceed those required by the zoning ordinance; (ii) Architectural features including, but not limited to: LEED-certified buildings; unique architecture not replicated in other locations; use of architectural elements such as entry porticos, porte-cocheres, colonnades, cornices, porch columns and balusters, band courses, coins, water tables and other trim that enhances visual quality and function of the structure; and use of the highest-quality construction materials. (iii) Landscaping that exceeds the requirements of this section, including robust use of trees, shrubbery, and flowering plants to screen parked cars; water gardens and ponds; arboretums; tree preservation measures; (iv) Public spaces and art including, but not limited to, sculpture, memorials, murals, public court yards and pocket parks, and fountains; (v) Green technologies for stormwater management, as well as green energy technologies such as geothermal heating and cooling and solar energy supplies. (b) The city planner shall develop policy guidance on how the concept of superior urban design will be evaluated. 27.3 Zone boundaries. The COZ encompasses the lands adjacent to the following roadways as outlined on the City of Dover Zoning Map as set forth in article 2, section 2 of this ordinance: (a) Delaware Route 8 (Forrest and Division Streets) from the railroad tracks in a westerly direction to the city limit line. (b) McKee/Saulsbury Road (County Road 156) from the intersection at Dennys Road (County Road 100) in a southerly direction to the terminal intersection with West North Street (County Road 73). Page 14

Item #3. Z-23-02 Lands of Draper Farm Properties, LLC at 1617 Forrest Avenue: Rezoning to C-1A and COZ-1 Planning Commission Recommendation Report of January 16, 2024 Page 7 27.4 Permitted uses. Land use shall be governed by those provisions of this ordinance related to the specific zoning district designations of each property as depicted on the zoning map. 27.5 Site development plan approval. Site development plan approval in accordance with article 10, section 2 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 in use. When the zoning district regulations specify that a particular use requires conditional use approval in accordance with article 10, section 1, the provisions of that article shall apply. Site development plans and conditional use site plans for properties within the COZ shall reflect compliance with the development guidelines of this article, in addition to all other applicable codes and regulations. 27.6 Development guidelines. 27.61 Setbacks: a. Front yards. Residential Nonresidential Min. Max. Min. Max. McKee/Saulsbury 60' to 80' 40' to 50' * Route 8—Artis Drive to Mifflin Road 60' to 80' None Route 8—Mifflin Road to Saulsbury 40' to 60' 40' to 60' * Road Route 8—Saulsbury Road to R.R. line 20' to 30' 20' to 30' Subdivision streets (Setback provisions of article 4 shall apply) * When the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the planning commission through the site plan review process that the proposal involves a superior urban design, the maximum setback may be increased to no more than 90 feet from the property line on Route 8 from Mifflin Road to Saulsbury Road and on McKee and Saulsbury Roads. 27.62 Building placement. Buildings shall be situated on the property so as to maximize the use of the frontage along the roadway and shall have the longest side of the building arranged parallel and square to the roadway. When the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the planning commission that, due to specific constraints related to lot configuration, alternative building placements may be permitted. 27.63 Parking. (a) Location. Parking shall not be permitted to be situated within the front yard, nor between the right-of-way line and the building, except in the following instances: (i) Automobile service stations; (ii) Properties in a shopping center (SC) zoning district, in which case, parking may be permitted between the building and the roadway, provided that such parking [shall] be limited to five rows of single parking spaces between the road and the storefront; (iii) When the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the planning commission through the site plan review process that the design presented involves a superior urban design, parking may be permitted between the building and the street, provided that such parking within this area shall be adequately landscaped and screened from the roadway. (b) Required number of spaces. See specific district requirements in article 4. Page 15

Item #3. Z-23-02 Lands of Draper Farm Properties, LLC at 1617 Forrest Avenue: Rezoning to C-1A and COZ-1 Planning Commission Recommendation Report of January 16, 2024 Page 8 (c) Layout. (i) Parking lots shall be arranged in such a manner so that not more than 20 parking spaces in a row shall be permitted without a landscaped island. No more than six rows of 20 spaces shall be provided without provision for a landscaped median. Parking islands shall be a minimum of ten feet wide and planting medians shall be no less than eight feet wide. (ii) There shall be a landscaped buffer area of at least 12 feet in width between the building and parking lot and drive areas. The buffer area shall include provisions for a sidewalk of at least six feet and no greater than eight feet in width. The buffer area and sidewalk shall be grade separated from the parking lot by concrete curbing of at least six inches in height. (d) Landscaping. Design shall be simple and easy to maintain and shall consist of a combination of hardy canopy trees, low evergreen shrubs and turf grass, and shall be designed in accordance with landscape guidelines set forth in article 5, section 15 of this ordinance and as follows: (i) Interior landscaping. A minimum of five percent of the interior area of a parking lot shall be reserved for landscape purposes. This provision shall include the landscaping of all required parking islands and medians. Shade trees shall be incorporated within the landscaped islands whenever and wherever practicable. (ii) Parking lot screening adjacent to public right-of-way. Low profile screening shall be required when parking spaces would result in vehicles facing onto the roadway. Screening may consist of a low wall, evergreen hedge with a minimum height of two feet at the time of planting, planted three feet apart on center, and a maximum height of three feet at maturity, or earth berm. Should a low wall be used, such wall shall be accompanied by evergreen shrub plantings on the roadway side of the wall and spaced ten feet apart on center. (iii) Reserved. 27.64 Site access. (a) Entrance width and radii. Site entrances shall have a minimum width of 24 feet. Entrances involving a median divider shall be at least 35 feet in width. Entrance radii shall be a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 25 feet. (b) Number of entrances and curb cut spacing. One curb cut shall be permitted for each street which abuts a site. For sites with street frontage in excess of 300 linear feet, one additional curb cut may be permitted. For sites with street frontage in excess of 600 linear feet, two additional curb cuts may be permitted. Multiple curb cuts on a property shall have a minimum spacing distance in accordance with the following schedule: Speed Limit Maximum Spacing (Ft.) 25 105 30 125 35 150 40 185 45 230 50 275 Page 16

Item #3. Z-23-02 Lands of Draper Farm Properties, LLC at 1617 Forrest Avenue: Rezoning to C-1A and COZ-1 Planning Commission Recommendation Report of January 16, 2024 Page 9 (c) [Shared access.] Shared access shall be provided, whenever possible, for entrances to adjoining uses, including residential driveways. (d) [Cross access.] Cross access shall be provided among abutting uses of similar use categories, whenever possible, to provide linkage between properties as an alternative to re-entering the corridor to access both existing and future neighboring properties. (e) Entrance locations for adjoining properties. Commercial site entrances shall be no closer than 25 feet to an adjoining property which is zoned residential and no closer than ten feet to an adjoining property which is in a nonresidential zoning category. 27.65 [Signs.] Signs shall meet the regulations found in article 5, section 4, supplementary sign regulations. 27.66 Building height. (a) Buildings shall be limited in overall height to 35 feet and shall not exceed two stories. 27.67 Open space and landscaping. (a) Lot coverage. Each lot shall have a minimum of 25 percent of the lot area dedicated to be landscaped open space. A lesser amount of landscaped open space may be permitted when it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the planning commission, through the site plan review process, that, due to lot configuration and existing built conditions, the required minimum is impractical. (b) Frontage. Each lot shall have a landscaped open space of at least 25 feet in width, measured from the back of curb along the entire frontage of the lot, except at points of site access. Trees shall be provided along the frontage perimeter at a minimum rate of one tree for each 50 linear feet of frontage. (c) Side and rear yards. A minimum of 15 feet of landscaped open space shall be provided along all side and rear lot lines when abutting a residential use and a minimum of five feet when abutting a nonresidential use. Tree plantings shall be provided along all nonfrontage perimeters at a minimum rate of one tree for each 75 linear feet. (d) Stormwater detention ponds. Detention ponds may be counted toward the minimum 25 percent open space area, provided that such ponds are designed to emulate natural features by incorporating irregular outline, gradual slopes (no greater than 1:4), and appropriate landscape plantings. (e) Landscaping. Landscaped open spaces shall be designed in accordance with the provisions of this section, as well as the landscaping guidelines as set forth in article 5, section 9 of this ordinance. (f) Screening. The following items shall be located so as to minimize visibility from the roadway, adjacent properties and other public areas, and shall be screened from public view: (1) Service bays; (2) Loading docks and platforms; (3) Rooftop utilities; (4) Satellite dishes; (5) Dumpsters; (6) Storage areas. (g) Standard for tree plantings. Trees shall be of a high canopy variety and shall be limbed to a minimum height of 12 feet above grade at maturity. Page 17

Item #3. Z-23-02 Lands of Draper Farm Properties, LLC at 1617 Forrest Avenue: Rezoning to C-1A and COZ-1 Planning Commission Recommendation Report of January 16, 2024 Page 10 (h) Standards for shrubbery. Shrubbery shall be of a low evergreen variety and shall be limited to use as foundation plantings and for screening purposes. (i) Standards for ground cover. Ground cover shall be limited to turf and ornamental grasses and ornamental evergreen ground cover plantings within required landscape areas. 27.68 Lot configuration. All lots within the corridor overlay district created after the enactment of this section shall conform to the following: (a) Minimum lot area [shall be] 10,000 square feet. Service stations [shall have a minimum lot area of] 20,000 square feet. (b) Minimum lot depth shall be 100 feet. In the C-3 (service commercial) district, the minimum lot depth shall be 150 feet. (c) Minimum road frontage shall be at least 100 feet. In the C-3 (service commercial) district, the minimum road frontage shall be 150 feet. 27.69 Architectural review. The side of any building which faces the corridor (or corridors) shall be referred to as the "corridor elevation." Buildings in the COZ-1 shall be designed to front on the corridor, and the corridor elevation shall contain architectural elements traditionally associated with the front of a building. Blank walls without functioning windows are prohibited along the corridor. Windows must be incorporated into the overall design concept of the corridor elevation. Providing one or several small windows on a large corridor elevation shall not constitute compliance with this ordinance. A "functioning window" shall be defined as a window which lets light into the interior of the structure, and is integrated and related to the interior layout of the space. In addition to functioning windows, the corridor elevation shall have the following elements: (a) A primary entrance door or doors (except for loading doors). (b) A primary entrance feature, such as a porch, portico, awning, entrance walk, or other similar feature. In addition, the corridor elevation shall have one of the following elements: (a) Landscaping integrated into the building design concept. (b) Architectural or urban design elements which link adjacent structures together, such as plazas, walkways, colonnades, or similar features. (c) Architectural relief, such as vertical and horizontal offsets in exterior wall elevations, band courses, lintels and sill courses, cornices, and the like, to create shadow lines. The applicant shall submit 12 copies of the corridor elevation at the time of application. The city planner or his/her designee shall determine whether compliance with the provisions of this ordinance has been achieved. 27.7 Properties located on a corner lot with two frontages within the Corridor Overlay Zone. When a property is located on the corner of two corridors within the Corridor Overlay Zone, only one of the two corridors shall be subject to the requirements of Section 27.61 Setbacks and Section 27.63 Parking, Subsection (a) Location. The frontage of the property on which the identifiable front of the building is located shall be the frontage that is subject to the requirements of Section 27.61 And Section 27.63, Subsection (a). In designing the site, in order to qualify for the relief under this subsection, the applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the planning commission that the design incorporates the principles of superior urban design as defined in Section 27.2. IV. RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING STAFF: This Request is to rezone lands from R-10 (One Family Residence Zone) to C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone). The property would remain subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). Page 18

Item #3. Z-23-02 Lands of Draper Farm Properties, LLC at 1617 Forrest Avenue: Rezoning to C-1A and COZ-1 Planning Commission Recommendation Report of January 16, 2024 Page 11 The permitted uses allowed in the current zoning district of R-10 focus on residential uses as one-family detached residences and also provides the ability for consideration of conditional uses for places of worship, schools, and certain other institutional types uses. The proposed Rezoning to C-1A zone is a zoning district offering a mix of uses. For the C-1A zone, the range of permitted uses that are commercial uses include retail, personal service establishments, service establishments, restaurants, and offices. The C-1A zone also includes permitted uses that are residential in nature including one-family residences (detached dwellings, attached (townhouse) units, and semi-detached (duplex) units); apartments; and multi-family dwellings (more than 2 dwelling units in same building). The C-1A zone also includes conditional uses (uses subject to specific review for approval) for drive-throughs accessory to a permitted use. The C-1A specifically prohibits fuel pumps and motor vehicle storage, sales, or repairs. Staff recommends that the rezoning for C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) while retaining the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) be granted as requested, as the proposed zoning is consistent with the 2019 Comprehensive Plan (as amended) for the Mixed Use Land Use Classification Category. The C-1A zoning district is a mixed use district allowing for development of both commercial land uses and residential land uses. Staff also recommends that the property remain subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) due to its frontage on Forrest Avenue. The purposes of the COZ-1 are to promote superior urban corridor development; to foster coordination and linkage among corridor properties; to preserve functionality and efficiency of the roadway for traffic movement; and to achieve a visually balanced streetscape environment friendly to the pedestrian and motorist. (Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §27). The COZ-1 includes a number of additional buffers/setbacks, landscaping enhancements, and site layout design requirements which will be required as part of any proposed development activities on the parcel. This area of Forrest Avenue is part of a corridor gateway leading into the City of Dover. This location is along a key west-east corridor in the transportation system. The area is a transition from the rural areas west of Dover as the corridor becomes residential and then a more heavily commercial area as it moves towards the central core of the City. Within the City limits to the west/southwest of this subject site there is the Dover High School campus, several places of assembly (churches), and an existing apartment complex and other apartment developments proposed. Planning Staff does note the residential character and density of housing units within the area surrounding this subject property and the existence of a sidewalk network for walkability that would allow for residents to reach this location (by walking) should small scale commercial uses be proposed for development to provides services. In addition, other transportation improvements may also be required based on the traffic generation of any proposed development. This Rezoning Request does not grant approval of a specific use for the property but makes its land use subject to a listing of uses permitted and potential conditional uses as allowed in the C-1A zoning district. Staff again notes that any potential development for the site would have to be in line with the zoning district classifications and would similarly have to follow all development design guidelines of the Zoning Ordinance and other City and State regulations. Were the application for Rezoning to be recommended by the Planning Commission and subsequently approved by the City Council, the applicant would still have to submit Site Development Plans for review for most uses of the site to be established. Page 19

Item #3. Z-23-02 Lands of Draper Farm Properties, LLC at 1617 Forrest Avenue: Rezoning to C-1A and COZ-1 Planning Commission Recommendation Report of January 16, 2024 Page 12 Any development of the property once zoned C-1A with the COZ-1 would be subject to the bulk standards and provisions and the review processes for site development. Staff notes that the C- 1A includes a series of bulk standards related to lot width, setbacks, a two story building height, and a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.5 (ratio of building floor area to lot area). Also, the COZ-1 zone includes design standards for development related to setbacks, height, buffers, landscaping, etc. Any non-conformity of the existing buildings’ uses and placement regarding the bulk standards of the C-1A and COZ-1 would be subject to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 7 – Nonconforming Buildings and Uses. This recommendation is being made without the benefit of hearing the comments of surrounding landowners and residents. A public hearing is required on this matter and the Planning Commission should give those comments consideration. V. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW FOR RECOMMENDATION This Rezoning Application is a request for a zoning map amendment which changes the zoning district of a property. The Planning Commission as part of their public hearing and review process will provide a recommendation on the rezoning request to City Council. As part of the process outlined in Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 Section 5, the Planning Commission must evaluate the following factors when considering the request: Article 10 § 5.36 Report of the planning commission. Regarding each application for a zoning map amendment, the planning commission shall provide a report to the city council stating a recommended action with regards to the proposed amendment, along with the commission's evaluation of the following factors: (A) Whether the uses permitted by the proposed change would be compatible with the existing uses and zones in the area concerned; (B) Whether adequate public services and infrastructure exist or can be created or expanded to serve the needs of any additional demand as a result of such change; and (C) Whether the proposed change is in accordance with the city's current comprehensive plan. A Recommendation Report from the Planning Commission will be forwarded to City Council for their consideration of the Rezoning Application. This document and its attachments make up the Recommendation Report. RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: At the Hybrid (In-Person and Virtual) Planning Commission Meeting of January 16, 2024, the Application Z-23-02 was represented by the members of the project team including Jonathan Street of Becker Morgan Group and John Paradee, Esq. of Baird, Mandalas, Brockstedt & Federico. The project team presented their request for rezoning with a PowerPoint presentation including a series of maps. During the Public Hearing, ten (10) members of the public spoke, and one written comment was received. The Planning Commission’s motion was to recommend the denial of Rezoning application Z-23-02 Lands of Draper Farm Properties, LLC at 1617 Forrest Avenue for rezoning from R-10/COZ-1 to C-1A/COZ-1 and resulted in a vote of 6-2 in favor of denial of the rezoning. Page 20

Item #3. Z-23-02 Lands of Draper Farm Properties, LLC at 1617 Forrest Avenue: Rezoning to C-1A and COZ-1 Planning Commission Recommendation Report of January 16, 2024 Page 13 The Planning Commission members’ reasons cited for denial of the rezoning include concerns with compatibility of the addition of commercial in a residential neighborhood (housing) area; the inappropriateness of the proposed rezoning; concerns with traffic and safety of residents and children and safety issues in regard to nearby school; and the broadness of the C-1A zoning district; and the testimony received from residents. The Planning Commission members’ reasons cited against the motion for denial of the rezoning included the compliance of the proposed rezoning with the desire of the Comprehensive Plan for a mixed of uses and noting that the concerns of safety and traffic will be addressed during a Site Plan process. See also the included excerpt of the DRAFT Meeting Minutes of the January 16, 2024 Planning Commission meeting. The comments received from the other member agencies of the Development Advisory Committee (D.A.C.) are also provided. VI. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1) The applicant shall be aware that approval of any Rezoning Application does not represent Site Development Plan or Subdivision Plan approval. Following any decision made by City Council in regard to this Rezoning, then an application for a Site Plan, Subdivision Plan, and/or appropriate Building Permits must be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the establishment of a use, development activity, or any construction activity on the site. The applicant should contact the Planning Staff to determine the appropriate review process for any proposed projects. 2) The property is subject to the requirements of the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) related to development. 3) The applicant shall be aware that approval of any Rezoning Application does not represent a Building Permit, Sign Permit, or other construction activity permit approval. A separate application submission is required before issuance of permits by the City of Dover. 4) The applicant shall be aware that any future use of the existing structures may be subject to a separate permitting or licensing process through the City of Dover Licensing and Permitting Division. All businesses operating in the City of Dover are required to obtain a City of Dover Business Licenses. Certain types of uses also require a Public Occupancy Permit or Rental Dwelling Permits. ATTACHMENTS: • Zoning Map Exhibit • Application Z-23-02 Submission: o Letter Narrative of Submission o Forrest Avenue Rezoning Exhibit Plan Sheet Page 21

Item #3. Z-23-02 Lands of Draper Farm Properties, LLC at 1617 Forrest Avenue: Rezoning to C-1A and COZ-1 Planning Commission Recommendation Report of January 16, 2024 Page 14 • Development Advisory Committee Comments from City of Dover Departments of Public Works and Water & Wastewater, Electric Department, City Office of the Fire Marshal, DelDOT, and the Dover/Kent County MPO • PowerPoint Presentation Slide Series from 1/16/2024 Meeting (Presentation by Applicant) • Public Comments Set 1: Email from Robert Hice dated 1/16/2024 • Excerpt from DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 16, 2024 • Proposed Ordinance #2024-01 Page 22

City of Dover Application No.: Z-23-02 Item #3. Department of Planning & Inspections R-8 ir Som e rse tC R-10 ROS Che ROS lsea T uc k Way et Cir R-10 Matthew Ct R-8 RM-1 R-8 R-10 Stoney Dr Falm R-10 ou th W a y Dr Cranberry Ru R-10 n R-10 Heatherfield Way A Yarmouth Way R-8 R- R-10 20 Forrest Ave IO Dr igh rH D ove RM-1 Mar ROS g a te C ir Tile: Lands of Draper Farm Properties, LLC Ordinance #: 2023-12 Address: 1617 Forrest Ave Legend Parcel IDs: ED-05-075.00-01-07.00-000 Dover Boundary Existing Zoning: R-10 (One Family Residence Zone) COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) Subject Property Proposed Zoning: C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) Zoning COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) Owner: Draper Farm Properties LLC Dover Parcels Date: 12/05/2023 « Corridor Overlay Zone 0 200 400 800 Feet Page 23

Item #3. Page 24

Item #3. Page 25

Item #3. SITE DATA ZONING - R - 10 1. OWNER OF RECORD: DRAPER FARM PROPERTIES, LLC ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE 23 ZION ROAD SMYRNA, DE 19977 2. ENGINEER: BECKER MORGAN GROUP INC. 309 SOUTH GOVERNORS AVENUE ZONING - R - 10 DOVER, DE 19904 ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE (302) 743 - 7950 3. PROPERTY MAP NUMBER: 2-05-07500-01-0700-00001 ZONING - R - 10 ONE FAMILY 4. ZONING CLASSIFICATION: EXISTING: R-10 - ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE RESIDENCE ZONE PROPOSED: C-1A - LIMITED COMMERCIAL ZONE 5. DEED SUMMARY: 9233 - 0253 & 7548 - 0312 6. PRESENT USE: VACANT RESIDENTIAL HOME 7. PROPOSED USE: MIXED USE 8. TOTAL SITE AREA: 5.00 ACRES ± 9. SOURCE OF WATER: CITY OF DOVER ZONING - RG - 2 GENERAL RESIDENCE SOURCE OF SEWER: ZONING - CITY OF DOVER RECREATIO ROS N & OPEN SPACE ZONING - R - 10 ONE FAMILY ZONING - R - 10 RESIDENCE ZONE ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE ZONING - R - 10 CRANBERRY RUN DRIVE ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE SITE LANDS N/F DRAPER FARM PROPERTIES, LLC. T.P. 2-05-07500-01-0700-00001 ZONING - R - 10 - ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE ZONING - A 5.00 ACRES ± AGRICULTURAL ZONING - R - 10 ONE FAMILY ZONING - R-M1 ZONING - R - 20 ZONING - R - 20 RESIDENCE ZONE ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY ZONING - R-M1 ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RESIDNECE MEDIUM DENSITY ZONING - R - 8 ZONING - R - 8 RESIDNECE ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FORREST AVENUE ZONING - IO ZONING - RS1 INSTATUTIONAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING - R - 10 ZONING - RS1 OFFICE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE LAYER STATE: 11x17 FORREST AVENUE ARCH I T E C TURE ENG I NE E R I NG BMG: 2021070.00 1" = 150' 0 75 150 SCALE: REZONING EXHIBIT Dover, DE DATE: 11/03/2023 309 S. Governors Ave. DRAWN BY: A.C.F. Dover, DE 19904 Do Not Explode - Select Scale CITY OF DOVER Ph. 302.734.7950 SCALE: 1" = 150' KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE Fax 302.734.7965 1Page 26 F:\AutoCAD\Projects\2021\2021070\DWG\2021070-AERIAL.dwg, Dec 05, 2023 - 3:21pm 2023-12-05

Item #3. CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 27, 2023 APPLICATION: Lands of Draper Farm Properties at 1617 Forrest Avenue FILE #: Z-23-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Department of Public Works and Water & Wastewater CONTACT PERSON: Jason A. Lyon, P.E., Director of Water & Wastewater CONTACT PHONE #: 302-736-7025 CONTACT EMAIL #: jlyon@dover.de.us 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 SANITATION / STREETS / STORMWATER / WATER / WASTEWATER / GENERAL 1. Our office has no objections to the proposed rezoning of tax parcel ED-05-075.00-01-07.00-000. Any redevelopment shall adhere to the City of Dover Water/Wastewater Handbook and the Specifications, Standards & Procedures for Public Works Construction. Impact fees may be applied to this property. Future development shall comply with all aspects of the City of Dover’s Cross Connection Control Program. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES SANITATION / STREETS / STORMWATER / WATER / WASTEWATER / GENERAL 1. None ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT SANITATION / STREETS / STORMWATER / WATER / WASTEWATER / GENERAL 1. None 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 . Page 27

Item #3. CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: DEC 27, 2023 APPLICATION: Lands of Draper Farm Properties at 1617 Forrest Ave FILE #: Z-23-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Electric Department CONTACT PERSON: Shawn Burgett, Engineering Services & System Ops Superintendent CONTACT PHONE #: 302-674-7568 CONTACT EMAIL #: sburgett@dover.de.us 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 Our office has no objection to the rezoning of: ED-05-075.00-01-07.00-000, Council District 1. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES ELECTRIC 1. Should this site be redeveloped, which includes modifications to the use, the applicant / developer will be responsible for all costs associated with providing the appropriate meter / service to this site based upon the use including any necessary system upgrades or extensions. The appropriateness and adequacy of electric and meters will be assessed at that time. 2. Any redevelopment shall adhere to the City of Dover’s Electric Service Handbook. https://evogov.s3.amazonaws.com/media/27/media/13108.pdf. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT ELECTRIC 1. None. 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 . Page 28

C F #3. Z-23-02 Item I I T R CITY OF DOVER Y E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE O M F A APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY R D.A.C. MEETING DATE: 12/27/23 D S O H V A E L R APPLICATION: Lands of Draper Farm Properties at 1617 Forrest Ave FILE #: Z-23-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover, Office of the Fire Marshal CONTACT PERSON: Jason Osika, Fire Marshal PHONE #: (302) 736-4457 josika@dover.de.us 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 ADDRESS BY THE APPLICANT: CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Proposal is for a rezoning application. This office has no objections. 2. Every house, building or structure used or intended for use as living quarters or as a place for conducting business, and having any wall facing or abutting any public or private street or alley, shall have displayed on that wall, in legible, easily read characters which are of contrasting color to the background, the proper street number for such house, building, or structure in accordance with the following: One-family and two-family residential structures, height, the number shall measure a minimum of four inches in height, location, the number shall be placed on the house above or to the left or right of the front entrance, color, the number shall be contrasting to the background color, Arabic numerals, all numbers shall be Arabic numerals. Multiple-family dwellings, measurements, the number shall measure a minimum of six inches when identifying individual apartments with exterior doors, and 12 inches when identifying buildings with apartment complexes where there are two or more buildings not assigned street addresses. Individual buildings with street addresses shall have numbers measuring six inches, location, numbers shall be placed either in the center of the building or on the street end of the building so as to be visible from either the public or private street or from the parking lot, color, numbers shall be contrasting to the background color, Arabic numerals, all numbers used shall be Arabic numerals. Page 29

Item #3. Commercial, industrial and office buildings, height, the numbers shall measure a minimum of 12 inches in height, location generally, numbers shall be placed either in the center of the building or on the street end of the building so as to be visible from either the public or private street or from the parking lot, property line or driveway, should the building be located far enough from a public or private road so that the numbers are not clearly visible from the street, then the street address shall also be posted on the property at or near the property line or driveway to said building, color; each building, numbers shall be contrasting to the background color and shall be placed on each building in the complex, Arabic numerals, all numbers used shall be Arabic numerals, Shopping centers. Shopping centers consisting of two or more stores shall have a tenant or suite number affixed to the front of the tenant space and on the outside of the rear door which corresponds with that tenant space. Numbers shall measure six inches in height. (City of Dover Code of Ordinances, 98-344) ADDITIONAL / SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN APPROVAL: 1. N/A APPLICABLE CODES LISTED BELOW (NOT LIMITED TO): 2021 NFPA 1 Fire Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2021 NFPA 101 Life Safety Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2019 NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2019 NFPA 13 Installation of Sprinkler Systems (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2009 IBC (International Building Code) Latest editions of all other NFPA Codes as defined by the Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations City of Dover Code of Ordinances *If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person listed. Page 30

Item #3. CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Lands of Draper Farm Properties FILE#: Z-23-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Michael Vandevander PHONE#: 302-760-2141 =============================================================== 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: No person, firm, corporation or the like shall construct, open, reconstruct, maintain, modify or use any crossing or entrance onto a state-maintained highway, street or road, including any drainage modifications leading into or carried by the highway drainage system, without first having complied with standards and regulations adopted by the Department and having obtained a permit issued by the Department. Please contact the Delaware Department of Transportation - Development Coordination section to begin permit process. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1. The developer will need a pre-submittal meeting to discuss the development with DelDOT. 2. No access will be given off Forest Avenue. Page 31

Item #3. CITY OF DOVER Dover/Kent DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE County Metropolitan APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY Planning D.A.C. MEETING DATE: 1/3/2024 Organization APPLICATION: Z-23-02 Lands of Draper Farm Properties at 1617 Forrest Avenue FILE # Z-23-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: Dover/Kent County MPO CONTACT PERSON: Malcolm Jacob PHONE #: (302) 387-6030 Issues of concern to the MPO are effective transit, reducing the amount of vehicle emissions by shortening or eliminating trips, and facilities for alternative modes of transportation, including bicycle and pedestrian access. The MPO considers the bicycle facilities required by the City of Dover to be the standard for all applications, not to be waived. City of Dover Planning Commission Zoning Review Z-23-02 Lands of Draper Farm Properties at 1617 Forrest Avenue 1) The MPO does not have any objections to the proposed rezoning. Further comments will be submitted if site development takes place at a later date. 2) Last year the MPO completed a study on the topic of pedestrian safety around Dover High School. The recommended improvements included building out the network of sidewalks and crosswalks on Forrest Avenue. It should also be noted that Cranberry Run is located within the walk zone of Dover High School. While the frontage of this property already contains sidewalks, there is no safe means of crossing Forrest Avenue from this location, which means a pedestrian must use the crosswalks further to the east or west. This connectivity gap should be examined by DelDOT, the City of Dover, and other officials in the future. Please see the following link for the complete study: https://doverkentmpo.delaware.gov/files/2023/07/Dover-High-School-Walk- Zone-Sidewalk-Gaps-Final-7.2023.pdf 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. Page 32

Item #3. D R A P E R FA R M P R O P E R T I E S CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION Page 33 P UBL I C H EA R I N G 1. 16. 2024

L O C AT I O N M A P Item #3. Page 34 b e c k e r m o r g a n . c o m

REQUESTED REZONING Item #3. • Petition for an amendment to zoning map for the subject parcel from current zoning category of R-10 (Single Family Residential) to C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone). • The parcel remains subject to Corridor Overlay Zone-1 regulations. Page 35 b e c k e r m o r g a n . c o m

REZONING CRITERIA Item #3. • Whether adequate public services and infrastructure exist or can be created or expanded to serve the needs of any additional demand as a result of such change: • Whether the uses permitted by the proposed change would be compatible with the existing uses and zones in the area concerned: • Whether the proposed plan is in compliance with the City of Dover’s current comprehensive plan: Page 36 b e c k e r m o r g a n . c o m

REZONING CRITERIA Item #3. • Whether adequate public services and • According to the City of Dover Public Works and City of infrastructure exist or can be created Dover Electrical Department, the subject parcel has access or expanded to serve the needs of any to City water, sewer, and electrical utilities. additional demand as a result of such change: • C-1A Is a permitted zone in the Mixed-use Land Use • Whether the uses permitted by the category of the Comprehensive Plan. The subject property proposed change would be compatible is located along the Route 8 corridor on the west side of the with the existing uses and zones in the City. There are numerous examples of mixed use area concerned: commercial and residential applications operating along the Route 8 corridor. • Whether the proposed plan is in • From Dover’s 2019 comprehensive plan, the parcel is compliance with the City of Dover’s currently designated Mixed Use land use category. This current comprehensive plan: category is meant to encourage the creation of neighborhood centers. The zoning change would allow the parcel to be developed in a residential / commercial “neighborhood center” type application. These neighborhood centers provide residents from the surrounding community with convenient and walkable access to retail services, without having to make frequent or lengthy vehicle trips across town or out to the highway. Page 37 b e c k e r m o r g a n . c o m

CITY OF DOVER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - MAP 12-1 Item #3. SUBJECT PARCEL Page 38 b e c k e r m o r g a n . c o m

N E I G H B O R H O O D C O M PAT I B I L I T Y - M A P 1 2 - 1 Item #3. RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL SUBJECT PARCEL COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL Page 39 b e c k e r m o r g a n . c o m

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE Item #3. • The rezoning aims to accomplish all three of the City of Dover’s goals for Mixed Land Use category:  The permitted uses of mixed use zoned parcels are designed to encourage creation of neighborhood centers.  The parcel is located along a major roadway (Forrest Avenue).  The parcel is located within a one-half mile radius of several surrounding neighborhoods. Page 40 b e c k e r m o r g a n . c o m

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE Item #3. • Zoning classification C-1A falls within the acceptable zoning districts for the mixed-use land use category in the 2019 Comprehensive Plan. Page 41 b e c k e r m o r g a n . c o m

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE - USE Item #3. Page 42 b e c k e r m o r g a n . c o m

Item #3. Z-23-02 Lands of Draper Farm Properties, LLC at 1617 Forrest Avenue (5- Acre Parcel): Rezoning R-10/COZ-1 to C-1A/COZ-1 Public Comments Received Through January 16, 2024 (at 3:00pm): 1. Email from Robert Hice of 124 Chelsea Way in Cranberry Run Development received January 16, 2024 (forwarded from City Clerk’s Office): Objection to Rezoning Page 43

Item #3. From: Bennett, Andria To: Melson-Williams, Dawn; Purnell, Maretta; Mullaney, Kristen N Cc: City Clerks Office Subject: FW: EXTERNAL: Tonights meeting. Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 8:22:44 AM Attachments: image001.png Good Morning, The Clerk’s Office received the email below providing testimony for this evening’s Planning Commission Meeting. Andria Bennett City Clerk City of Dover P: (302) 736-7009 F: (302) 736-5068 abennett@dover.de.us -----Original Message----- From: Robert Hice <RHice86591@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 7:04 AM To: City Clerks Office <CityClerk@dover.de.us> Subject: EXTERNAL: Tonights meeting. [Some people who received this message don't often get email from rhice86591@aol.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To whom it may concern, My name is Robert Hice and I live at 124 Chelsea Way in Dover. This is a subject of tonights meeting. The rezoning of a parcel of land that sits in front of Cranberry Run. I, and many others thought that this issue was put to rest a few months ago, but here it is again. The current owners want to have this parcel rezoned so they can sell it to a buyer that wants to build a “convenience store with gas pumps.” It is my understanding that it is currently zoned for residential building. I and those that I have spoken too are absolutely against this rezoning effort. This location sits in our Page 44

Item #3. backyard and we don’t want it. The list of reasons is long but a few are as follows. The area is already to congested with traffic with all the developments and high school across the street. The brights lights at night and loud noise will also be unwanted. And we don’t want the associated crime that surrounds these places this close to our front doors. Just ask a police officer how much crime occurs at these places. Just recently there was a shooting at the Wawa that is only a half mile away. Speaking of Wawa you can no longer stop there and get out of your vehicle without smelling the aroma of maijuana. We initially bought a house in Cranberry Run because it was in the city but still out in the country surrounded by farmland. You can see how the sprawl has affected us with all the new developments, High School etc. I sincerely hope that you vote against this rezoning and do what the homeowners, voting citizens want rather than what money and big business want. Our quality of life is hanging in the balance. Sincerely, Robert Hice, USAF Retired 124 Chelsea Way Dover, DE 19904 302-672-6458 PS: Notices were sent out to surrounding properties regarding the rezoning but we never received one because we were inches beyond the requirement to notify. Even though we are affected more than many that were notified. Page 45

Item #3. CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION January 16, 2024 Excerpt from Meeting Minutes – Draft The Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 7:00 PM as an In-Person Meeting and also using the phone/videoconferencing system WebEx. The Meeting Session was conducted with Chair Mrs. Maucher presiding. Members present were Mr. Cooper, Mrs. Denney, Mr. Witham, Mr. Baldwin, Dr. Jones, Mr. Reaves, Mrs. Welsh (virtual), and Mrs. Maucher. Mr. Roach was absent. Staff members present were Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Ms. Katherine Oehmke, Mr. Jason Lyon (virtual) and Mrs. Kristen Mullaney (virtual). NEW APPLICATIONS Z-23-02 Lands of Draper Farm Properties, LLC at 1617 Forrest Avenue - Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council of a Rezoning application for a parcel of land consisting of 5.04 acres. The property is zoned R-10 (One Family Residence Zone) subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The proposed zoning is C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The property is located on the north side of Forrest Avenue and adjacent to Cranberry Run Drive. The owner of record is Draper Farm Properties LLC. Property Address: 1617 Forrest Avenue. Tax Parcel: ED-05-075.00-01-07.00- 000. Council District 1. Ordinance #2023-12 Representative: Mr. Jonathan Street, Becker Morgan Group; Mr. John Paradee, Baird, Mandalas & Brockstedt Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is a Rezoning request for the Lands of Draper Farm Properties, LLC located at 1617 Forrest Avenue. It is a request to Rezone from R-10 (One Family Residence Zone) and COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) to a proposed zoning classification of C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) and remaining subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). This is just over five acres of land located on the north side of Forrest Avenue. It is shown in the image on the screen in the solid blue color. The areas that are highlighted and outlined in blue on that image, are the areas of public notice that fall within that 200 hundred feet mailing requirement. Additionally, public notice is achieved by a bright yellow sign that is physically posted on the property and a legal ad posted in the local newspaper. All three items of public notice were completed. With this property, as noted, it is an existing parcel land. It is predominantly vacant. There was a previous residence that was demolished and there are several associated agricultural outbuildings that may remain on the property at this point. This location may look familiar to some as it was a previous Rezoning request in 2021 to rezone it to C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). Ultimately, that Rezoning application was unsuccessful. Tonight, we have a new application that is seeking to rezone to C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone). The Comprehensive Plan for this location identifies in the Land Development Plan that the property has a land use category of Mixed Use. Our Report outlines some of the information about Mixed Use strategies in the city in the Comprehensive Plan. It is noted that the Mixed Use land use category does have C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) as one of the zoning districts that it could be rezoned to. Specifically Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 16, 2024 Page 1 of 14 Page 46

Item #3. talking about the C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone), this is a zoning district that allows uses such as retail stores, personal service establishments, service establishments, restaurants, a variety of offices as well as residential uses such as one family residences, apartments, and multi-family dwellings. Through a Conditional Use process, drive-throughs may be considered. She does want to note very specifically that the C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) zoning district prohibits the use of fuel pumps and motor vehicle storage, sales, or repairs. In the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) for this property, that zoning classification is more related to design and development aspects for the property as it would require a series of architectural parking and landscaping guidelines to be implemented with any development on the property. With a Rezoning application such as this, the Planning Commission has to consider several factors when looking at the request which will amend the zoning map. Specifically, they have to make a recommendation and that is carried in a report to the City Council. They have to evaluate it based on the following factors: whether the uses permitted by the proposed change would be compatible with the existing uses and zones in the area concerned; whether the adequate public services and infrastructure exist or can be created or expanded to serve the needs of any additional demand based on the change; and whether the proposed change is in accordance with the City’s current Comprehensive Plan. As part of the Development Advisory Committee Report, the Planning Staff has made a recommendation in regards to this Rezoning request. Planning Staff is recommending approval of the Rezoning to C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) while retaining that COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) provision. They make this finding noting that the zoning is consistent with the 2019 Comprehensive Plan and the Mixed Use land classification category it has. The C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) zoning district, we find is a mixed use zoning district and allows for commercial and residential land uses. They do recommend that the property remain subject to that COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) provision related to development activities. They recognize that this area of Forrest Avenue is a gateway into the City of Dover moving from more residential areas in the far west to increasingly commercial areas as it moves towards the central core of the City. The general area is residential in nature. There is the Dover High School Campus as well as apartment buildings of higher density residential within the general area. The property does have significant frontage on Forrest Avenue and then also frontage on Cranberry Run. There are sidewalks in the area. They note that with any Rezoning request, this does not lock it into any particular land use that is identified in the C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone). Any potential development of the site would be subject to separate review processes and implementation of the design requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Additionally from the other reviewing agencies that participate in the Development Advisory Committee, they have no objections to this Rezoning from the departments of Public Works, Water/Wastewater, Electric, the Office of the Fire Marshal, DelDOT, and the Dover Kent County MPO. Each of these have identified no objection to the Rezoning and offer some advisory comments that should development happen in the future. There will be more requirements to come associated with that development review process. Mr. Street stated that as usual, he can toss most of his presentation out because Staff has already gone through it, but he will pick up some highlights this evening. What they are proposing, as shown before you on the screen, is the five acre piece almost directly across the street from the Dover High School located along Forrest Avenue on the west end of the City itself. The petition that they are requesting is to go from R-10 (One Family Residence Zone) to C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) as well as the parcel remaining subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) regulations. As Staff outlined, the City has three criteria for a Rezoning. The first is whether or Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 16, 2024 Page 2 of 14 Page 47

Item #3. not there is adequate public facilities available to the parcel itself. The second would be whether or not a permitted use is compliant and/or acceptable with the surrounding parcels as far as uses in the zones. The third is whether or not it is in compliance with the 2019 Comprehensive Plan. The first is whether or not the parcel has adequate public facilities. He would submit that the City has adequate water, sewer, electric, and he believes that there is also gas on Forrest Avenue. So, without any objection to Public Works, the public facilities are taken care of and are available for the site to use. The second two kind of go hand in hand. They are whether or not the uses are compatible with the surrounding areas and zones and whether or not it is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Shown on the screen is a map of the proposed Land Development Plan within the 2019 Comprehensive Plan. The subject parcel is shown in purple which identifies it as a Mixed Use parcel or Mixed Use land use in the Comprehensive Plan. This is a blow up of that map and on the left hand side is the purple rectangle of the five acre piece that is our parcel. He wants to try to explain what he is trying to convey with this image. If you start Downtown and you work your way west on Loockerman Street, you will come up to that purple area on the right hand side of the screen, that is where Division Street and Loockerman Street come together right about at the Booker T. Washington School. You are going to see along the Route 8 Corridor is both commercial and residential along that entire corridor. You will have commercial facing the corridor itself as you get to the McKee Road and Saulsbury Road area. You have CVS, Walgreens, Vincenzo’s, the Food Lion/Gateway West Shopping Center that’s got restaurants, retail, and a grocery store in it. As you move west, you have the Modern Maturity Center, Dunkin Donuts and then behind the Dunkin Donuts and behind the Modern Maturity Center you have Bicentennial Village, Woodmill Apartments in the Woodmill subdivision itself. As you move further west, you are going to run into Redners. With Redners, you’ve got a mixture of not only service establishments such as hair and nails, you’ve got a grocery store, offices. Then behind that is more residential along Dover Kenton Road as well as Bicentennial Village itself. On the south side of Route 8, you are going to have the new Mexican restaurant (La Hacienda) that just opened, Wawa, WSFS Bank and more commercial/retail establishments in front of residential all along Forrest Avenue. It should be noted that if you look in the current Dover’s Comprehensive Plan, Dover’s expansion is west. The majority of the proposed annexations for the City are all west on Route 8 and Hazlettville Road. Dover High School was constructed on the west end of town because Dover’s expansion is west and they wanted it to be, once Dover expands, more centrally located. As you travel west, now you are getting into residential and you have this nice five acre parcel which is prime for light commercial, residential, mixed use, service type establishments, and small retail that support the surrounding community. That is what you have all along that Route 8 Corridor. The goals of Mixed Use in the Comprehensive Plan “encourage creation of neighborhood centers.” He thinks that this is kind of a key piece. He grew up in town right over in Fairview and one thing that they had growing up was the Little Store and the old Marsteller’s. Marsteller’s was a more of a couple of acres parcel. There was Marsteller’s, Roma’s, and an Ace Hardware. You had small service type facilities. He could walk to the Little Store all of the time. Those are the types of small walkable service type of facilities that they are talking about here in concert with small pieces of residential. The second thing is that it talks about these types of centers being close and walkable to a close community and fronting on major roadways. This fronts on Forrest Avenue and as Staff said, this is one of the gateways to Dover from the west. The third, he would submit, and he is sure that majority of the people behind him would submit that it is right smack in the middle of communities around it and a half a mile away that are all walkable and that would all be forced to be walkable, not long Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 16, 2024 Page 3 of 14 Page 48

Item #3. through DelDOT on Forrest Avenue but through the City with pedestrian facilities themselves. C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) is an allowable use in the Mixed Use land use classification for the Comprehensive Plan. So, when you look at compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with neighboring uses and zones, he would submit that you have a Route 8 Corridor just has commercial on the Route 8 Corridor itself and residential behind them. C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) is an allowable zone and Mrs. Melson-Williams already brought up all of the uses that are allowed with the C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) itself. You are talking about retail stores, personal establishments, restaurants, some residential as well as a scattering of office uses. Mr. Reaves asked why not C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Zone) opposed to C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone). Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mr. Street stated that he believes the difference between C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Zone) and C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) is that it dealt with the size of either the office or retail. C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) allows a little bit more flexibility with the size of the retail. We are not talking about giant retail; it’s like single use retail that you would see in Greentree Village, like a 1,500 SF space. He thinks that C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) allows for a little bit larger space than that. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Zone) does have a limitation on the size of all establishments. It is limited to 2,500 SF per establishment. The uses are fairly similar to what is proposed with a Rezoning to C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone). There are some limitations and some additional uses that are specifically prohibited in C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Zone). Mr. Reaves stated that the 2,500 SF seems reasonable for a small neighborhood possible store or service establishment. He would be asking if 2,500 SF enough for what the plan is for there. Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mr. Street stated that they have no physical buildings laid out. The plan is a mixture of residential and commercial. With the 2,500 SF limitation, just through discussions, it limits what you can do commercially. So if someone needs something a little bit bigger as far as an office space than the 2,500 SF, then that’s not allowed in the zone. It allows a little bit more flexibility with that. He doesn’t think that they are talking about anything really big. You can’t really put a large building there but it just offers a little more flexibility. Through conversations with Staff and the client, C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) made the most sense. Dr. Jones stated that she thinks this application has a little bit of history or previous applications. Has there been any communications to the residents because apparently there were some concerns early on? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Street stated that he is not sure if there has been any communication between the owner and the residents themselves. Mr. Witham asked that the fact that the area in question is over 5 acres, does that impact your judgement as to whether you are seeking a Rezoning from R-10 (One Family Residence Zone) to C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone)? That is no small area and it is not a large area but it is a good sized area. Because it is over 5 acres, would that play a major factor in your decision to seek a Rezoning to C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone)? Responding to Mr. Witham, Mr. Street stated that he doesn’t know that the area itself does. It’s whether or not they would keep it residential and build houses or whether they would go commercial. He wasn’t part of those conversations; they came to him and said “we want to rezone it.” They kind of get their marching orders and Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 16, 2024 Page 4 of 14 Page 49

Item #3. they may consult with them on what zoning may or may not make sense but they (the applicant) are the ones that come to us and they (the applicant) are the ones requesting a commercial zoning. Mr. Witham stated that if the acreage was like one acre as opposed to five acres, could that have an impact of whether you seeking a Rezoning to the C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) or the C- 1 (Neighborhood Commercial Zone)? Responding to Mr. Witham, Mr. Street stated that without having both and comparing them with the size of the parcel, it would probably play some part. He has developed a lot of one acre parcels so it kind of plays into it. Mr. Cooper asked Mrs. Melson-Williams if she knows what the maximum square footage is for C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) versus C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Zone). He knows that it is at 2,500 SF for C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Zone) but it is hard to compare without the other end. Responding to Mr. Cooper, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) does not have a maximum size per establishment. That is one of the big differences. There are some slight differences in the uses that are allowed between the zones. For example, the C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Zone) does not specifically call out offices as an allowable use. It also has a few more prohibitions to it. We could also look to the bulk standards for both of those zones for comparisons, but the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) is also going to play a factor into some of those bulk standard limitations for development as well. The COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) has a height limitation and there is buffering and landscaping requirements that are going to make your buildable area smaller in general. Mr. Street stated that having the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) remain on the parcel also means the buildings have to be put within 30-40 feet of Route 8. The buildings have to be pushed forward so that the buildings sit forward and the parking is to the rear. The COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) is subject to an exhaustive amount of plantings along the roadway and on the parcel as well as superior architectural standards. Those all have to be met if Site Plans move forward. Mr. Reaves stated that with the explanation that Mr. Street explained about the commercial properties that are more east of Route 8 from the Wawa to the Redners, those areas contain four lanes of traffic, two lanes each direction. When you get down to this particular parcel, there is only two lanes of traffic going in either direction. Was that something that is a concern for this particular parcel? Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mr. Street stated not in general. He says that because he has done this for 20 years, DelDOT has their own standards and DelDOT has their own requirements depending on the traffic with whatever is generated. They can start getting into Site Plan issues. Depending on what goes there, traffic is calculated and then quantified and then they have to provide an entrance and safely maneuver that traffic in and out of the site. DelDOT plays a big part in that so it would have to meet DelDOT’s standards for number 1 and for number 2 it would have to meet safety and DelDOT’s requirements for left turn lanes, right turn lanes, signals, and everything else. They would have to go through that whole process before they even get access. In general, the two lanes doesn’t necessarily concern him off-hand because they would have to make accommodations for the site depending on what went there anyway. Mr. Reaves stated that with regards to the Development Advisory Committee, the report from the Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 16, 2024 Page 5 of 14 Page 50

Item #3. DelDOT agency clearly states that there will be no access to this property from Forrest Avenue which means that the entrance to this property which is an existing entrance would be into the neighborhood entrance and exit. Traffic that would be traveling east more or less would bottleneck in that particular area and that would be pretty devastating especially around the time periods that they are exiting the school and everyone is coming back in that direction. He doesn’t know what the conversation was that you had with DelDOT; however, if that road is not expanded, that could be a tremendous burden on traffic coming in and out. Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mr. Street stated that he can tell you that he saw the comment and it kind of made him scratch his head because it’s just a Rezoning and that comment is really more appropriate for a Site Plan. He actually reached out to both the reviewer and the subdivision engineer and asked if there was something that he was not seeing. At times, there can be deed restrictions or actually a denial of access to a road that DelDOT says you cannot have access to the road. Route 13 is good example. It is in the Corridor Capacity Overlay which they try and limit access to Route 13. Having said that, he received communications back from when he asked if this was just a standard comment because it’s on Forrest Avenue. It may be a little congested and it would be something that they would have to work through on the Site Plan and the response was basically yes. That is why it is an advisory comment not a requirement as a condition of approval of the Rezoning itself with all of these issues, DelDOT’s stance might be right now that they don’t want it to have access but they would still have to come work with us on any access when it was proposed with whatever Site Plan might come forward which there is none at this point. Mrs. Maucher asked what housing density is allowed under this zoning. Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the types of units that are allowed include one family residences as attached and detached which would be things like townhouses, duplexes, single family detached, and apartments and multi-family dwellings which are more than one unit in an individual building. Some of those refer to the RG-1 (General Residence Zone) bulk standards and the RG-1 (General Residence Zone) bulk standards give a minimum lot size. There is not necessarily a density calculation; you just have to do the math. Mrs. Maucher stated that if garden apartments were to be built, are there capacity restrictions as far as that would go with this zone? Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that you are going to have some limitation just with the bulk standards and setbacks from property lines that creates a buildable area within the property itself. With that, they have not done the math to figure out what the buildable area is on the parcel with 5 acres. There is certainly opportunity there. She wouldn’t want to guess the exact size this evening. Mr. Street stated that he wanted to address something else. It is kind of his concern with DelDOT and he has had the conversation with them. They (the applicant) don’t want to pull the traffic onto that residential street. That just doesn’t make sense and that was his first comment. If they can’t come off of Route 8, then why would they want to go to the residential street? They would try and avoid that as much as possible because it just doesn’t make any sense for traffic as far as how traffic flows and what not. Your thinking is along the same lines; it doesn’t make sense to pull all that traffic into a residential street. No matter how big it is, it’s still the entrance to their subdivision and he wouldn’t want it if it was his. Mr. Paradee stated that he wanted to try to address Mr. Witham’s question about the size of the acreage and the square footage limitation in the C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Zone). That is Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 16, 2024 Page 6 of 14 Page 51

Item #3. found in Section 11 of Article 3 (of the Zoning Ordinance) Section 11.4 limits the total floor area in any one establishment to 2,500 SF. So, you have a five acre piece of land and it wouldn’t be a very sufficient use of that land to just put one 2,500 SF building on it. If it was a one acre parcel then that would make sense perhaps. But 2,500 SF on five acres is not a sufficient use of land. Their client has the intention of building something larger than 2,500 SF which they couldn’t do in C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Zone). Mrs. Maucher stated that it is not limited to one per parcel, you could have ten establishments that are each 2,500 SF. Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mr. Paradee stated that they could. Now we are starting to get a little bit into Site Plan issues but frankly, even if you were able to have three or four 2,500 SF buildings, it’s probably not a flexible design or as efficient design as maybe having a 10,000 SF building which you couldn’t do in C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Zone). The C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) gives them a lot more design flexibility. That is the concept and that is why the client chose that. It also specifically prohibits gas pumps. Mrs. Maucher opened the public hearing. Mr. John Davis – 4 Stoney Drive Dover, DE 19904 Mr. Davis stated that Dr. Jones asked a question about past history. This parcel, 2.5 years ago, was rejected by this body by a vote of 9-0 because it was not an appropriate use for that particular area which is residential. Mr. Street pointed out on his PowerPoint presentation, the map of Route 8 and the purple area which represented this property. It was outlined very well in terms of it shows that it is totally surrounded by residential area. When we talk about it being mixed use on Route 8, that’s true up until you get to Dover Kenton Road. From Dover Kenton Road and Mifflin Road on west, there is no commercial establishment. These are residential neighborhoods. He did read, after 2.5 years ago, the Comprehensive Plan. The neighborhood centers that Mr. Street references with Marsteller’s, Grocery Basket and some other quaint little stores that he remembers, that is not what’s going to go in here. It is not going to be a neighborhood center that this neighborhood wants. To answer Dr. Jones’ question about was there any outreach towards the neighbors. He can say unqualified, no. They have the President of the Cranberry Run Homeowner’s Association here and there has been no attempt to contact any of the members of the public that came 2.5 years ago. As now, everybody had our information. Dealing with Mr. Reaves’ question in terms of a left hand turn going east bound on Route 8, you pass a stop light at Dover High and then it’s just a couple of hundred feet until you get to the entrance of Cranberry Run. Where the entrance it going to be directly off of Route 8, that will create yet another potential traffic tie up as somebody attempts to make a left land turn into that property. Unless you decide that there is going to be no left hand turn and of course that is something for a Site Plan as they say. What he wanted to address specifically, is whether the proposed use is in keeping with the neighborhood especially, since there is no commercial property. If we are talking about a mixed use being in compliance with the residents of Route 8 from Dover Kenton Road east, sure. You have Redners right there and Wawa across the street. There is also the new Mexican restaurant, but you do not have west of Kenton Road and Mifflin Road, another commercial property until you hit the old Buck’s Barber Shop at the corner of Artis Drive and Route 8. That is all residential area. They are well aware of what happens with little strip centers at the edge of the western boundaries of the City of Dover. They are very Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 16, 2024 Page 7 of 14 Page 52

Item #3. aware of what happens at the Wawa of Forrest Avenue. There was a shooting there last month. They are very aware of some of the issues that come with those particular strip centers. That is not in keeping with what is the residential nature of Heatherfield, Heatherfield East, Cranberry Run, and approximately eight (8) properties on the other side of Route 8 which back up on Dover High School’s property. He would like to thank Planning Staff who have always been unbelievably helpful toward him whenever he has stopped in. Dr. Valarie Boyer – 3 Somerset Circle Dover, DE 19904 Dr. Boyer stated that she is the President of the Cranberry HOA. She moved here on October 22, 1999. Why? Because there were horses across the street on Route 8. Because there were cows. There was a man living in a little trailer and he had these little animals. She thought, “I’m going to move here.” Then she bought a cul-de-sac property and paid extra money to have a cul-de-sac that backed up to the woods where she put a $23,000 fence up. Now, it is a possibility that C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) is going to intrude on our neighborhood like this. We only have like 73 houses, but we are happy. We keep it up and we get our dues. Everyone takes care of their property. Can you imagine how our property value is going to plummet once these little structures go up? It was said before; Wawa just had a shooting. Someone was hiding in the bushes as he fired the shots. He hit someone and could have killed them. Who’s to say that they can’t hide behind a house or a shed or our cars and start doing some kind of rampage? The suggestion that there could be a convenience store there makes her wonder about the traffic coming down Route 8. They would have to turn into Cranberry Run. The 18-wheeler who has to use the bathroom and they want to come in would have to turn into Cranberry Run. What about the children who cross Route 8 from the high school? They want that snack. You know how it is when you’re hungry after school; so, they dart across that street and with all of that traffic somebody is going to get hit. Or when you are trying to go to work in the morning and you are trying to get onto Route 8, but you can’t get to Route 8 because there are people coming in and out of the development entrance. Traffic is steady on Route 8 as it is. They don’t need another back up. We don’t want commercial in our neighborhood. No one asked her or anyone that she knows. Would you want it in your neighborhood? No, you don’t. She didn’t move all the way here to have commercial structure on the side of the entrance of her neighborhood. She has a doctor who used to live across the street from her and he moved to Quail Run. It is a professional neighborhood. She is a professor at Delaware State University, and she is proud of it. She doesn’t want to move; she thought this was going to be her last stop. But commercial coming in, it is definitely something that she is going to have to rethink. If there is food being sold on that corner, you can believe that they are going through our park to sit there and eat and then throw the trash on the ground and then they may take a stroll through the woods. She has seen people do it before, but it hasn’t happened in a long time because she called the Police about it. It won’t take long before Cranberry Run will be absolutely destroyed for money. Ms. Rose Marie Eberly – 109 Tucket Circle Dover, DE 19904 Ms. Eberly stated that they have been here before, and she is not quite sure what has changed because she can tell you that the community hasn’t changed their mind. They are definitely opposed to this Rezoning. They have concerns regarding the traffic. They already have trouble getting out of our development. Not just during the school times but also on Sundays when church lets out or if there are any activities going on in west Dover like funerals from the cemetery and many other events that cause them to have problems getting out of the Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 16, 2024 Page 8 of 14 Page 53

Item #3. development. Any retail establishments here would be 24-hour lights, noise, trash thrown everywhere with the community expected to clean it up, and loitering from kids and adults. All of the establishments that this gentleman mentioned previously east of this property have crime which is theft, prostitution, drugs, or assault. If there is any doubt that they are there, just look at Route 8 and what’s going on at the Wawa or at the Kent 8 Shopping Center. Also, getting into our development, they are looking at having the entrance to this property come in on Cranberry Run. When we try to make a right turn into our development which we can’t even get a turn lane there, we are taking our lives into our hands. People don’t want to stop, slow down, or let us get into the development. As far as coming from the other direction, she is a bike rider, and she has had a car come directly at her because she was in the turn lane and they were too impatient to wait for somebody to make a right hand turn. That car slammed on their brakes to prevent hitting her. There have been other times while she is out on Route 8 where there are wide shoulders and she should be able to ride her bike there, but no because of the traffic in that area, it is not safe. The gentleman talked about a neighborhood center. It is not a neighborhood center if the people don’t want it there. The mission of the City Council is to have a “place that people want to live.” She thinks that right now, they have that. It is also to have a “clean and safe place.” Right now, they have that. If you put a commercial development in there, that is not going to be. “Diversity is valued” and she believes that is true. “Citizens are heard and enjoy a high quality of life.” You put a retail establishment in there and that’s not with the mission of City Council. They are not happy with this, and she hopes that the Commission will not rezone it because this proposed establishment does not go with the neighborhood. Ms. Lynn Sadusky – 16 Stoney Drive Dover, DE 19904 Ms. Sadusky stated that she just wanted to start out by thanking each Commission member who asked questions because they were very thoughtful and some of the questions that she had weren’t answered in the presentation. She was here 2.5 years ago, and she agrees with the people who have already spoken that nothing has changed. They weren’t notified or contacted, and they remain opposed as multiple neighborhoods in that area. They are opposed to this kind of construction or commercialism in our neighborhood. She wants to mention three things. First of all, she leaves for work in the mornings between 7AM and 7:15AM each morning and to get out of the neighborhood of Heatherfield, she has to sit at that stop sign sometimes for 3-5 minutes just to get out safely because there are so many buses leaving Dover High School and traffic of parents dropping their kids off. It is really a difficult place to navigate without a light. Also, as a high school teacher, she is very concerned and she mentioned this a couple of years ago, with the enticement of having a business like that across the street from Dover High. Either during school hours or after school hours, she remembers when she was in high school at Dover High a long time ago, they were running to the local Hardees, and it wasn’t even within visual sight. She thinks it could be very dangerous for the students at Dover High School to have that kind of business there in addition to all of the traffic and the poor residents of Cranberry Run and Heatherfield. She just wants to press that she doesn’t think that we need another convenience store or some other type of large establishment in that area. Again, like somebody already said, we have businesses east of this area but there is nothing in that area except for neighborhoods. She knows that they would like to create some competition for Wawa possibly, but we don’t need another establishment like that in our neighborhood. It’s in accordance with the City of Dover’s planning, but it’s definitely not compatible with the neighborhood. They have residential zoning, and they have a residential area. They don’t need this type of building in the western part Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 16, 2024 Page 9 of 14 Page 54

Item #3. of Dover. She also wants to suggest that she thinks that if Mr. Street or Mr. Paradee lived in the neighborhood or if your client lived in the neighborhood or their children or grandchildren lived in the neighborhood that they would certainly not be in favor of this type of Rezoning. She too is old enough to remember Marsteller’s on Walker Road and the Little Store that was a couple of miles from Fairview. She doesn’t think this is a fair comparison to the kind of building that is being proposed. Mr. Richard Heisler – Forrest Avenue Dover, DE 19904 Mr. Heisler stated that there is no sense in repeating everything that has been said. He would like to reiterate that getting out on Route 8 when the school is letting out or starting up, it is just all but impossible and he lives on the right side of the road. The people on the other side, he pities them. He agrees with everything that has been said and he appreciates the Planning Commission taking our input. The previous Planning Commission, they did not attend it and that’s why your decision went the way it did. He certainly hopes that you consider everything that has been said here tonight by the residents. Mr. Darrell Muchison, Sr – 129 Falmouth Way Dover, DE 19904 Mr. Muchison stated after hearing everyone with their statements and their proposals, he and his wife bought this home 16 years ago in June. They moved here from Philadelphia to raise our two children, which has been the greatest move that we have ever done just for our children’s sake. But in the same instance, they were introduced to a whole different lifestyle here in the City of Dover and he is grateful for that. He is also grateful for the peace and the quiet tranquility that this neighborhood and community brings with his choice to move here from Philadelphia. He wouldn’t change it for the world. The last proposal was to put a Sheetz gas station down the street, but we came together as a community, and we voiced our opinion and that was done away with. Along with everyone who just made their statements, we are really against any more confusion, any more traffic congestion that it takes for us to get in and out of our development even with the regards to the children that go to Dover High. Both of our children are graduates of Dover High; so, he has seen the changes. Some change is good and some change isn’t good and this change here, he doesn’t think would benefit the neighborhood of this community. Mrs. Ashia Muchison – 129 Falmouth Way Dover, DE 19904 Mrs. Muchison stated that she heard a couple of people touch on the children and their safety, but she doesn’t think that the magnitude of their safety was presented well enough to make you guys reconsider. That bus stop is full of children at about 7AM and they are waiting to get on the bus when someone can be turning to another area which will cause confusion with anyone getting in or out. She knows that C-1 or C-1A is saying that it could be housing but would it be a halfway house? Would it be a homeless shelter? Would it be a safe haven for women who are running from something? What is it going to be? There is going to be not only bus traffic, but it is also going to be our children in the street racing across traffic to get to that store or to get to the other side. It is going to cause chaos and not only chaos, but the cost of living. Her property taxes are definitely going to go up more and her cost of living is going up as well. To her, the safety of our children and grandchildren are not considered. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Mr. Robert Hice did send an email and that email was provided to the Planning Office via the City Clerk’s Office and Staff distributed it to the Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 16, 2024 Page 10 of 14 Page 55

Item #3. Planning Commission members. Mr. Hice is at 124 Chelsea Way in Cranberry Run. His email notes where he is residing, and he notes that he thought the Rezoning of this parcel was put to rest months ago. He makes the statement that “the current owners want to have this parcel rezoned so that they can sell it to a buyer that wants to build a convenient store with gas pumps. It is his understanding that it is currently zoned for residential building.” He notes that he is “absolutely against that Rezoning effort because it’s near his back yard.” It goes on with some of the other statements related to traffic, lighting and the issues at the Wawa that was recently experienced. He feels that his house is in the City, but it is still out in the country. He’s asking that the Commission vote against this Rezoning. He notes that he did not receive the notice that was sent to surrounding properties. Planning Staff checked his location, and his property is not within 200 feet of the subject site. It is like one parcel away from being in that mandatory notification area. Mr. Robert Hice – 124 Chelsea Way Dover, DE 19904 Mr. Hice stated that he doesn’t have much to add as everyone else covered it pretty well. Ms. Patricia Cohen – 1602 Forrest Avenue Dover, DE 19904 Ms. Cohen stated that she wanted to thank everyone for everything that has been said tonight. She was looking over the Comprehensive Plan. The 2019 Comprehensive Plan described our City of Dover as “poised for growth in order to maintain a small-town feeling, respecting the tranquility of residential areas to ensure safe and livable neighborhoods and well planned communities.” The Plan lists future challenges of maintaining the character of the neighborhoods while addressing the impact of the increased traffic infrastructure, maintenance, and air quality. She feels like the proposed changes should take into account the factors that are not seen on a daily basis unless you live there. So firstly, Route 8 is, as others have already said tonight, it’s already a high traffic flow area. The 35 MPH speed limit is rarely observed and instead Route 8 resembles a NASCAR race. Speeding and illegal passing are daily occurrences. They are very grateful to our City of Dover Police Department for their continued presence in helping to promote safety in the area. But naturally, they are extremely concerned for the safety of pedestrians and residents. If this land is developed, it will result in even more traffic up and down Route 8. Consider the detrimental effects on the air quality and exposure to environmental toxins as well. Next, while the proposed changes may appear advantageous on the surface, it is important to consider the impact on the infrastructure. The existing roadways will not be able to sustain increased traffic. In reviewing the Comprehensive Plan, they are all seeking to arrive at a positive solution. She struggles to understand how this zoning change would benefit surrounding neighborhoods and residents. So lastly, she urges the Planning Commission members to take a field trip. Even if it’s for only an hour of their day to physically sit on Route 8 and observe the traffic patterns in order to be more accurately informed of how negatively this proposed zoning change will influence the future of west Dover. Mr. Jack Sutton – 1618 Forrest Avenue Dover, DE 19904 Mr. Sutton stated that after being on the phone listening to everybody, he has some great neighbors. He has nothing really to add to what they said. Everything they said is right on point. This is not a good thing for the traffic and safety. This just bothers him that this is even coming up again. He’s really just angry about it. He doesn’t think that anybody is happy about what’s happening here, and he’s just disgusted with it all. He and his wife have lived here for 18 years Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 16, 2024 Page 11 of 14 Page 56

Item #3. now. This is a beautiful place to live and a beautiful place to raise your children. It is a beautiful place to walk and exercise and don’t take that away from us. There are a lot of senior citizens around here that feel comfortable living here. All for money and greed and he just finds it disgusting. He appreciates your time and that is all that he has to say because these people are right on the money. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that Mr. Muchison who spoke earlier had another question that he entered into the chat. The question is will they cut down the trees? She believes that there are some existing trees on the property. This is just a Rezoning application. Any future development would be subject to a separate review process. The City does have tree preservation and tree planting requirements. Should development occur, she would imagine that’s something they would evaluate versus design and the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she did get a note from Ms. Yvonne Biddle that her husband had already spoken. Mrs. Maucher asked if there were any other written comments received other than Mr. Hice’s comments. Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that there were no other additional public comments, only the email from Mr. Robert Hice that she mentioned earlier. Mrs. Maucher closed the public hearing. Mrs. Denney asked if it was possible that somebody would have an interest in voting to approve this, would it be possible to make it conditional? For instance, a condition upon the fact that no entry to this come through or involve in any way Cranberry Run? Responding to Mrs. Denney, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that a Rezoning request is on the face of the zoning district alone. You cannot condition it to a particular use or to a condition of approval such as that. Mr. Witham asked if the issue about the entrance access to the site just raised by Mrs. Denney, wouldn’t that come up on Site Plan review? Responding to Mr. Witham, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that any questions of site design, be it entrance, building placement, and all of that would be part of a Development Review Application for the project site. Mr. Witham stated that the public could then certainly have input with respect to that, correct? Responding to Mr. Witham, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that certainly during a Site Development Plan, there is the ability for public hearing and input and potential conditions with an application; however, the appropriate regulatory agencies must also weigh in. The Planning Commission can’t supersede a DelDOT or Kent Conservation District requirement in the long run. Dr. Jones moved to recommend denial to City Council for Z-23-02 Lands of Draper Farm Properties, LLC at 1617 Forrest Avenue for the change from present zoning (R-10/COZ-1) to the proposed zoning (C-1A/COZ-1) because of the testimonies from the residents. In addition to the comments made by one of the callers, she had already written these things down, but she distinctly put them in order. She does not believe that approval of this Rezoning would add to the safety of the residents and/or the young people who traverse that area quite a bit. She lives almost in that area, so she sees them. The zoning request appears not to be compatible with a Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 16, 2024 Page 12 of 14 Page 57

Item #3. livable community and adding any type of commercial endeavor to that area would in fact not enhance tranquility, seconded by Mrs. Denney for the same reasons as the maker of the motion. She doesn’t believe that a Rezoning in this particular area considering at most, the safety issues with regard to the school and the students. She just thinks that this is not appropriate. She doesn’t think that it meets the character of what is already there as far as the housing and the character. The motion was carried 6-2 by roll call vote with Mr. Roach absent. Dr. Jones voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mr. Reaves voting yes; based on the Corridor Overlay Zone Article 3, Section 27.1A. He has a concern that it doesn’t promote superior urban corridor development in the highest quality building environment. Also, it does not foster the coordination and linkage among corridor properties with adjacent lands and it does not preserve the functionality and efficiency of the roadway for traffic movement and safety. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; for reasons stated and also as she looks at Map 12.1, she sees that the ratio of commercial establishments and properties depicted on that map are significantly smaller compared to the residential neighborhoods and properties in that area and as noted by Mr. Davis in his comments. She knows that area well. She lives in that general area. The properties to the west of Mifflin Road are all depicted as residential on that Map and so she feels that that’s more compatible with the situation and it is an immense safety concern as far as what we do here. Mr. Cooper voting no (as clarified); this has got to be the toughest vote that he has had to make since joining this Commission. The Comprehensive Plan says to approve the application, but the road and the residents say not to. He thinks that if there was a Site Plan that showed the entrance which he understands is not feasible at this moment, he thinks it would make it a lot easier to vote for it. Unfortunately, he has to vote to deny the motion. Mrs. Denney voting yes; in keeping with the comments that she made when she seconded the motion. She does believe that most especially it’s the safety issues and as far as the traffic, we all know that that is ultimately up to DelDOT. But she travels that road a lot and it is just, to me, the fact that when she even thinks in her mind of students from the high school running across. We all know that it is the same thing with those teenagers. You can say that you shouldn’t run a stop sign and that you should slow down at a yellow light and all of those different things that we say that are ignored. Certainly, that would be one of them with a bunch of high school students. She thinks the safety issue is big. Mr. Witham voting no; for this particular site, the request is to amend the Zoning Map to rezone the property from R-10 (General Residence Zone) to C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) with the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) remaining in place. This certainly comes within the desire of the Comprehensive Plan to extend the commercial uses to include retail, personal service establishments, service establishments, restaurants, and offices. While the main concern as he sees it is a safety issue and traffic issues, he feels that perhaps those issues can be adequately addressed when it comes for Site Plan approval. He doesn’t think that should adversely impact on whether it meets the Comprehensive Plan design for this particular area. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; this is a just a recommendation to City Council. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; she thinks the C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) is a very broad zoning option and it leads to a large number of facilities that may not meet the compatibility of the surrounding area. She does recognize that it is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, but again, that is a very broad zoning category. (Note: The vote was originally announced as 8-0 in favor of denial. However, the Chair and Staff asked for clarification of the votes and two members, Mr. Witham and Mr. Cooper had voted against the motion.) Mr. Reaves stated that he would like to give clarification to his comment in how he addressed the Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 16, 2024 Page 13 of 14 Page 58

Item #3. issue. He votes to support the denial of Z-23-02. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that is a recommendation to City Council. That, along with the reasons and comments and the Report will be packaged and forwarded the City Council. This is subject to a hearing before City Council and the public hearing is scheduled for February 12, 2024. City Council meets in Council Chambers also and their meetings begin at 6:30PM. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 16, 2024 Page 14 of 14 Page 59

Item #3. Page 60

Item #3. MEMORANDUM City of Dover, Delaware Department of Planning & Inspections P.O. Box 475 Dover, Delaware 19903 Phone: 302.736.7196 Fax: 302.736.4217 DATE: April 18, 2024 TO: City Council FROM: Planning Office SUBJECT: Petition of Protest (Opposition) objecting to Rezoning Application Z-23-02 Lands of Draper Farm Properties, LLC at 1617 Forrest Avenue, Dover DE A Memorandum and Petition of Protest (Opposition) addressed to Dover City Council President and Council Members dated February 9, 2024 was received by the City Clerk’s Office on February 12, 2024. This was received prior to the previously scheduled City Council Hearing of February 12, 2024 regarding Rezoning Application Z-23-02 Lands of Draper Farm Properties, LLC.: Rezoning from R-10 and subject to the COZ-1 to C-1A and still subject to COZ-1. On February 12, 2024, the City Council at the request of the applicant deferred the Public Hearing and Consideration of the Rezoning Application Z-23-02 for 60 days rescheduling it for the April 22, 2024 City Council Meeting. The Petition of Protest (Opposition) from area property owners/residents of the Cranberry Run are contained a petition with forty-three (43) signatures objecting to the proposed rezoning of 1617 Forrest Avenue, Dover Title 22 §305 of Delaware Code outlines the criteria for determining the viability of a petition opposing a rezoning request and how a legislative body of a municipality is to proceed in processing the petition. Delaware Code requires that when 20% of eligible lots participate in a petition, the legislative body for the municipality must achieve a three-fourths favorable decision to proceed with the rezoning of the property. See Del. Code excerpt as follows. Delaware Code: TITLE 22 Municipalities, CHAPTER 3. Municipal Zoning Regulations, Subchapter I. General Provisions § 305 Changes in regulations; procedure. The regulations, restrictions and boundaries may from time to time be amended, supplemented, changed, modified or repealed. In case, however, of a protest against such changes signed by the owners of 20 percent or more, either of the area of the lots included in such proposed change or of those immediately adjacent thereto extending 100 feet therefrom or of those directly opposite thereto extending 100 feet back from the street frontage of such opposite lots, such amendment shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of three fourths of all the members of the legislative body of the municipality; provided, however, that in any municipality of this State with a population in excess of 50,000 persons, the foregoing provisions regarding a protest shall not be applicable to any such change which is proposed in connection with the construction of federally assisted multi-family housing for the elderly and handicapped, in all instances of which such change shall become effective by the favorable vote of a simple majority of all the members of the legislative body of the municipality. The provisions of § 304 of this title, relative to public hearings and official notice, shall apply equally to all changes or amendments. 39 Del. Laws, c. 22, § 6; Code 1935, § 6232; 22 Del. C. 1953, § 305; 67 Del. Laws, c. 183, § 1.; Page 61

Item #3. Evaluation of Petition of Opposition for Z-23-02 Lands of Draper Farm Properties, LLC, Dover DE for City Council Meeting of February 12, 2024 and April 22, 2024 Page 2 of 2 Planning Staff evaluated the Memorandum and Petition of Protest (Opposition) along with available property records to determine the adjacency of the signatories’ lots/properties to the subject property at 1617 Forrest Avenue as it relates to the requirements of 22 Del. Code §305. The Petition is evaluated based upon the presence (or lack thereof) of signatures from the twenty-four (24) eligible surrounding properties. The attached Petition Exhibit Map and Zoning Petition Summary Analysis Spreadsheet show information from the analysis. • The Petition Exhibit Map shows the subject at 1617 Forrest Avenue in yellow. The Eligible Properties shown in blue are those lots within 100 feet (Red Line) of the subject property boundary and within 100 feet of the street frontage of the subject property. The properties marked with a star are the properties where signatures were included in the Petition. • The Petition Summary Analysis Spreadsheet lists the property owners of the twenty-four (24) Eligible Properties and indicates those that signed the Petition (marked with an ‘X’ in the Petitioner column). The other Petitioners are also listed separately. Planning Staff notes the following from our analysis: • The subject property included in the proposed change consists of only one lot. The subject property is the applicant. • There is a total of twenty-four (24) property addresses (parcels) adjacent to the subject property or immediately across the street from the subject property on both Cranberry Run Drive and Forrest Avenue as determined to be within 100 feet of the boundary of the subject property. These are deemed the Eligible Petitioners. • The Petition was signed by eight (8) property owners within the area of eligibility; this is 8 out of the 24 Eligible Petitioners (Property Owners). This equates to 33% of the Eligible Petitioners. • Of the 43 signers, 35 signers gave addresses that were outside of the 100 ft. radius for Eligible Petitioners. In Summary, the results of the Petition Analysis are as follows: • The total number of eligible and verifiable petitioners signing the Petition is 8. • 8 out of 24 Eligible Property Owners signed the Petition. • 8/24 eligible and verifiable petitioners equate to 33.34%. The Petition is valid as per 22 Del. Code §305. Any action to approve the Rezoning of 1617 Forrest Avenue (Ordinance #2023-12) requires a three- fourths majority of City Council. Attachments: • Memorandum and Petition of Protest (Opposition) Objecting to dated February 9, 2024 and received February 12, 2024 by City Clerk’s Office • Petition Exhibit Map • Petition Summary Analysis Spreadsheet Page 62

EXHIBIT #1 Regular City Council Meeting of 02/12/2024 Item #3. fPJ~CC~gW~fO) Memorandum FEB 12 2024 To: The Honorable William Hare President Dover City Council OFFICE OF mE CITY CLERK From: Property Owners adjacent to 1617 Forrest Avenue Date: 2-9-2024 Re: Petition Protesting Rezoning of 1617 Forrest Avenue Attached are names,. addresses, and signatures of property owners adjacent to the 5 acre parcel of Jand at 1617 Forrest Avenue That is being considered for rezoning at the meeting of City Council on February 12,2024. These property owners are protesting the rezoning of this parcel and based on the relief stipulated under Title 22, Chapter 3, sub chapter 305, request that no rezoning be approved unless three fourths vote of the Council of the City of Dover vote to approve such a rezoning. Cc. The Honorable Gerald L. Rocha Sr. The Honorable Dr. Julia M. Pillsbury The Honorable Tricia K. Arndt The Honorable Roy Sudler Jr, The Honorable Dav id L. Anderson The Honordble Brian E. Lewis The Honorable Fred A. Neil The Honorable Andre M. Bogerty The Honorable Andria Bennett City Clerk Attachments: 5 Page 63

Item #3. Petition to the City Council of Dover Delaware This petition is the notice of the undersigned property owners, who own property adjacent to the property of 1617 Forrest Avenue, that we are protesting the rezoning of the previously mentioned property that is currently listed to be considered for action at the February 12th2024 meeting of the City Council of Dover Delaware. We represent twenty percent (20%) or more of the property owners of the lots of those immediately adjacent extending 100 feet therefrom or of those directly opposite thereto extending 100 feet back from the street frontage of this lot. As such, we request action pursuant to Title 22 Delaware Code Chapter 3 subchapter 305, that any rezoning action shalt not become effective unless there is a vote of three fourths vote of the City Council. Print Name Address Signature Page 64

Item #3. Petition to the City Council of Dover Delaware This petition is the notice of the undersigned property owners, who own property adjacent to the property of 1617 Forrest Avenue, that we are protesting the rezoning of the previously mentioned property that is currently listed to be considered for action at the February 12th2024 meeting of the City Council of Dover Delaware. We represent twenty percent (20010) or more of the property owners of the lots of those immediately adjacent extending 100 feet therefrom or of those directly opposite thereto extending 100 feet back from the street frontage of this lot. As such, we request action pursuant to Title 22 Delaware Code Chapter 3 subchapter 305, that any rezoning action shall not become effective unless there is a vote of three fourths vote of the City Council. Print Name Address Signature Page 65

Item #3. Petition to the City Council of Dover Delaware This petition is the notice of the undersigned property owners, who own property adjacent to the property of 1617 Forrest Avenue, that we are protesting the rezoning of the previously mentioned property that is currently listed to be considered for action at the February 12th 2024 meeting of the City Council of Dover Delaware. We represent twenty percent (20%) or more of the property owners of the lots of those immediately adjacent extending 100 feet therefrom or of those direclly opposite thereto extending 100 feet back from the street frontage of this lot As such, we request action pursuant to Title 22 Delaware Code Chapter 3 subchapter 305$ that any rezoning action shall not become effective unless there is a VOle of three fourths vote of the City Council. Print Name Address Signature Page 66

City of Dover Z-23-02 Petition Exhibit Item #3. Department of Planning & Inspections 150 154157 161 6 4 64 60 59 57 228 230 229 233 R-8 235 152 156 eb 160 165 RM-1 55 53 bl e P 158 R-8 Valley Dr 171 175 183 51 49 232 4 162 179 164 305 166 172 45 R-10 5 47 R-8 ROS 168 170 174 178 182 186 306 ^ 301 Cir 176 180 43 ^ 302 ^ ^ rse t So m 3 219 184 186 41 ROS 109 ^ 230 226 e 215 38 39 111 109 110 ^ 103 ^^ 233 222 218 Che lsea Way 123 119 115 ^^ 111 107 RM-1 36 35 37 112 110 Tuc k 210 107 108 et Cir ^^ 225 221 214 116 32 ^ 33 31 108 105 Matthew Ct R-8 ^ 106 102 ^^ 217 213 ^ ^ R-10 124 120 104 103 28 29 27 106 R-8 103 Stoney Dr ^ 104 228 209 ^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Falm 205 201 129 R-10 102 26 25 23 104 101 18 ^ 18 17 216 outh 208 Way Dr 121 117 101 R-10 24 20 21 19 102 ^^212 106 Cranberry Ru 204 200 17 12 R-10 ^ 122 16 15 15 n 16 15 ^ ^ R-10 ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^ 130 126 114 110 14 13 10 9 Heatherfield Way 9 118 11 ^^14 12 5 3 1 10 7 9 8 7 A 6 ^ Yarmouth Way 5 6 R-8 5 R-10 1617 4 3 10 4 3 6 4 2 1 8 Site * 2 ^ ^ Forrest Ave 1585 2 1 1602 FORREST 1614 FORREST 1594 FORREST 1618 FORREST 1606 FORREST FORREST 1598 FORREST 1590 FORREST Dr 1 Do ve IO rH igh 14 15 Tile: Lands of Draper Farm Properties, LLC. Ordinance #: 2023-12 Legend ^ Petitioner Addresses: 1617 Forrest Avenue 100 ft. Buffer « Parcel ID: ED-05-075.00-01-07.00-000 Existing Zoning: R-10 One Family Residence Zone and 2012 Buildings COZ-1 Corridor Overlay Zone Subject Property Proposed Zoning: C-1A Limited Commercial Zone and COZ-1 Corridor Overlay Zone Zoning Owner: Draper Farm Properties LLC Dover Parcels Date: 4-18-2024 Eligible Petitioners Corridor Overlay Zone 0 200 400 800 Feet Page 67

Item #3. Rezoning Petition Summary Analysis Z-23-02 Lands of Draper Farm Properties, LLC 1617 Forrest Avenue, Dover DE Eligible Petitioners, Del. Code Title 22 c.3 §305 Petitioner Owner Property Address Owner Address 1 Owner Address 2 Owner City State Zip Code X Leslie Snell (Signee) Leslie Snell Trustee and James Ritter Trustee (Owners) 106 FALMOUTH WAY 106 FALMOUTH WAY DOVER DE 19904 X PALANCA,JAIME G & LEONILA L 110 FALMOUTH WAY 110 FALMOUTH WAY DOVER DE 19904 X GARDELS,SANDRA 114 FALMOUTH WAY 114 FALMOUTH WAY DOVER DE 19904 X HENRY,LATENDE N 118 FALMOUTH WAY 118 FALMOUTH WAY DOVER DE 19904 EWTON,MICHAEL T & 122 FALMOUTH WAY EWTON,HUE DIEU 122 FALMOUTH WAY DOVER DE 19904 X BREWER,RICHARD A 126 FALMOUTH WAY 126 FALMOUTH WAY DOVER DE 19904 X JENKINS,MAURICE JR & NICOLE D 130 FALMOUTH WAY 130 FALMOUTH WAY DOVER DE 19904 STOOPS, RICHARD E. 1590 FORREST 1590 FOREST AVE DOVER DE 19904 MUNDORF, CHARLES B. 1594 FORREST 1594 FORREST AVENUE DOVER DE 19904 HEISLER, RICHARD W. 1598 FORREST 1598 FORREST AVE DOVER DE 19904 COHEN, PATRICIA B. 1602 FORREST 1602 FORREST AVENUE DOVER DE 19904 ROGERS, DENNIS W. 1606 FORREST 1609 FORREST AVE DOVER DE 19904 SMITH, RICHARD M. 1614 FORREST 1614 FORREST AVE DOVER DE 19904 SUTTON, JACK W. 1618 FORREST 1618 FORREST AVE DOVER DE 19904 MARTINEZ,AUDREY 2 STONEY DR 2 STONEY DR DOVER DE 19904 DAVIS,JOHN G JR 4 STONEY DR 4 STONEY DR DOVER DE 19904 P AND D PROPERTY GROUP LLC * 6 STONEY DR 563 CINDY LN SMYRNA DE 19977 BRUMMELL,LOUIS T JR 10 STONEY DR 10 STONEY DR DOVER DE 19904 HARPER,JENNIFER R 14 STONEY DR 14 STONEY DR DOVER DE 19904 SADUSKY,LYNNE S & 16 STONEY DR SAPIENZA,DOLORES F 16 STONEY DR DOVER DE 19904 POPE,JOHN & 1 YARMOUTH WAY POPE, LILY K 1 YARMOUTH WAY DOVER DE 19904 X HIGGINS,HENRY C & WENDY P 2 YARMOUTH WAY 2 YARMOUTH WAY DOVER DE 19904 Bernista Richardson (Signee) X RICHARDSON, TONY and BERNISHA MONEY-RICHARDSON (Owners) 200 FALMOUTH WAY 200 FALMOUTH WAY DOVER DE 19904 BAKER, EDWIN B. III FORREST 1526 FORREST AVE DOVER DE 19904 Other Petitioners Address Signee X 129 Falmouth Way DARRELL MUCHISON 129 Falmouth Way DOVER DE 19904 X 4 Yarmouth Way REBECCA NESLINE 4 Yarmouth Way DOVER DE 19904 X 117 Falmouth Way CONSTANT D. BEUGRE 117 Falmouth Way DOVER DE 19904 X 101 Falmouth Way ANGELINA A. BACA 101 Falmouth Way DOVER DE 19904 X 102 Falmouth Way Raelene B. Lex 102 Falmouth Way DOVER DE 19904 X 14 Yarmouth Way MARVIN MARTIN 14 Yarmouth Way DOVER DE 19904 X 205 Falmouth Way MICHAEL A CURRY 205 Falmouth Way DOVER DE 19904 X 124 Chelsea Way ROBERT B. HICE 124 Chelsea Way DOVER DE 19904 X 16 Yarmouth Way Frances J. TUSON 16 Yarmouth Way DOVER DE 19904 X 109 Tucket Circle Rosemarie EBERLY 109 Tucket Circle DOVER DE 19904 X 301 Chelsea Way JACKIE L. GEORGE 301 Chelsea Way DOVER DE 19904 X 107 Chelsea Way PERCY M. NAVARRO 107 Chelsea Way DOVER DE 19904 X 104 Chelsea Way CHAZ L WILSON 104 Chelsea Way DOVER DE 19904 X 230 Chelsea Way TERRENCE J. LYONS 230 Chelsea Way DOVER DE 19904 X 123 Chelsea Way CHARLES M. FAUBEL 123 Chelsea Way DOVER DE 19904 X 219 Chelsea Way CHERYL LYNN ANGERER 219 Chelsea Way DOVER DE 19904 X 226 Chelsea Way MAHEUX, DONNY 226 Chelsea Way DOVER DE 19904 X 305 Chelsea Way QUINTELLA GREEN 305 Chelsea Way DOVER DE 19904 X 306 Chelsea Way Deanna NASH 306 Chelsea Way DOVER DE 19904 X 108 Tucket Cir Brooke WELCH 108 Tucket Cir DOVER DE 19904 X 106 Tucket Cir JOSEPH MALCOLM GREGORY DUBOIS 106 Tucket Cir DOVER DE 19904 X 104 Tucket Cir SCOTT TYLER HALLS 104 Tucket Cir DOVER DE 19904 X 225 Falmouth Way Bernard Harris (Owner: Lucille Carter) 225 Falmouth Way Dover DE 19904 X 221 Falmouth Way JENNIFER F. DIVITA 221 Falmouth Way DOVER DE 19904 X 212 Falmouth Way QAISER JAHAN 212 Falmouth Way DOVER DE 19904 X 204 Falmouth Way GILBERT THOMPSON 204 Falmouth Way DOVER DE 19904 X 201 Falmouth Way Erica HOLLINGER 201 Falmouth Way DOVER DE 19904 X 9 Yarmouth Way EDREICK T JOHNSON 9 Yarmouth Way DOVER DE 19904 X 12 Yarmouth Way VALERIE B. SMITH 12 Yarmouth Way DOVER DE 19904 X 216 Falmouth Way YAHSHIKIAH HUGHES 216 Falmouth Way DOVER DE 19904 X 214 Chelsea Way SCOTT,ROBERT A JR 214 Chelsea Way DOVER DE 19904 X 218 Chelsea Way Christy Johnson (Owner: Marlon Johnson) 218 Chelsea Way Dover DE 19904 X 119 Chelsea Way COLE,ABIGAIL W 119 Chelsea Way DOVER DE 19904 X 8 Yarmouth Way GUY A. SMITH 8 Yarmouth Way DOVER DE 19904 X 3 Somerset Cir VALARIE L.P. BOYER 3 Somerset Cir DOVER DE 19904 SUMMARY Lots Eligible to Petition 24 Eligible Petitioners (num.) 8 Eligible Petitioners (percent) 33% * Rental Property Page 68

EXHIBIT #1 Regular City Council Meeting of 02/12/2024 Item #3. fPJ~CC~gW~fO) Memorandum FEB 12 2024 To: The Honorable William Hare President Dover City Council OFFICE OF mE CITY CLERK From: Property Owners adjacent to 1617 Forrest Avenue Date: 2-9-2024 Re: Petition Protesting Rezoning of 1617 Forrest Avenue Attached are names,. addresses, and signatures of property owners adjacent to the 5 acre parcel of Jand at 1617 Forrest Avenue That is being considered for rezoning at the meeting of City Council on February 12,2024. These property owners are protesting the rezoning of this parcel and based on the relief stipulated under Title 22, Chapter 3, sub chapter 305, request that no rezoning be approved unless three fourths vote of the Council of the City of Dover vote to approve such a rezoning. Cc. The Honorable Gerald L. Rocha Sr. The Honorable Dr. Julia M. Pillsbury The Honorable Tricia K. Arndt The Honorable Roy Sudler Jr, The Honorable Dav id L. Anderson The Honordble Brian E. Lewis The Honorable Fred A. Neil The Honorable Andre M. Bogerty The Honorable Andria Bennett City Clerk Attachments: 5 Page 69

Item #3. Petition to the City Council of Dover Delaware This petition is the notice of the undersigned property owners, who own property adjacent to the property of 1617 Forrest Avenue, that we are protesting the rezoning of the previously mentioned property that is currently listed to be considered for action at the February 12th2024 meeting of the City Council of Dover Delaware. We represent twenty percent (20%) or more of the property owners of the lots of those immediately adjacent extending 100 feet therefrom or of those directly opposite thereto extending 100 feet back from the street frontage of this lot. As such, we request action pursuant to Title 22 Delaware Code Chapter 3 subchapter 305, that any rezoning action shalt not become effective unless there is a vote of three fourths vote of the City Council. Print Name Address Signature Page 70

Item #3. Petition to the City Council of Dover Delaware This petition is the notice of the undersigned property owners, who own property adjacent to the property of 1617 Forrest Avenue, that we are protesting the rezoning of the previously mentioned property that is currently listed to be considered for action at the February 12th2024 meeting of the City Council of Dover Delaware. We represent twenty percent (20010) or more of the property owners of the lots of those immediately adjacent extending 100 feet therefrom or of those directly opposite thereto extending 100 feet back from the street frontage of this lot. As such, we request action pursuant to Title 22 Delaware Code Chapter 3 subchapter 305, that any rezoning action shall not become effective unless there is a vote of three fourths vote of the City Council. Print Name Address Signature Page 71

Item #3. Petition to the City Council of Dover Delaware This petition is the notice of the undersigned property owners, who own property adjacent to the property of 1617 Forrest Avenue, that we are protesting the rezoning of the previously mentioned property that is currently listed to be considered for action at the February 12th 2024 meeting of the City Council of Dover Delaware. We represent twenty percent (20%) or more of the property owners of the lots of those immediately adjacent extending 100 feet therefrom or of those direclly opposite thereto extending 100 feet back from the street frontage of this lot As such, we request action pursuant to Title 22 Delaware Code Chapter 3 subchapter 305$ that any rezoning action shall not become effective unless there is a VOle of three fourths vote of the City Council. Print Name Address Signature Page 72

Item #3. Walls, Ashley A From: Melson-Williams, Dawn Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:02 PM To: vvns14@aol.com; City Clerks Office Cc: CompPlan Subject: Public Comment on Z-23-02 Public Hearing for a Rezoning application Victoria Stoops: Thank you for your email (of 4/12/2024) with Public Comments regarding Rezoning Application Z-23-02 Lands of Draper Farm Properties at 1617 Forrest Avenue, Dover DE. This will be forwarded to the City Clerk’s Office as this Rezoning Application is scheduled for Public Hearing before the Dover City Council on April 22, 2024. It will be entered into the record as part of the City Council meeting. The Planning Commission previously conducted its own Public Hearing on January 16, 2024 and has made a recommendation of denial of Application Z-23-02. Copies of any public comments previously received for the Planning Commission’s consideration of the Application are also forwarded to City Council along with the Planning Commission’s Recommendation Report. If you have other questions, you may contact the Planning Office at this email address compplan@dover.de.us or the City Clerk’s Office at cityclerk@dover.de.us Dawn Melson-Williams, AICP Principal Planner City of Dover, Delaware Department of Planning & Inspections (302) 736-7196 Planning Office phone (302) 736-4217 fax dmelson@dover.de.us From: vvns14@aol.com <vvns14@aol.com> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 8:46 PM To: CompPlan <CompPlan@dover.de.us> Subject: EXTERNAL: Public Hearing for a Rezoning application Some people who received this message don't often get email from vvns14@aol.com. Learn why this is important WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. RE: Public Hearing for a Rezoning application for a parcel of land consisting of 5.04 acres. The property is zoned R-10 (One Family Residence Zone) subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) The proposed zoning is C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The proposed zoning is C-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The property is located on the north side of 1617 Forrest Avenue, Dover DE and adjacent to Cranberry Run Drive. To Whom it may concern, I wrote a letter on this matter before stating why this application for rezoning is not in the best interest of the families in the area, or for the youth that go to Dover High School. 1 Page 73

Item #3. I have lived on Route 8 for 61 years and have seen many changes in this time. The traffic on Route 8 now is very busy. Some cars go over the speed limit and makes it very dangerous. Sometimes it takes me a long time just to pull out of my driveway. The cars in Heather and East Heather have a harder time if they are going East! This rezoning would make matters worse. That side of the street is a residential area. I see the high school youth running across the road many times, not going to the lights to cross. If they put up a store or anything that would make the youth cross the highway this would make it more dangerous. Plus the cars pulling in and out of this area is not the best situation! We have shopping center just down the road from this property that they want to rezone. Many of the residence living in this area hope the Planning Commission will vote again to recommend denial of Application Z-23-02. Thank you. Victoria V. Stoops 1590 Forrest Avenue Dover, DE 19904 2 Page 74

Item #3. From: Melson-Williams, Dawn To: jimpalanca@aol.com; CompPlan; City Clerks Office Cc: Leonila Palanca; Lenni Palanca Subject: Public Comment RE: Rezoning Application--1617 Forrest Avenue (Dover, DE) Date: Monday, April 8, 2024 10:38:45 AM To the Palancas: Thank you for the email with Public Comments regarding Rezoning Application Z-23-02 Lands of Draper Farm Properties at 1617 Forrest Avenue, Dover DE. This will be forwarded to the City Clerk’s Office as this Rezoning Application is scheduled for Public Hearing before the Dover City Council on April 22, 2024. It will be entered into the record as part of the City Council meeting. The Planning Commission previously conducted its own Public Hearing on January 16, 2024 and has made a recommendation of denial of Application Z-23-02. Copies of any public comments previously received for the Planning Commission’s consideration of the Application are also forwarded to City Council along with the Planning Commission’s Recommendation Report. If you have other questions, you may contract the Planning Office at this email address compplan@dover.de.us or the City Clerk’s Office at cityclerk@dover.de.us Regards, Dawn Melson-Williams, AICP Principal Planner City of Dover, Delaware Department of Planning & Inspections (302) 736-7196 Planning Office phone (302) 736-4217 fax dmelson@dover.de.us From: jimpalanca@aol.com <jimpalanca@aol.com> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2024 9:50 AM To: CompPlan <CompPlan@dover.de.us> Cc: Leonila Palanca <lennilap@aol.com>; Lenni Palanca <marialapal@yahoo.com> Subject: EXTERNAL: Rezoning Application--1617 Forrest Avenue (Dover, DE) Some people who received this message don't often get email from jimpalanca@aol.com. Learn why this is important WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. April 8, 2024 Page 75

Item #3. City of Dover—Planning Commission P.O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 To whom it may concern: We are in receipt of a Notice of Hearing relative to an application to your office regarding the re-zoning of the property on 1617 Forrest Avenue, Dover, DE 19904. This letter is sent for the purpose of providing our comments , should this application be “called”, as we may be out on vacation by then. We are not certain whether input is being solicited at this time as we recall previously sending your office our input on the matter a few months ago. Accordingly, this would be sent to you via email, through the kindness of our next door neighbor, as well as via mail. Our residence is located on 110 Falmouth Way, which we have been occupying since about mid- September, 1998. We have been living here very peacefully in this quiet development as the original owners of this residence. Back then, we were drawn to the development because of the peace and tranquility it provided. We have raised our 2 kids here and have essentially established our roots here into our retirement. It is our understanding that ours is among the larger properties in Cranberry Run. Our location positions us to be more profoundly impacted by the rezoning of the subject property on 1617 Forrest Avenue. We are very concerned about existing initiatives toward rezoning that parcel of land from being an R-10 (One Family Residence Zone) to a C- IA ( Limited Commercial Zone). It is our ardent hope that the Planning Commission maintains its position of denying the rezoning as the introduction of any commercial use to the property would cause inevitable traffic issues and increased vehicular volume to the development. This in turn , would disrupt the peace , tranquility and character of the residential that we have enjoyed in the area for over 20 years now. There is essentially no benefit to be realized by existing residents in the development. The introduction of a commercial element to the residential environment just increases the level of traffic congestion, with no perceptible benefit to the residents. For one thing, Page 76

Item #3. as practically all residents in the development have cars, we could just as easily drive a few blocks to gain access to a variety of commercial establishments in the immediate area (such as gas stations, convenience stores, fast food establishments, banks, hair salons, etc.). The marginal benefit of adding even a minimal level of commercial establishments/businesses is significantly diluted and practically non- existent. We are also seriously concerned that this would have an adverse impact on our property values as this inevitably undermines the residential character of the development, along with the attendant incremental traffic volume. From a broader perspective, we struggle to understand what part of the community benefits from this initiative (other than perhaps, the investor who develops the commercial use of the property and realizes a significant profit by selling it). We certainly do not begrudge any investor who views this as an investment opportunity. However, there are ways to achieve this without disturbing the character of the environment. The latest meeting we had with the lawyer as well as the engineering firm working for the developer/investor did not leave residents much in the area of reassurance, as provisions to deal with the attendant traffic congestion (occasioned by incremental vehicular volume). It felt like , at best, these concerns were only rendered as a secondary consideration. We all continue to struggle to understand who would be receptive to introducing some degree of commercial /business activity into a quiet residential environment , given the attendant disruption in the traffic flow. Would the investor, the lawyer or even the engineer, if they were the residents involved? In closing, we greatly appreciate the Dover Planning Commission’s stringent opposition to the rezoning initiative. Once the peace and tranquility of a residential community like Cranberry Run is compromised, it cannot be reversed again. Should we be able to help the Commission in reinforcing its opposition to this initiative—please let us know. Sincerely, Jaime G. Palanca Ma. Leonila L. Palanca Page 77

Item #3. Page 78

Walls, Ashley A From: N. Brady <bradynx@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2024 1:43 PM To: Christiansen, Robin; City Clerks Office; CompPlan; Anderson, David; Sudler, Roy Cc: Ed Dougherty; Kathleen Maslar; Angela West; Carl Richardson; Micheal Braun Subject: EXTERNAL: 1079 Silver Lake Blvd. Attachments: Oppose Rezoning 1079 Silver Lake Blvd.pdf [Some people who received this message don't o en get email from bradynx@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at h ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden fica on ] WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organiza on. Do not click links or open a achments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, Regarding 1079 Silver Lake Blvd. On behalf of the Silver Lake Community Townhouses Associa on, see the a ached document for considera on during the Public Hearing to be held on April 22, 2024. Thank you, N. Brady 1

Page 1 of 4 April 19, 2024 Attn: The Honorable Mayor Christiansen City Council President Hare Members of City Planning Commission City Clerk Regarding 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard During a City Council meeting held March 11, 2024, Council President Hare ordered that determinations regarding – MI- 24-01 (Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2024 – Consideration of Amendment to Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map for 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard) and Z-24-02 (Lands of Dover Federal Credit Union at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard - Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council of a Rezoning application) – be placed on hold for 30 days to allow for discussion and compromise between area residents/property owners and the applicant (listed as Dover FCU and equitable owner Charles Chaing). A meeting between area residents/property owners and the applicant was held at City Hall on April 3, 2024, hosted by Councilman Anderson and Councilman Sudler. Property owners of Silver Lake Townhouses Community Association Inc. (Association) and property owners of Representative Lane and Senator Lane were in attendance. Persons self-identified as the project developer and applicant, Jimmy Chiang; project real estate agent and consultant Nik Patel; and building contractor John Morgan were in attendance. For consideration by the Mayor and City Council regarding MI-24-01 and Z- 24-02, the Association submits the following concerns: Contrary to 2019 Comprehensive Plan • 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard is not a property or location that aligns with City goals for Mixed Use land use as detailed in the 2019 Comprehensive Plan. The overall goals for Mixed Use areas are: o Encourage creation of neighborhood centers. o Within the close-knit neighborhood fabric there are opportunities for the creation of urban centers. These centers should be established along major roadways and feature mixed use development, pedestrian- friendly public environments and opportunities for connection to future transit. o In order to encourage non-automobile access to the center, the activities should be clustered within a one- half mile radius (or 10-minute walk) and be located so as to draw upon residents from a number of surrounding neighborhoods. o Develop strategies that will encourage the creation of well-defined public street spaces and pedestrian- friendly village areas that encourage walking and bicycle use. This may include on-street and behind building parking, and the creation of build-to lines for new development. o Improve access that limits public access to open spaces areas such as pedestrian, bicycle, and transit networks to parks and natural areas. o Encourage the Mixed Use of residential and commercial uses in the Downtown area. • The request for rezoning required a submission to the Office of State Planning Coordination’s Preliminary Land Use Services (PLUS) review process. Based on the Determination of the City Planner, as detailed in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application, rezoning applications that do not meet the Minor Variation qualifications (listed below) must follow the PLUS process. o The rezoning is of a unique circumstance and cannot set precedent for other land in the vicinity of the rezoning; and, o The relative size of the rezoning or the variation from the land use recommended by the Comprehensive Plan is so minor that it would have no impact on the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan; and, o The proposed zoning is adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of other similarly zoned lands and would not alter the pattern of development in the area.

Page 2 of 4 • Requiring that this application follow the PLUS process implies that the Planning Commission asserts that this rezoning can set precedent for rezoning in the vicinity of the property; that the proposed variation from the land use recommended in the Comprehensive Plan is not minor and would have an impact on the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan; and that the proposed zoning is not adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of similarly zoned lands and would alter the pattern of development in the area. Lack of Transparency & Withholding of Information • During public meetings held on February 20, 2024 and on March 11, 2024, members of the public asked to be informed of the details for a planned project or vision for development on the property. o The applicant responded that he was advised by the City not to disclose details about the project to members of the public. The Planning Commission responded that disclosing information about the project to members of the public was not part of the current stage in the comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning request process. The real estate agent and project consultant replied that no plans or vision for the property had been determined at that time. o FOIA’d documents submitted as part of the PLUS review process, dated 12/14/23, state “The vision for this application is to develop apartments above ground-level commercial space plus indoor/outdoor active recreation facilities. The details are in the works and the first step for making it viable is changing to Mixed Use in concert with the Comprehensive Plan”. • The applicant has stated that the proposed project will benefit the community, however, the applicant has not sought community input about the proposed project or about community needs, despite conceptual plans for the project already underway. o FOIA’d documents dated 12/14/23, state that meetings with the neighborhood are planned to be held prior to the DAC meeting and Planning Commission meetings. No such meetings have taken place. o FOIA’d documents dated 12/14/23, state that meetings with the neighborhood are planned to be held and intended to steer the commercial space towards what is most needed, and most desirable to establish a neighborhood center at this property. No such meetings have taken place. • Under Delaware Code, the City is required to review and ensure that the Land Development Plan of the Comprehensive Plan and the City's Official Zoning Map are in alignment. The City conducted the Comprehensive Rezoning 2021 Project. o The basis for the Planning Commission’s decision on February 20, 2024, to approve the request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning, is inconsistent with and falls outside of the results of the Comprehensive Rezoning 2021 Project. o The Planning Commission has not communicated to the public an explanation for the Planning Commission’s decision to recommend an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and rezoning, despite the results of the Comprehensive Rezoning 2021 Project, and despite that Mixed Use land use category already aligns with the current zoning district of 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard (C-PO). • The area surrounding 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard has the following land uses: light and medium density residential, institutional, and office. While mixed use is allowable for the current zoning district, the proposed C- 2A rezoning is not consistent with the surrounding zones and current uses in the area, as stated in documents submitted by the Applicant Team. Questionable Process • During the April 3, 2024 meeting held between area residents/property owners and the applicant, the real estate agent and consultant confirmed that the named applicant is not the owner of the property, the property is under contract, and the developer intends to pull out of the contract if rezoning is not approved. FOIA’d documents confirm that the named applicant is not the owner of the property. o A decision to approve a rezoning request submitted by an individual that does not own the property seems premature. o The property is under contract and the applicant will only purchase the property if the City agrees to rezone the property. The Planning Commission’s practice, to recommend the approval of a rezoning

Page 3 of 4 application for a property that is under contract and that has been submitted by an applicant that will purchase the property contingent on the City amending the Comprehensive Plan for rezoning of the property, is not an objective process. o The City’s practice to consider and accept a request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning, submitted by a property owner that is actively selling the property, is misleading and surreptitious. Implications of Rezoning & Proposed Project • The following bulk standards for C-2A are inconsistent with properties in the area; will significantly alter the physical environment of the area including obstructing views of property owners in the area; will allow for higher densities with greater environmental impacts including runoff and effluence; and significantly detract from existing wildlife habitat in a manner that is more impactful than standards permitted under C-PO. o Stories 3 in C-PO and 6 in C-2A. o Feet 45 in C-PO and 75 in C-2A. o Floor ratio 2 in C-PO and 4 in C-2A. o Lot coverage 75% in C-PO and N/A in C-2A. • During the meeting held on April 3, 2024, the real estate agent and consultant presented details and a mockup of the planned development, described as: 80-90 high-end condominium units for ownership, 1,200 square feet each; 3 story building, on top of ground level commercial/retail space, a parking garage and open lot parking spaces; an inground pool and walking path around the building perimeter, all amenities accessible only to condo residents and individuals with paid memberships; security check point at entryway, a single access point in and out. • Despite stated plans for the proposed project, the City’s decision to rezone1079 Silver Lake Boulevard to C-2A will allow for the following land uses, including providing for uses permitted conditionally, at any point in the future: o Retail stores; business, professional, and government offices; personal service establishments; restaurants; service establishments; hotels; places of public assembly; drive-throughs; one-family residences including attached and semi-detached dwellings; apartments and multi-family dwellings. Permitted conditionally: Planned Senior Housing Developments; parking lots and parking structures as a principal use; and fuel pumps accessory to a permitted use. • The proposed project will maximize impervious surface coverage, which will exacerbate stormwater management capacity inadequacies cited in the application materials. The proposed project will compound existing issues related to traffic congestion, safety, and roadway infrastructure capacity. Questions for the Planning Commission & City Council • What is the basis for the Planning Commission’s decision to recommend that a map change be approved? Particularly how is this change consistent with the 2019 Comprehensive Plan? Planning Commission Recommendation noted as follows: Following our review of the goals and policies for Office Land Uses and the description of Mixed Use Areas uses in the 2019 Comprehensive Plan, as well as analysis of the surrounding land uses, the Request for a map change in this area from a Land Use Classification of Office to Mixed Use appears to be consistent with the development of the immediate area and the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff supports the change to a Land Use Classification of Mixed Use for this property at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard. • Why are the existing land uses allowable in C-PO not conducive to the applicant’s and City’s desires for mixed uses in the area? Why is the applicant not seeking a conditional use permit in lieu of a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning? • Why is the applicant requesting the property be rezoned to C-2A rather than C-1A? C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) permitting retail stores; personal service establishments; service establishments; restaurants; business, professional, and government offices; one-family residences including attached and semi-detached dwellings; apartments and multi-family dwellings. Permitted conditionally: Planned Senior Housing Developments; drive- throughs accessory to a permitted use. Uses prohibited: fuel pumps; motor vehicle storage, sales, or repairs.

Page 4 of 4 • Who is responsible for ensuring compliance with requirements that the regulations regarding stormwater management, required buffers from Silver Lake and any floodplain and/or wetland areas, and for the design of increased opportunities for public access to natural areas and view of the Silver Lake will be part of any site development review process? • What are plans to address existing roadway and traffic infrastructure capacity and safety issues; and roadway and traffic infrastructure capacity required for planned development? • How will safety be maintained in the area?

Item #3. FINAL READING City of Dover CITY OF DOVER PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2023-12 1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY 2 OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3 1617 FORREST AVENUE 5 WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property within the 6 limits of the City of Dover; and 7 WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted use of property 8 described below from R-10 (One Family Residence Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) 9 to C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). 10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 11 DOVER, IN COUNCIL, MET: 12 1. That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning 13 Ordinance of the City of Dover have been amended by changing the zoning designation from R-10 14 (One Family Residence Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) to C-1A (Limited 15 Commercial Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) on that property located at 16 1617 Forrest Avenue (on the north side of Forrest Avenue, east of Cranberry Run Drive), consisting of 5.04+/- 17 acres, owned by Draper Farm Properties, LLC. 18 (Tax Parcel: ED-05-075.00-01-07.00-000; Planning Reference: Z-23-02; First Council District) 19 ADOPTED: * 20 Actions History 21 04/22/2024 – Scheduled for Public Hearing/Final Reading – City Council 22 02/12/2024 – Differed- Public Hearing/Final Reading – City Council 23 01/16/2024 - Public Hearing - Planning Commission 24 12/11/2023 - First Reading - City Council Page 79

Item #4. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE 2019 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Public Hearing Before the Dover City Council March 11, 2024 Recommendation from Planning Commission Meeting of February 20, 2024 With Staff and Development Advisory Committee Review MI-24-01 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2024 This Request for Amendment of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan was submitted by the property owner/equitable owner as associated with the City of Dover’s annual opportunity to request Comprehensive Plan Amendments (see Chapter 15: Implementation Plan). MI-24-01 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2024 - Consideration of Amendment to Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map - Review of an Amendment to the 2019 Comprehensive Plan with consideration of a request for amendment of Map 12-1: Land Development Plan to revise the Land Use Classification of the property located at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard. The Request is to revise the Land Use Classification from Office to Mixed Use on Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map. The property is located at the eastern terminus of Silver Lake Boulevard. Property Owner: Dover Federal Credit Union and equitable owner Charles Chiang. Property Address: 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard. Tax Parcel: ED-05-067.12-02-04.00-000. This is associated with Rezoning Application Z-24-02. Ordinance #2024-03. Council District 4. Owner: Dover Federal Credit Union Equitable Owner: Charles Chiang Address: 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard, Dover DE Location: At the eastern terminus of Silver Lake Boulevard Tax Parcel: ED-05-067.12-02-04.00-000 Size: 5.04 +/- acres Present Uses: Vacant tract of land 2019 Comprehensive Plan Designation – Land Use Category: Office Proposed Comprehensive Plan Designation – Land Use Category: Mixed Use File Number: MI-24-01 Ordinance Number: #2024-03 Page 80

Item #4. MI-24-01 – Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2024 – Consideration of Amendment to Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map for 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard, Dover DE Planning Commission Recommendation Report from February 20, 2024 Page 2 of 7 Planning Commission Recommendation: The Application MI-24-01 for Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2024 – Consideration of Amendment to Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map to revise the Land Use Classification of the property at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard from Office to Mixed Use was represented by Mr. Kyle Burchard, PE of Mountain Consulting, Inc. as engineer for the equitable owner of the subject property at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard. A Public Hearing was conducted on February 20, 2024 where three (3) members of the public spoke, and no written comments were received regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment application. The Planning Commission’s motion to recommend approval of the proposed revision of the Land Use Classification from Office to Mixed Use as the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Map 12-1 resulted in a 7-0 vote in favor (two members absent). (Draft Meeting Minutes attached.) APPLICATION: MI-24-01 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2024 – Consideration of Amendment to Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map This Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application was referred to the Planning Commission as per the Amendment process established in the 2019 Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 15). The Planning Commission is required to provide a Review Report to City Council. The following document and attachments are provided as the Review Report and Planning Commission Recommendation. I. PROCESS BACKGROUND: The 2019 Comprehensive Plan was recommended by the Planning Commission and adopted by the City Council on January 13, 2020 and certified that date as per letter of March 10, 2020 issued by Governor Carney. As adopted, the 2019 Comprehensive Plan sets forth a process by which the Comprehensive Plan can be amended on an annual basis. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan can be initiated by staff or requested by members of the public. For amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that involve rezoning of property, the requests are processed concurrently. The process to amend the Comprehensive Plan is detailed in the 2019 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 15: Implementation, specifically on pages 15-10 through 15-12 of the Plan. The Request requires submission of the following: a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application, other appropriate application forms and fee based on the request type, property information (drawing), an analysis of the surrounding land uses and zoning classifications, and a statement of how the Request is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Review of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Requests begins with the Preliminary Land Use Services (PLUS) Review Process. Next the Requests are reviewed through Development Advisory Committee as the next step in the review process leading to the Public Hearings and Page 81

Item #4. MI-24-01 – Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2024 – Consideration of Amendment to Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map for 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard, Dover DE Planning Commission Recommendation Report from February 20, 2024 Page 3 of 7 Review by the City of Dover Planning Commission and Dover City Council. Comprehensive Plan Amendments are adopted through adoption (approval) of an Ordinance. Submitted Request for 2024 This Request for Amendment of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan was submitted by the property owner and equitable owner as associated with the City of Dover’s annual opportunity to request Comprehensive Plan Amendments (deadline of December 15, 2023 for review as 2024 Amendments). The property owner and equitable owner have made a request for amendment to the Land Development Plan (Map 12-1) associated with the property at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard. See the detailed description of the Request in Report Section II below. Ordinance #2024-03 is proposed for adoption of this Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2024 (Application MI-24-01). Preliminary Land Use Services (PLUS) Review This process involves review of the proposed amendments through the Preliminary Land Use Services (PLUS) Review. This Request (Amendment MI-24-01) is the Comprehensive Plan Amendments 2024 submitted by the City’s Planning Office to the Office of State Planning Coordination for PLUS review. It was presented at the January 24, 2024 PLUS review meeting (PLUS #2024-01-05). The PLUS review comments will be forthcoming on this Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. II. REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT: The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2024 (MI-24-01) is detailed below and represented in the attachments. The Request is for amendment of Map 12-1: Land Development Plan to revise the Land Use Classification of the property at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard located the terminus of Silver Lake Boulevard. The Request is to revise the Land Use Classification on Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map from Office to Mixed Use. The Request (MI-24-01) for Amendment seeks to change the Land Use Classification to Mixed Use to enable consideration of rezoning the property to C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). Applicant’s Submission: The following items were submitted by the applicant: appropriate application forms and fee, a narrative analysis (written text and figures of photos and maps) describing the property location, surrounding land uses and zoning classifications, and a statement of consistency with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Also, a Site Sketch Plan of the subject property’s boundaries was received. The Narrative and Site Sketch Plan are attached. Map Exhibits: Planning Staff has provided a Location Exhibit Map showing adjacent zoning in the area. Also provided for reference is a copy of Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map as adopted and amended for the 2019 Comprehensive Plan as an Exhibit Map identifying the Request Location on Map 12-1. For the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request, there is also an Exhibit Map of the Current Designation & Proposed Designation showing the current and proposed Land Use Classifications (excerpts of Map 12-1). Page 82

Item #4. MI-24-01 – Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2024 – Consideration of Amendment to Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map for 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard, Dover DE Planning Commission Recommendation Report from February 20, 2024 Page 4 of 7 III. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The subject property at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard consists of a vacant tract of land of 5.04 acres +/- at the terminus of the Silver Lake Boulevard. The property is predominantly an open grass field with trees and vegetation along its northern boundary with Silver Lake. It has frontage on the cul-de-sac at the terminus of Silver Lake Boulevard. The property currently has the zoning of C-PO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone). The property is flanked by a senior assisted living facility and the office building of Dover Federal Credit Union. Further south on Silver Lake Boulevard as you travel towards its intersection with Walker Road are the two residential townhouse developments of Senators Lake developed circa 2012-2018 and Silver Lake Townhouses developed in the late-1980s and then other office buildings. The subject property is one of two properties along Silver Lake Boulevard that have not been developed. IV. 2019 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The 2019 Comprehensive Plan depicts the subject property as the Land Use Classification Category of Office on Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map. The adjacent property on the south has a Land Use Classification of Office while the other adjoining property (and nearby Dover Middle Schools property) have a Land Use Classification of Institutional. The other properties fronting on Silver Lake Boulevard have Land Use Classifications of Residential Medium Density and Office. The Request seeks to revise the property to the Land Use Classification Category of Mixed Use. The approaches to the Land Use as Office are specifically discussed in the 2019 Comprehensive Plan beginning on page 12-16. It discusses Office Parks as a type of employment center and further describes them as follows: Office Parks The Land Development Plan designates specific tracts of land of various sizes for Office and Office Park land uses. Office Park development involves an integrated development of office buildings with shared entrances, driveways and parking. The majority of uses permitted within an Office Park are generally weekday professional office uses involving very little or no activity at night or on weekends. For this reason, the Office Park designation may be viewed as a transitional use category when situated between mor intense commercial and industrial land uses and residential land uses. This designation usually involves the C-PO (Commercial/Professional Office Zone) zoning district. The Comprehensive Plan goes on to note that the Offices are found throughout the City and identifies the office concentration that is found along Silver Lake Boulevard for one. Regarding Mixed Use Areas and the Land Use Classification of Mixed Use, this is discussed in 2019 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 12 – Land Development Plan beginning on page 12-7. Mixed Use areas are described as a “mix of residential, commercial, civic, institutional, and occasionally industrial uses.” The goals and for land Use of Mixed Use Areas are listed in the 2019 Comprehensive Plan excerpts presented below: Page 83

Item #4. MI-24-01 – Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2024 – Consideration of Amendment to Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map for 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard, Dover DE Planning Commission Recommendation Report from February 20, 2024 Page 5 of 7 Goals: Mixed Land Use The overall goals for Mixed Use areas are: 1. Encourage creation of neighborhood centers. 2. Within the close-knit neighborhood fabric there are opportunities for the creation of urban centers. These centers should be established along major roadways and feature mixed use development, pedestrian-friendly public environments and opportunities for connection to future transit. 3. In order to encourage non-automobile access to the center, the activities should be clustered within a one-half mile radius (or 10-minute walk) and be located so as to draw upon residents from a number of surrounding neighborhoods. 4. Develop strategies that will encourage the creation of well-defined public street spaces and pedestrian-friendly village areas that encourage walking and bicycle use. This may include on-street and behind building parking, and the creation of build-to lines for new development. 5. Improve access that limits public access to open spaces areas such as pedestrian, bicycle, and transit networks to parks and natural areas. 6. Encourage the Mixed Use of residential and commercial uses in the Downtown area. The 2019 Comprehensive Plan discusses Silver Lake as the largest waterbody in the City and as a scenic resource in Chapter 5 – Natural Resources and Environmental Protection. It notes that applications for new development adjacent to the Lake are reviewed by the Silver Lake Commission. This review would occur with any site development plan application in accordance with Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 Section 11.251. V. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING STAFF: The Planning Staff provides the following recommendations regarding Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2024: MI-24-01 Property at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard regarding the Land Use Classification change from Office to Mixed Use. Following our review of the goals and policies for Office Land Uses and the description of Mixed Use Areas uses in the 2019 Comprehensive Plan, as well as analysis of the surrounding land uses, the Request for a map change in this area from a Land Use Classification of Office to Mixed Use appears to be consistent with the development of the immediate area and the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff supports the change to a Land Use Classification of Mixed Use for this property at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard. The change in Land Use Classification to Mixed Use offers a broader range of zoning districts with a variety of land uses for development of this tract. It would bring the opportunity for a different mix of commercial and residential uses to the subject property. It is noted that under the current Land Use Classification of Office (and the property’s current zoning of C-PO) the commercial uses are focused on office uses with allowances for commercial uses accessory to the permitted uses and also for residential development through a Conditional Use process. The Page 84

Item #4. MI-24-01 – Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2024 – Consideration of Amendment to Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map for 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard, Dover DE Planning Commission Recommendation Report from February 20, 2024 Page 6 of 7 change would also allow for commercial uses in the retail and service sectors to be potentially available to the nearby residences (74 existing units along Silver Lake Boulevard) and to the employees and visitors of the ten (10) office buildings and other institutions in the area. The existing sidewalk network along Silver Lake Boulevard and signalized crossings at the intersection of Silver Lake Boulevard with Walker Road expands the access to include the residential neighborhoods to the south of Walker Road. This location is considered to be infill development as it is located where existing infrastructure exists and its surrounded by existing facilities and residences. There is some concern about the potential for the impact of development given the property’s proximity to Silver Lake. However, the regulations regarding stormwater management, required buffers from Silver Lake and any floodplain and/or wetland areas, and for the design of increased opportunities for public access to natural areas and view of the Silver Lake will be part of any site development review process. This recommendation is being made without the benefit of hearing the comments of surrounding landowners and residents. A public hearing is required on this matter and the Planning Commission should give those comments consideration in addition to the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW FOR RECOMMENDATION This Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application is a request for an amendment of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan’s Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map which shows the Land Use Classifications of properties. This is for the property located at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard. The Planning Commission as part of their public hearing and review process will provide a recommendation on the Amendment request to City Council. RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: At the Hybrid (In-Person and Virtual) Planning Commission Meeting of February 20, 2024, the Application MI-24-01 was represented by Mr. Kyle Burchard, PE of Mountain Consulting, Inc. as engineer for the equitable owner (Charles Chiang) of the subject property at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard. During the Public Hearing, three members of the public spoke, and no written comments were received. The Planning Commission’s motion was to recommend approval for Comprehensive Plan Amendment application MI-24-01 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2024 – Consideration of Amendment to Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map to revise the Land Use Classification of the property at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard from Office to Mixed Use and resulted in a vote of 7-0 in favor of the change (two members absent). The reasons cited for the recommendation of approval include consistency with the City’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan; with reference to the record (the Development Advisory Committee Report and attachments); and recognition of the recommendation of approval from the Planning Staff. See also the included excerpt of the DRAFT Meeting Minutes of the February 20, 2024 Planning Commission meeting. The comments received from the other member agencies of the Development Advisory Committee (D.A.C.) are also provided. Page 85

Item #4. MI-24-01 – Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2024 – Consideration of Amendment to Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map for 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard, Dover DE Planning Commission Recommendation Report from February 20, 2024 Page 7 of 7 VII. ADVISORY COMMENTS 1) The applicant shall be aware that approval of any Comprehensive Plan Amendment application does not represent Rezoning approval or Site Development Plan approval. A separate review process is required for rezoning; the applicant has made this application for Rezoning with Z-24-02. Also, a separate Site Development Plan must be submitted for review and approved if development activities are proposed on the property. ATTACHMENTS: • Location Map Exhibit • MI-24-01 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request Location on Map 12-1: Land Development Plan (Current Map with Revisions adopted through June 14, 2021) • Exhibit Map of Current Designation & Proposed Designation (Excerpt of Map 12-1) • Application MI-24-01 Submission for Property at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard o Narrative Analysis/ Statement of Consistency o Site Sketch Plan (of property’s boundaries) • Development Advisory Committee Comments from City of Dover Departments of Public Works and Water & Wastewater, City Office of the Fire Marshal, and Dover/Kent County MPO • Preliminary Land Use Services (PLUS) Review Comment Letter dated February 21, 2024 (received by Planning Office via email on 2/2024) • Excerpt from DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 20, 2024 • Proposed Ordinance #2024-03 Page 86

City of Dover Application No.: MI-24-01 Item #4. Department of Planning & Inspections IO College Rd SC-2 IO IO R-20 ROS CPO Terry Cir C-1A Rep IO R-8 Ln ive ntat rese Silve RM-1 r Lak d e B lv oo on Sch CPO Wils lhou R-8 Dr R-8 n se L R-20 CPO CPO Title: Property at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard Consideration of Amendment to Map 12-1 Land Development Plan Map Legend Address: 1079 Silver Lake Blvd Parcel ID: ED-05-067.12-02-04.00-000 Dover Boundary Existing Zoning: CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone) Current Land Classification: Office Subject Property Proposed Land Use Classification: Mixed Use Owner: Dover Federal Credit Union Zoning Date: 1/2/2024 « Dover Parcels Page 87

Item #4. Page 88

Item #4. Page 89

Item #4. City of Dover Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request Subject Property: 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard Narra ve to Accompany Applica on Requested Comprehensive Plan Map Change: From Office Use to Mixed Use Property Orienta on: The subject property is 5.04± acres at the end of Silver Lake Boulevard on the westerly side of Silver Lake in the City of Dover, Delaware. The property has shoreline access to the upper end of Silver Lake where the incoming Fork Branch stream marshes widen into more open waters of the lake. The property is currently undeveloped with a treed shoreline and the bulk of the land being maintained as an open mowed field. The exis ng Silver Lake Boulevard cul-de-sac bulb right-of-way is shaped to provide a vehicular entrance into the southwest corner of the property, with concrete curbing and sidewalks along the site frontage within the right-of-way. Proposed Mixed Use Figure 1: Oblique Aerial View (Looking North) Page 1 of 3 Page 90

Item #4. City of Dover Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request Subject Property: 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard Property Analysis: The surrounding development on adjacent proper es are currently described as: To the north is Silver Lake (Comp. Plan: Water Bodies. R7 Zone) To the west is the Complete Care at Silver Lake senior facility (Comp. Plan: Ins tu onal. IO Zone). To the east is the Dover Federal Credit Union corporate office building (Comp. Plan: Office. CPO Zone). To the southwest are the Representa ve Lane townhouses (Comp. Plan: Residen al Med. Density. RM-1 Zone). To the southeast are addi onal townhouses (Comp. Plan: Residen al Med. Density. RG-3 Zone). Proposed Mixed Use Figure 2: Dover GIS Zoning Map Page 2 of 3 Page 91

Item #4. City of Dover Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request Subject Property: 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard Proposed Mixed Use Figures 3 & 4: PorƟon of Dover 2019 Comprehensive Plan & Legend: Map 12-1 Proposed Land Development Plan Statement of Consistency with the Goals of the Comprehensive Plan: The subject property has more poten al than an Office Use can deliver. A Mixed Use designa on will allow for development flexibility that will provide far more local community benefits for at least the residents living along Silver Lake Boulevard, as well as for the commuters to the office complexes. The vision for this applica on is to develop apartments above ground-level commercial spaces plus indoor/outdoor ac ve recrea on facili es. The details are in the works, and the first step for making it viable is changing to Mixed Use in concert with the Comprehensive Plan. The guidance of the Dover 2019 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 12 Land Development Plan starts with land development principles that include: • Encourage infill and redevelopment. • Encourage a mix of housing styles within new residen al developments. • Ensure that new development meets high standards for site design and architectural design. • Provide appropriate areas for commercial development through master-planned business zones. • Ensure that environmental standards are enforced when reviewing construc on projects. • Enhance public u li es and infrastructure that will meet the needs of the community by providing quality community services. The proposed Mixed Use development allows for added housing, lakeside trails, green roof infrastructure, and commercial development in service to the local community. The goals of the Mixed Use provision of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the crea on of neighborhood centers. Currently there is no neighborhood center on the Silver Lale Boulevard corridor, but that is what is intended with the proposed development. Mee ngs with the neighborhood are planned to steer the commercial spaces towards what is most needed, and most desirable. The proposed development will encourage a walkable community backdropped by Silver Lake views. Page 3 of 3 Page 92

PLAN NOTES: Item #4. 1) SITE SKETCH BASED ON PLOT BOOK #52, PAGE 97 ONLY. CURVE TABLE 2) SETBACKS SHOWN AS PROVIDED BY CITY OF DOVER PLANNING OFFICE AND DO NOT MATCH WHAT RECORD PLAN SHOWS. 3) 100' RIPARIAN BUFFER CAN BE REDUCED TO 50' (AS SHOWN ON PLAN) PER CITY OF DOVER PLANNING OFFICE. NO. RADIUS / ARC / CHORD BEARING & DISTANCE 4) REMOVAL OF EXISTING VEGETATIVE COVER CAN BE CLEARED AS IT DOES NOT MEET THE CITY OF DOVER DEFINITION OF WOODLANDS. 5) REAR PORTION OF THE SITE SHOWS SITE MAY LIE WITHIN THE 100-FLOOD PLAIN ACCORDING TO FEMA MAP #10001C0166H, C1 R= 60.00' / A= 69.53' / N 81°44'54" W 65.70' 1 "W DATED 05/05/2003. SAID LINE APPEARS TO MEANDER ALONG REAR OF SITE AS SHOWN. L1 C2 R= 30.00' / A= 35.05' / N 81°28'13" W 33.09' '06 ' REZONING/COMP.PLAN NOTES (ADDED BY MOUNTAIN CONSULTING, INC., 103 S. BRADFORD ST): C3 R= 100.00' / A= 63.28' / N 29°52'15" W 62.23' 32 06 1) OWNER OF RECORD ADDRESS: 1075 SILVER LAKE BLVD, DOVER, DE 19901 0 L1 6° 2. 2) SILVER LAKE BLVD WIDTH VARIES ALONG FRONTAGE CUL-DE-SAC. C4 R= 200.00' / A= 47.63' / S 62°14'45" W 47.52' 3) EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT TO BE RELOCATED ONSITE, IF POSSIBLE, WITH FINAL DESIGN. S 1 10 4) EXISTING ZONING: CPO. PROPOSED ZONING C-2A. BR L 5) ENTIRE 5.0374+/- ACRES SUBJECT TO REZONING. L9 BR L > V L ED BR -05 E R BR -06 L 8.1 L 3-0 A K OWNER: DOVER FEDERAL CREDIT UNION BR L S ED-05-06712-02-0300-000 1-0 E BR L "W 1 .0 L L SI BR 0 L8 07 3' BR L °4 BR L 12 BR L PER RECORD PLAN: "EXISTING HIGH WATER LINE OF SILVER LAKE" BR L OWNER: CITY OF DOVER LOCATION MAP N N ' > CAL NON BR L ED-05-06712-02-0500-000 87 "PUMP STATION" PLAN PREPARED BY 2. BR L 15 BR L L7 BR L S 37°3 BR L 10278 South DuPont Hwy , Felton , DE 19943 0'42" E Email: avi.consulting.group@gmail.com 2 BRL BRL 205.0 L1 BR L L BRL BR BRL BRL BRL BRL BRL 2' > REVISIONS BRL BRL BRL BRL BRL BRL BRL BRL 50' S L6 (SEE ETBAC BRL NOT K E# 3) R= 175.00' / A= 156.14' BRL CH: < S 43°30'40" W 151.02' BRL OWNER: DOVER FEDERAL CREDIT UNION ED-05-06712-02-0400-000 BRL CONTAINS 5.0374 ACRES +/- BRL 15' WIDE SANITARY SEWER L5 EASEMENT AS GRAPHICALLY BRL DEPICTED ON RECORD PLAN BRL (PLOT BOOK #522, PAGE #97) BRL L4 BRL BRL OWNERS INFORMATION BRL BRL DOVER FEDERAL CREDIT UNION BRL BR L BR L BR L BRL CITY OF DOVER KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE BR L BRL C4 BR L BR BRL L BR L SITE SKETCH PREPARED FOR BR L BRL BR L CHARLES CHIANG 5°25 BR L BRL BR L 103. '24" W < BR L BRL N 11 BR L 1079 SILVER LAKE BLVD, DOVER, DELAWARE 19904 BRL °4 BR L 06' 4 '3 BR L BRL KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE 0" BR L W BR LINE BEARING DISTANCE L < S5 BRL PLANS BASED ON 46 BR L L1 N 48°00'00" W 2.57' 4. BR L BRL RECORD PLAN #52, PAGE #97 29 BR L L2 N 11°44'30" W 6.64' ' BR L BRL BRL L3 S 78°15'30" W 60.00' BR L BR L BR L DRAWN BY: NP LBR L4 S 81°54'11" E 40.46' BR L CHECKED BY: C1 BR L BR L L5 N 44°03'28" E 56.07' BR L BR SCALE: 1"=40' L2 40' L BR BR L 0' 20' DATE: 03/20/2023 L L6 N 64°34'24" E 60.29' BR L BR L BR L L DATE OF FLD WRK: N/A BR BRL L7 N 58°43'40" E 66.15' L BR BRL BR L BRL OWNER: SILVER LAKE REALTY DE, LLC BR L L BR DATE CRNRS SET: N/A L8 N 68°03'49" E 88.12' ED-05-06712-02-0200-000 BR L L3 C3 C2 FIELD BOOK/PAGE: L BR N/A L1 L9 S 83°00'37" E 57.40' BR L L SCJ FILE NAME: N/A BR BR LAKE L L10 S 66°24'35" E 56.60' SILVER DRAWING #: 1079_SilverLakeBlvd L11 S 77°03'56" E 60.66' BOULEVARD CONTRACT #: 1079_SilverLakeBlvd L12 S 75°28'11" E 14.70' 1 OF ___ SHEET ___ 1Page 93

CITY OF DOVER Item #4. DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: JANUARY 31, 2024 APPLICATION: Comprehensive Plan Amendments 2024 – Consideration of Amendment to Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map FILE #: MI-24-01 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Department of Public Works and Water & Wastewater CONTACT PERSON: Jason A. Lyon, P.E., Director of Water & Wastewater / Engineering Services CONTACT PHONE #: 302-736-7025 CONTACT EMAIL #: jlyon@dover.de.us 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 SANITATION / STREETS / STORMWATER / WATER / WASTEWATER / GENERAL 1. Our office has no objections to the proposed land use classification for tax parcel ED-05-067.12-02-04.00-000. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES SANITATION / STREETS / STORMWATER / WATER / WASTEWATER / GENERAL 1. None ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT SANITATION / STREETS / STORMWATER / WATER / WASTEWATER / GENERAL 1. None 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 . Page 94

C F #4. MI-24-01 Item I I T R CITY OF DOVER Y E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE O M F A APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY R D.A.C. MEETING DATE: 01/31/24 D S O H V A E L R APPLICATION: Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2024 Consideration of Amendment to Map 12-1 FILE #: MI-24-01 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover, Office of the Fire Marshal CONTACT PERSON: Jason Osika, Fire Marshal PHONE #: (302) 736-4457 josika@dover.de.us 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 ADDRESS BY THE APPLICANT: CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Proposal is a review of an amendment to the 2019 Comprehensive Plan with consideration of a request for amendment of Map 12-1, 1079 Silver Lake Blvd. This office has no objections. ADDITIONAL / SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN APPROVAL: 1. N/A APPLICABLE CODES LISTED BELOW (NOT LIMITED TO): 2021 NFPA 1 Fire Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2021 NFPA 101 Life Safety Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2019 NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2019 NFPA 13 Installation of Sprinkler Systems (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2009 IBC (International Building Code) Latest editions of all other NFPA Codes as defined by the Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations City of Dover Code of Ordinances *If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person listed. Page 95

Item #4. CITY OF DOVER Dover/Kent DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE County Metropolitan APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY Planning D.A.C. MEETING DATE: 2/7/2024 Organization APPLICATION: MI-24-01 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2024 - Consideration of Amendment to Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map FILE # MI-24-01 REVIEWING AGENCY: Dover/Kent County MPO CONTACT PERSON: Malcolm Jacob PHONE #: (302) 387-6030 Issues of concern to the MPO are effective transit, reducing the amount of vehicle emissions by shortening or eliminating trips, and facilities for alternative modes of transportation, including bicycle and pedestrian access. The MPO considers the bicycle facilities required by the City of Dover to be the standard for all applications, not to be waived. City of Dover Planning Commission Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review MI-24-01 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2024 - Consideration of Amendment to Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map 1) The MPO does not have any objections to the proposed amendment. The property would benefit from pedestrian improvements such as sidewalks and a trail connecting to the middle school. The road should also be able to accommodate the new volume of vehicle traffic. Further comments will be submitted if site development takes place at a later date. 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. Page 96

Item #4. Srnrr or Demune Orrrcs or MnruneeMENT AND Buoeer Orrrcr or Srnre Plnruntrue CooRolrunnoru February 2I,2024 Dawn Melson-Williams City of Dover Department of Planning and lnspections City Hall P.O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 RE: PLUS review - 2024-OL-05; City of Dover Comprehensive Plan Amendment - LO79 Silver Lake Blvd. Dear Ms. Melson-Williams, Thank you for meeting with State agency planners on January 24,2024, to discuss the proposed City of Dover comprehensive plan amendment. According to the application, the City desires to amend parcel 2-05-06712-02-0400-00001on the Future Land Use Map within their Certified Comprehensive Plan to change the classification from Office to Mixed Use. 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. This office has received the following comments from State agencies: Planni OS hua Th -7 The property for the proposed comprehensive plan amendment is located within lnvestment Level 1 according to the 2020 Strategies for State Policies and Spending. lt is located within the municipal boundary of the City of Dover. The proposed land use classification is consistent with the surrounding land uses reflected on the future land use map (20L9 Comprehensive Plan, Map 12-1). lnvestment Level 1 reflects areas that are already developed in an urban or suburban fashion, where infrastructure is existing or readily available, and where future redevelopment or infill projects are expected and encouraged by State policy. Future Page 97

Item #4. PLUS Review - 2024-01-05 Page 2 of3 development on this site in Level 1 is consistent with the 2020 Strategies for State Policies and Spending; therefore, the Office of State Planning Coordination has no objections to this comprehensive plan amendment provided it is adopted through the City of Dover's local process. DeDartment of Transportation (DelDOT) - Contact Stephen Baver 302-760-4834 o DelDor has no comments on the proposed comprehensive plan amendment DelDor notes that if the parcels identified are subsequently developed all applicable reviews and/or approvals will still be required. Denart m p nt of Natural R esources and Environm ental Control (DNREC) Contact Beth - Krumrine 3 735-3480 Disclaimer Clause: Stafffrom the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) reviewed the project submitted for pLUS review. The absence of comments regarding specific resources does not indicate that there are not additionalconstraints or environmental issues on site, nor does it indicate DNREC support of a project. o DNREC reviewers have no comments or concerns at this time Delaware Eme rsencv Manaeement Ase n CV DEMA) - Contact P hill tn Can 302-659-232s DEMA has no comments or objections on this Comprehensive Plan Amendment as this is not our area of expertise. State Histor ic Preservation Office (SH ) - Contact Carlton Hall 02-736-7400 a Currently, there are previously identified historic resources immediately adjacent to the parcel. The potential for precontact archaeological resources in the project area is very high. This assessment is based on the landform, soil drainage, access to water, and identification of archaeological sites adjacent to the parcel. ln addition, the potential for historic period archaeological resources in the project area is also high. Disturbance across the parcel appears minimal. a Based on the high potential for archaeological resources being present in the project area, as well as the seemingly minimal disturbance, there is a high likelihood for intact archaeological resources within the project area. The DE SHPO recommends that an archaeological survey take place prior to any ground disturbance associated with the project. Page 98

Item #4. PLUS Review - 2024-01-05 Page 3 of3 a lf any project or development proceeds, the developer should be aware of the Unmarked Human Burials and Human Skeletal Remains Law (Del. C. Title 7, ch.s4). Delaware State Fire Marshall's Office - Contact Duane Fox 302-739-4394 The DE State Fire Marshal's Office has no comments because this project lies within the City of Dover jurisdiction. Any comments should come from the City of Dover Fire Marshal's Office. Once the amendment is voted on by Planning and Zoning and/or Town Council, please forward a copy of the decision regarding the amendment to this office for our files' Thank you for the opportunity to review this amendment. lf you have any questions, please contact me at 302-739-3090. Sincerely, David L. Edgell, AICP Director, Office of State Planning Coordination Page 99

Item #4. CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION February 20, 2024 Excerpt from Meeting Minutes – Draft The Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 7:00 PM as an In-Person Meeting and also using the phone/videoconferencing system WebEx. The Meeting Session was conducted with Chair Mrs. Maucher presiding. Members present were Mr. Cooper, Mr. Roach (virtual), Mr. Witham, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Reaves, Mrs. Welsh (virtual), and Mrs. Maucher. Mrs. Denney and Dr. Jones were absent. Staff members present were Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Ms. Katherine Oehmke, Mr. Jason Lyon (virtual), and Mrs. Kristen Mullaney. NEW APPLICATIONS MI-24-01 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2024 - Consideration of Amendment to Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map - Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council on an Amendment to the 2019 Comprehensive Plan with consideration of a request for amendment of Map 12-1: Land Development Plan to revise the Land Use Classification of the property located at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard. The Request is to revise the Land Use Classification from Office to Mixed Use on Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map. The property is located at the eastern terminus of Silver Lake Boulevard. Property Owner: Dover Federal Credit Union and equitable owner Charles Chiang. Property Address: 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard. Tax Parcel: ED-05-067.12-02-04.00-000. This is associated with Rezoning Application Z-24-02. Ordinance #2024-03. Council District 4. The First Reading of the Proposed Ordinance was held on January 22, 2024 and Public Hearings were scheduled for Planning Commission on February 20, 2024 and City Council on March 11, 2024. Representative: Mr. Kyle Burchard, Mountain Consulting Mrs. Melson-Willaims stated that this application is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the consideration of an amendment to Map 12-1: Land Development Plan. It is regarding a specific property and that is the property at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard. It is located at the terminus of Silver Lake Boulevard. You can see on the Exhibit Map; the property location is shown in yellow. Each year, there is an opportunity for individuals to ask for amendments to our Comprehensive Plan. That filing deadline happens in December of each calendar year and then begins a review process in early January. The first step with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is actually submission of the amendment request through the Preliminary Land Use Services review process. That review process for this application happened on January 24, 2024. We did receive the comments as a result of that meeting today. They have been provided both electronically and in hard copy to our Planning Commission members on their desks this evening. Those comments show in general, no objections to the request with some guidance about future development on the property should that occur. This request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment makes a change to what is known at the Land Development Plan Map. This is a very colorful map that shows various land use categories throughout the City for all properties. This location currently has a land use classification of Office. It is shown in a brown color. They are proposing to make that land use classification Mixed Use. You can see on the Exhibit image Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 20, 2024 Page 1 of 5 Page 100

Item #4. the current designation and then proposed designation. With the Comprehensive Plan, the Land Development Plan identifies the land use categories and actually includes portions of the text of the Comprehensive Plan that talks about the goals of each of those land use categories. The Planning Commission was provided excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan focused on Office Parks related to its current land use classification and then the goals of the Mixed-Use land use category. With this location, the proposed change is to a Mixed-Use land use category that then presents a series of different opportunities for zoning of the property which is the accompanying application that we will address in a few moments. Tonight, the Planning Commission will be making a recommendation in regards to this Comprehensive Plan Amendment. It will then go to its own separate hearing with City Council for final action. As part of the Development Advisory Committee Report, the Planning Staff has provided a recommendation for this Comprehensive Plan Amendment. They are in support of the change of the land use classification to Mixed Use, finding that they feel it’s consistent with the development of the immediate area. They see a mix of use activities: office, institutional, and residential along this corridor. The Mixed Use land use category offers a broader range of zoning districts in the long run that would include that mix of commercial and residential. The change would also allow consideration of future zoning classifications that broaden the commercial uses of the property to include more of the retail and service sectors than what its current zoning would allow. We do note that the property is adjacent to Silver Lake and there are provisions of Zoning Ordinance ultimately that will help protect the lake, because there are provisions related to stormwater management, required buffers from the lake and the flood plain and wetland areas, and also other opportunities for improvement of public access to the lake. Mr. Burchard stated that the application for this Comprehensive Plan Amendment change is very well versed already in the record. He does not have anything more to add to it at this time. Mrs. Maucher opened the public hearing. Mr. Edward Dougherty – 937 Silver Lake Boulevard Dover, DE 19901 Mr. Dougherty stated that he is part of the Board for Silver Lake Townhouses. One of the first things that he noticed with your map is that it was inaccurate. Going back to the first map shows a block of land that is blank and shouldn’t be there. The school is right next to the development that went in about five years ago. He doesn’t know what that land is there because the parking lot for the school is adjacent to that development. There is no parking lot there indicated for the nursing home that is there or for the bank that is on the right. He doesn’t know why that is all missing. That really drives his point home that the density situation for that cul-de-sac is hardly a corridor at all because it’s a dead-end. If you are going to change the zoning there, you are going to have more people coming up and down that highway. They just fixed the bridge there but they did not put fences on either side of the bridge; so, that is sort of an indication that we don’t really need more traffic coming up and down that highway. Also, when they put the units in; there are about 64 units there which is a lot of families living in those units. Already, he walks his dog up and down Silver Lake Boulevard and the 25 MPH speed limit is not being adhered to. Again, with more cars, that would cause a little more of a safety issue. Along with that, the natural area is constantly used by wildlife and that would be eliminated by any kind of building there. Can anyone tell him why that area is all blanked out? Responding to Mr. Dougherty, Mrs. Melson- Williams stated that the map (that is shown on the screen) does not show the improvements on Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 20, 2024 Page 2 of 5 Page 101

Item #4. each of the adjacent parcels. What it is showing is a parcel map. The lines that you see are the public street network and then also the boundaries of the individual properties. It does not show the parking lot areas nor is it intended to do so. It is basically our Zoning Map. You can see that there are little letters that are on it and that is all that it is really intended to show is the property line boundaries and then the boundaries of the Zoning Map. Mr. Dougherty asked if Mrs. Melson-Williams indicated that the Planning Commission has already agreed to do this or is in favor of it? Responding to Mr. Dougherty, Mrs. Melson- Williams stated that the Planning Staff has recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment which is the first step for this project. The Planning Commission, this evening, will make a recommendation. Then City Council will have their own hearing and they are the final acting body that takes action on this request. At this point, we have one recommendation and then the Planning Commission this evening will be making a recommendation as well. Mr. Reaves stated that this property is currently zoned as Office. If this property was developed as office space, would that still interfere with what your concern is? Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mr. Dougherty stated that he is not opposed to the original zoning; it’s the change. He really doesn’t understand what they mean by Mixed Use. What is it going to be? What’s the plan? That is his concern. Resident – unknown name and address Resident stated that she had a few questions on the Mixed Use for Silver Lake Boulevard. Mixed use, commercial and residential; are there restrictions? What type of commercial and residential are being considered? Are there restrictions on the commercial use? What type of residential components are we talking about? Is this a home ownership? Are these rentals? Is this federally funded housing? What are the details that are being considered? Responding to the Resident, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this request for Mixed Use is a land use category. It is a category that then allows consideration of a number of different zoning districts. The zoning districts themselves is where you find the allowable uses. The uses could be a variety of commercial uses and/or residential uses. The Zoning Ordinance does not prescribe the type or form of ownership. That is not something that this Commission can regulate; whether it’s homeownership, rental or any kind of income targeted project. It is a land use category that is a vision piece of the Comprehensive Plan. The goals for Mixed Use areas are to focus on a mix of activities; both commercial and residential. It’s neighborhood centers. It could be areas that are pedestrian friendly and that have a streetscape and provide services in a general area. But it is a focus on a mix of uses; both commercial and residential. Resident stated that it sounds like you don’t have details on the uses which would leave the community kind of open on being able to make a sound decision on whether they support or don’t support what type of commercial uses directly affecting the community at large and what type of housing could affect homeowners in the area. Details are just very important in a Comprehensive Plan. She understands that there is a mix of zonings to create and promote activity in the community which is always great but she guesses somewhere down the line, details would be needed to make a sound decision on whether one would support the project. Responding to the Resident, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that would be correct. For the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, it is kind of a vision piece. Their associated application for Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 20, 2024 Page 3 of 5 Page 102

Item #4. Rezoning does identify a specific zoning district and then we can discuss the types of uses that would be allowed in that zoning district. There is a variety that could still fit that Mixed Use category. But they will be requesting a specific one and that is the next application to be considered this evening. Ms. Niko Brady – resident at Silver Lake Townhomes They asked in the chat online if further details would be provided regarding the plan for Mixed Use. Will this include housing or restaurants? Ms. Brady stated that the statement that Mrs. Melson-Williams just made does answer the questions that she had. It sounds like the next item on the agenda will address more of the zoning items, which will provide more detail. Mrs. Maucher closed the public hearing. Mr. Reaves stated that in reference to Page 3 of the Green Mountain (Mountain Consulting) proposal, the statement of consistency with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, could Mr. Burchard speak to clarification for the Commission and the audience, just a little bit about what your goals are here. Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mr. Burchard stated that the goals of this application are to make the land more malleable for a mix of uses. There will be additional steps in this process which will require the more detailed review of plans that have not been developed for review by the Commission and for public hearing. There is a shortage of details at the zoning level of things. He understands that that’s the case. Mr. Reaves stated that in your statement it talks about providing far more local community benefits, benefits to residents as this being a service to the residents, and how that was shaping for this project. Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mr. Burchard stated that the vision is to make this somewhat of a more neighborhood community central type of place. The exact form of that is not yet set, but it is the intent to bring together uses that are complimentary to themselves within the development as well as the use of the neighborhood and the community. Mr. Witham stated that he recognizes that this is the first step in the process of a multi-stage planning consideration for whatever project you intend to develop. Some of the questions that you may hear may be appropriate for later on. But have you or the owner consulted with those entities, either public or private with respect to what your goals are in the area? Who have you reached out to, to talk about your goals for the property? Responding to Mr. Witham, Mr. Burchard asked if he was asking if there are some groups within the local community that have been reached out to, to see that the goals of the development are in line with that local community? There has been an interest in reaching out to the community at the zoning level. They received advice that at that level, it’s not appropriate to try to bring forth details and resolutions and to work through that with the local community ahead of that zoning step. Given that there are numerous steps in the development process as you have mentioned that are yet to be, that have to get scrutinized and worked out, and engineered and designed. That’s how we approached it. In a way, there is some catch-22 to be able to move forward with the time, expense, the design consideration, the interactions to understand what are the details that serve the community and also the development. They have to get through a rezoning step. The Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 20, 2024 Page 4 of 5 Page 103

Item #4. limitation of the existing zoning as Office precludes any more versatile function of the land to the benefit of the community other than office. So, Office was just seemingly curtailing the ability to make that type of development possible. Mr. Witham moved to recommend approval to City Council for MI-24-01 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2024 - Consideration of Amendment to Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map for the reasons set forth on the record and in the Planner’s comments, seconded by Mr. Reaves and the motion was carried 7-0 by roll call vote with Mrs. Denney and Dr. Jones absent. Mr. Witham voting yes. Mr. Baldwin voting yes. Mr. Reaves voting yes; for reasons stated previously. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; it is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cooper voting yes; based on Staff recommendations. Mr. Roach voting yes. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; based on Staff recommendation. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 20, 2024 Page 5 of 5 Page 104

FINAL READING Item #4. City of Dover CITY OF DOVER PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2024-03 1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2019 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY AMENDING MAP 2 12-1: LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION OF 3 THE SPECIFIC PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1079 SILVER LAKE BOULEVARD. 4 5 WHEREAS, the City of Dover has adopted a Comprehensive Plan laying out land use policies within 6 the City of Dover, Delaware; and 7 8 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dover, on January 13, 2020, following the 9 recommendation of the City of Dover Planning Commission, adopted the 2019 Comprehensive Plan 10 pursuant to Title 22, Section 702 of the Delaware Code; and 11 12 WHEREAS, the Honorable John Carney, Governor of the State of Delaware, certified the 2019 13 Comprehensive Plan to be effective as of January 13, 2020 by letter of March 10, 2020; and 14 15 WHEREAS, the 2019 Comprehensive Plan allows for an annual amendment process; and 16 17 WHEREAS, a property owner has requested an amendment to the Land Development Plan Map (Map 18 12-1) in accordance with the process set forth in the 2019 Comprehensive Plan; and 19 20 WHEREAS, the Planning Office has prepared this amendment to the Land Development Plan Map 21 (Map 12-1) for review as part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2024; and 22 23 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 20, 2024 after which the 24 Planning Commission made a recommendation in regard to this amendment to the Land Development 25 Plan related to the specific property. 26 27 WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning in the City of Dover to change the 28 Land Use Classification of the property on the Land Development Plan Map (Map 12-1) as described 29 below. 30 31 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY 32 OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET AND AMEND THE 2019 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY: 33 34 That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance, that Map 12-1: Land Development Plan 35 Map of the City of Dover has been amended by changing the designated Land Use Classification from 36 Office to Mixed Use for a parcel located at the eastern terminus of Silver Lake Boulevard, known as 37 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard, Dover, Delaware. 38 (Property Owner: Dover Federal Credit Union and equitable owner Charles Chiang; Property 39 Address:1079 Silver Lake Boulevard; Tax Parcel: ED-05-067.12-02-04.00-000; Planning References: 40 MI-24-01 and Z-24-02) 41 42 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 43 44 That upon final action to adopt this ordinance, the amendment as approved changing the Land Use Page 105

Item #4. Proposed Ordinance #2024-03: Consideration of Amendment to Map 12-1: Land Development Plan, 2019 Comprehensive Plan (MI-24-01: 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard) Page 2 45 Classification of the property shall be made to Map 12-1: Land Development Plan of the 2019 46 Comprehensive Plan. 47 48 ADOPTED: * 51 52 53 SYNOPSIS 54 The proposed ordinance would adopt an amendment to the 2019 Comprehensive Plan for the Land Use 55 Classification of a property. The specific property is 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard, Dover DE. The 56 amendment (MI-24-01) is to be reflected as a revision to Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map of the 57 2019 Comprehensive Plan. 58 59 60 61 Actions History: 62 04/22/2024 - Scheduled for Public Hearing/Final Reading - City Council 63 03/11/2024 – Deferred - Public Hearing/Final Reading - City Council 64 02/20/2024 – Public Hearing – Planning Commission 65 01/22/2024 – First Reading – City Council Page 106

Item #5. PETITION TO AMEND ZONING DISTRICT Public Hearing Before the Dover City Council March 11, 2024 Recommendation from Planning Commission Meeting of February 20, 2024 With Staff and Development Advisory Committee Review Application: Lands of Dover Federal Credit Union at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard Owner: Dover Federal Credit Union Equitable Owner: Charles Chiang Address: 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard, Dover DE Location: At the eastern terminus of Silve Lake Boulevard Tax Parcel: ED-05-067.12-02-04.00-000 Size: 5.04 +/- acres Present Uses: Vacant tract of land 2019 Comprehensive Plan Designation – Land Use Category: Office Proposed Comprehensive Plan Designation – Land Use Category: Mixed Use • This is subject to action on Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2024 Request MI-24-01 with Ordinance #2024-03. Present Zoning: C-PO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone) Proposed Zoning: C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) Reason for Request: To amend zoning to support development of the property as mixed use of residential and commercial uses. File Number: Z-24-02 Ordinance Number: #2024-04 Planning Commission Recommendation: The Application Z-24-02 Lands of Dover Federal Credit Union at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard: Rezoning C-PO to C-2A was represented by Mr. Kyle Burchard, PE of Mountain Consulting, Inc. as engineer for the equitable owner of the subject property. A Public Hearing was conducted on February 20, 2024 where one member of the public spoke, and no written comments were received (as part of the meeting) Page 107

Item #5. Z-24-02 Lands of Dover Federal Credit Union at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard Planning Commission Recommendation Report from February 20, 2024 Page 2 regarding the Rezoning application. The Planning Commission’s motion to recommend approval of the proposed rezoning from C-PO to C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) resulted in a 5-2 vote in favor (two members absent). (Draft Meeting Minutes attached.) APPLICATION: Z-24-02 Lands of Dover Federal Credit Union at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard: Rezoning CPO to C-2A This Rezoning Application was referred to the Planning Commission as per Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 §5. The Planning Commission is required to provide a Review Report to City Council. The following document and attachments are provided as the Review Report and Planning Commission Recommendation. I. APPLICATION SUMMARY This Rezoning Application Z-24-02 is for a parcel of land consisting of 5.04 acres+/- located at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard. The property is zoned C-PO (Commercial Professional Office Zone). The proposed zoning is C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). The property is located at the eastern terminus of Silver Lake Boulevard. Property Owner: Dover Federal Credit Union and equitable owner Charles Chiang. Property Address: 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard. Tax Parcel: ED-05-067.12- 02-04.00-000. This is associated with Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application MI-24-01. Ordinance #2024-04. Council District 4. The First Reading was completed by the City Council on January 22, 2024 referring the Application to the Planning Commission for Public Hearing, Review, and Recommendation. Existing Property: The subject property at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard consists of a vacant tract of land of 5.04 acres +/- at the terminus of the Silver Lake Boulevard. The property is predominantly an open grass field with trees and vegetation along its northern boundary with Silver Lake. It has frontage on the cul- de-sac at the terminus of Silver Lake Boulevard. This application only seeks Rezoning of the property from C-PO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone) to C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). The applicant is seeking rezoning to allow for future mixed-use development of the property. Any redevelopment of the site will be subject to a separate application submission for plans or permits. Surrounding Land Uses: In the immediate area, there are a variety of zoning districts along the length of Silver Lake Boulevard. The subject property is flanked by a senior assisted living facility zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and the office building of Dover Federal Credit Union zoned C-PO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone). Further south on Silver Lake Boulevard as you travel towards its intersection with Walker Road are the two residential townhouse developments: Senators Lake developed circa 2012-2018 zoned RM-1 (Medium Density Residence Zone) and Silver Lake Townhouses developed in the late-1980s zoned RG-3 (Group Housing Zone) with its open space zoned as ROS (Recreational and Open Space Zone). Then the other office building properties are zoned C-PO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone) until you reach Walker Road. Page 108

Item #5. Z-24-02 Lands of Dover Federal Credit Union at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard Planning Commission Recommendation Report from February 20, 2024 Page 3 II. COMPRENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE REVIEW The 2019 Comprehensive Plan currently depicts the subject area as Office as the Land Use Classification on Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map. Under Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2024 Application MI-24-01, there is a Request to change the Land Use Classification from Office to Mixed Use for the entire parcel. If the Comprehensive Plan Amendment MI-24-01 is approved, then the requested zoning of C-2A would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is not approved, the zoning requested would not be consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan. Regarding Mixed Use Areas and the Land Use Classification of Mixed Use, this is discussed in Chapter 12 – Land Development Plan beginning on page 12-7. Mixed Use areas are described as a “mix of residential, commercial, civic, institutional, and occasionally industrial uses.” The goals and for Mixed Use Areas Land Use are listed in the 2019 Comprehensive Plan excerpts presented below: Goals: Mixed Land Use The overall goals for Mixed Use areas are: 1. Encourage creation of neighborhood centers. 2. Within the close-knit neighborhood fabric there are opportunities for the creation of urban centers. These centers should be established along major roadways and feature mixed use development, pedestrian-friendly public environments and opportunities for connection to future transit. 3. In order to encourage non-automobile access to the center, the activities should be clustered within a one-half mile radius (or 10-minute walk) and be located so as to draw upon residents from a number of surrounding neighborhoods. 4. Develop strategies that will encourage the creation of well-defined public street spaces and pedestrian-friendly village areas that encourage walking and bicycle use. This may include on-street and behind building parking, and the creation of build-to lines for new development. 5. Improve access that limits public access to open spaces areas such as pedestrian, bicycle, and transit networks to parks and natural areas. 6. Encourage the Mixed Use of residential and commercial uses in the Downtown area. The Comprehensive Plan notes that Mixed Use Areas “can be an area where a new development should foster walkability and close interactions among activities and uses in a traditional neighborhood setting.” The Rezoning Request to C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) is consistent with the Land Use Classification of Mixed Use. Table 12-1: Land Use and Zoning Matrix (from the 2019 Comprehensive Plan) specifies that the following zones are compatible with this land use classification. See the excerpt from Table 12-1 given below. It is noted that Table 12-1 for the Mixed Use Land Use Category identifies a number of zoning districts that allow for a mix of commercial and residential uses with some being more limiting in the specific types of uses permitted or where they can be applied. Page 109

Item #5. Z-24-02 Lands of Dover Federal Credit Union at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard Planning Commission Recommendation Report from February 20, 2024 Page 4 C-2 (Central Commercial) (Downtown Redevelopment Target Area Only) C-2A (Limited Central Commercial) TND (Traditional Neighborhood Design) C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) C-1A (Limited Commercial) RGO (General Residence and Office) (Downtown Redevelopment Target Area Only) R-8 (One Family Residence) Mixed-Use R-10 (One Family Residence) RG-1 (General Residence) RG-2 (General Residence) RG-4 (General Resident - Multi-Story Apartments) C-3 (Service Commercial) CPO (Commercial and Professional Office) IO (Institutional and Office) The 2019 Comprehensive Plan also discusses Silver Lake as the largest waterbody in the City and as a scenic resource in Chapter 5 – Natural Resources and Environmental Protection. It notes that applications for new development adjacent to the Lake are reviewed by the Silver Lake Commission. This review would occur with any site development plan application in accordance with Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 Section 11.251. III. ZONING REVIEW Request for C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) Zoning The types of permitted uses and conditional uses in the C-2A zone are given Article 3 §14 of the Zoning Ordinance. See the following code excerpt below for the current provisions of the C-2A zone. Article 3 Section 14. – Limited central commercial zone (C-2A). 14.1 Uses permitted. In a limited central commercial zone (C-2A), 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: (a) Retail stores. (b) Business, professional or governmental offices. (c) Personal service establishments. (d) Restaurants. (e) Service establishments. (f) Hotels. (g) Places of public assembly. (h) Drive-throughs. (i) One family residences, including attached and semi-detached dwellings, complying with the bulk standards of the RG-1 (General Residence) zone. (j) Apartments and multi-family dwellings. 14.2 Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted, conditional upon the approval of the planning commission in accordance with the procedures and subject to the general conditions set forth in article 10, section 1: (a) Parking lots and parking structures as a principal use on suitably landscaped lots. (b) Fuel pumps accessory to a permitted use. Page 110

Item #5. Z-24-02 Lands of Dover Federal Credit Union at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard Planning Commission Recommendation Report from February 20, 2024 Page 5 14.3 Enclosed buildings. All permitted uses and all storage accessory thereto, other than offstreet parking, shall be carried on in buildings fully enclosed on all sides, except for outdoor eating areas associated with restaurants and outdoor sales areas approved by the city planner. 14.4 Performance standards. All uses are subject to performance standards as set forth in article 5, section 8.1. 14.5 Site 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. (Ord. of 7-10-2000; Ord. of 2-12-2001; Ord. No. 2008-33, 8-25-2008; Ord. No. 2010-28, 1-10- 2011; Ord. No. 2014-08, 7-14-2014) IV. RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING STAFF: This Request is to rezone lands from C-PO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone) to C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). The current C-PO zone is a zoning district permitting offices, banks, and medical laboratories type uses with other commercial uses only allowed through a conditional use review process when the use is accessory to a permitted use on the same lot. The C-PO zone does allow for residential uses in the form of apartments, multi-family residences, and one-family residences. The proposed Rezoning to the C-2A zone which is a zoning district offering a mix of uses. For the C-2A zone, the range of permitted uses that are commercial uses include retail, office, personal service & service establishments, restaurants, and places of public assembly. The C-2A zone also includes permitted uses that are residential in nature including one-family residences (detached dwellings and duplex units), apartments, and multi-family dwellings (more than 2 dwelling units in same building). The C-2A zone also includes conditional uses (uses subject to specific review for approval) for parking lots/structures as the principal use and for fuel pumps as accessory to a permitted use. Staff recommends that the rezoning request from C-PO to C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) be granted as requested, provided that the companion Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Mixed Use Land Use Classification is first approved then making the Rezoning request compliant with the Comprehensive Plan. While the uses are similar, the C-2A clearly offers commercial uses such as retail, personal service, and service establishments in addition to large commercial uses like hotels and places of public assembly. When comparing the bulk standards of the C-PO and C-2A, we find that C-2A will allow for a taller and denser development. It is noted that the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for the Mixed Use Land Use Classification focus on the idea of neighborhood centers where you would find development with a variety of residential, commercial, office, and institutional uses in an area that is walkable and pedestrian and transit friendly. The Silver Lake Boulevard area includes a range of transportation modes and opportunities (vehicle, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle) along the roadway and its sidewalk network and proximity to transit stops. There is existing infrastructure for water, sanitary sewer, and electric services and the police, fire, and emergency medical services service the area. This Rezoning Request does not grant approval of a specific use for the property but makes its land use subject to a listing of uses permitted and potential conditional uses as allowed in the C-2A zoning district. Staff again notes that any potential development for the site would have to be in line with the zoning classifications and would similarly have to follow all development design Page 111

Item #5. Z-24-02 Lands of Dover Federal Credit Union at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard Planning Commission Recommendation Report from February 20, 2024 Page 6 guidelines of the Zoning Ordinance. Were the application for Rezoning to be recommended by the Planning Commission and subsequently approved by the City Council, the applicant would still have to submit plans and/or permits for review for most uses of the site to be established. This recommendation is being made without the benefit of hearing the comments of surrounding landowners and residents. A public hearing is required on this matter and the Planning Commission should give those comments consideration in making a recommendation to City Council on this Application. V. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW FOR RECOMMENDATION This Rezoning Application is a request for a zoning map amendment which changes the zoning district of a property. The Planning Commission as part of their public hearing and review process will provide a recommendation on the Rezoning request to City Council. As part of the process outlined in Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 Section 5, the Planning Commission must evaluate the following factors when considering the request: Article 10 § 5.36 Report of the planning commission. Regarding each application for a zoning map amendment, the planning commission shall provide a report to the city council stating a recommended action with regards to the proposed amendment, along with the commission's evaluation of the following factors: (A) Whether the uses permitted by the proposed change would be compatible with the existing uses and zones in the area concerned; (B) Whether adequate public services and infrastructure exist or can be created or expanded to serve the needs of any additional demand as a result of such change; and (C) Whether the proposed change is in accordance with the city's current comprehensive plan. A Recommendation Report from the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration of the Rezoning Application Z-24-02. This document and its attachments make up the Recommendation Report. RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: At the Hybrid (In-Person and Virtual) Planning Commission Meeting of February 20, 2024, the Rezoning Application Z-24-02 was represented by Mr. Kyle Burchard, PE of Mountain Consulting, Inc. as engineer for the equitable owner (Charles Chiang) of the subject property at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard. During the Public Hearing, five members of the public spoke, and no written comments were received. The Planning Commission’s motion was to recommend approval for Rezoning application Z-24-02 Lands of Lands of Dover Federal Credit Union at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard from C- PO to C-2A and resulted in a vote of 5-2 in favor of rezoning (two members absent). The reasons cited for the recommendation of approval include consistency with land uses in the area; consistency with the City’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan; with reference to the Development Advisory Committee Report; and recognition of the recommendation of approval from the Planning Staff. Those voting against recommending approval of the Rezoning noted concerns with uses of the C-2A zone and concerns with roadway and access. Page 112

Item #5. Z-24-02 Lands of Dover Federal Credit Union at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard Planning Commission Recommendation Report from February 20, 2024 Page 7 See also the included excerpt of the DRAFT Meeting Minutes of the February 20, 2024 Planning Commission meeting. The comments received from the other member agencies of the Development Advisory Committee (D.A.C.) are also provided. V. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1) This Rezoning Application Z-24-02 is associated with MI-24-01 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2024: Consideration of Amendment to Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map (Land Use Classification change) which must be approved for this Rezoning Request to C-2A to be eligible for consideration regarding compliance with the 2019 Comprehensive Plan. 2) The applicant shall be aware that approval of any Rezoning Application does not represent Site Development Plan or Subdivision Plan approval. Following any decision made by City Council in regard to this Rezoning, then an application for a Site Plan, Subdivision Plan, and/or appropriate Building Permits must be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the establishment of a use, development activity, or any construction activity on the site. The applicant should contact the Planning Staff to determine the appropriate review process for any proposed projects. 3) The property is subject to certain requirements due to its proximity to Silver Lake as related to development. Any future site development plan, conditional use plan, or subdivision plan will be subject to review by the Silver Lake Commission as per Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §11.251. 4) The applicant shall be aware that approval of any Rezoning Application does not represent a Building Permit, Sign Permit, or other construction activity permit approval. A separate application submission is required before issuance of permits by the City of Dover. 5) The applicant shall be aware that any future use may be subject to a separate permitting or licensing process through the City of Dover Licensing and Permitting Division. All businesses operating in the City of Dover are required to obtain a City of Dover Business Licenses. Certain types of uses also require a Public Occupancy Permit or Rental Dwelling Permits. ATTACHMENTS: • Zoning Map Exhibit • Application Z-24-02 Submission: o Narrative Summary on Rezoning Request o Site Sketch Plan Sheet (Property Boundaries) • Development Advisory Committee Comments from City of Dover Departments of Public Works and Water & Wastewater, Electric Department, City Office of the Fire Marshal, and Dover/Kent County MPO • Excerpt from DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 20, 2024 • Public Comment Letter received February 22, 2024 from Michael Braun (after PC Meeting) • Proposed Ordinance #2024-04 Page 113

City of Dover Application No.: Z-24-02 Item #5. Department of Planning & Inspections IO College Rd SC-2 IO IO R-20 ROS CPO Terry Cir C-1A Rep IO R-8 Ln ive ntat rese Silve RM-1 r Lak d e B lv oo on Sch CPO Wils lhou R-8 Dr R-8 n se L R-20 CPO CPO Title: Lands of Dover Federal Credit Union Address: 1079 Silver Lake Blvd Parcel ID: ED-05-067.12-02-04.00-000 Existing Zoning: CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone) Legend Proposed Zoning: C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) Owner: Dover Federal Credit Union Dover Boundary Date: 1/2/2024 Subject Property Zoning « Dover Parcels Page 114

Item #5. City of Dover Rezoning Request (C-PO to C-2A) Subject Property: 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard Narra ve to Accompany Applica on Requested Zoning Change: From CPO to C-2A Property Orienta on: The subject property is 5.04± acres at the end of Silver Lake Boulevard on the westerly side of Silver Lake in the City of Dover, Delaware. The property has shoreline access to the upper end of Silver Lake where the incoming Fork Branch stream marshes widen into more open waters of the lake. The property is currently undeveloped with a treed shoreline and the bulk of the land being maintained as an open mowed field. The exis ng Silver Lake Boulevard cul-de-sac bulb right-of-way is shaped to provide a vehicular entrance into the southwest corner of the property, with concrete curbing and sidewalks along the site frontage within the right-of-way. Proposed Rezoning Figure 1: Oblique Aerial View (Looking North) Page 1 of 4 Page 115

Item #5. City of Dover Rezoning Request (C-PO to C-2A) Subject Property: 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard Adjacent Proper es: The surrounding development on adjacent proper es are currently described as: To the north is Silver Lake (Comp. Plan: Water Bodies. R7 Zone) To the west is the Complete Care at Silver Lake senior facility (Comp. Plan: Ins tu onal. IO Zone). To the east is the Dover Federal Credit Union corporate office building (Comp. Plan: Office. CPO Zone). To the southwest are the Representa ve Lane townhouses (Comp. Plan: Residen al Med. Density. RM-1 Zone). To the southeast are addi onal townhouses (Comp. Plan: Residen al Med. Density. RG-3 Zone). Proposed Rezoning Figure 2: Dover GIS Zoning Map Page 2 of 4 Page 116

Item #5. City of Dover Rezoning Request (C-PO to C-2A) Subject Property: 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard Zoning Comparison Allowed Uses: C-PO: Commercial and Professional Office Zone (a)Business, professional or governmental offices. (b)Banks. (c)Medical laboratories. (d)Drive-in facili es accessory to any permi ed use. C-2A: Limited Commercial (a)Retail stores. (b)Business, professional or governmental offices. (c)Personal service establishments. (d)Restaurants. (e)Service establishments. (f)Hotels. (g)Places of public assembly. (h)Drive-throughs. (i)One family residences, including a ached and semi-detached dwellings, complying with the bulk standards of the RG-1 (General Residence) zone. (j)Apartments and mul -family dwellings. Bulk Standards: ZONE: C-PO C-2A Minimum required: 5,000 sq. Lot area ft. Lot width (ft.) 50 Lot depth (ft.) 100 100 Front yard (ft.) 10 15 Side yard (ft.) 5 None required, but 5 feet min. if provided Rear yard (ft.) 15 20 above ground floor. At ground floor, 5 ft. required Side or rear yards which adjoin a residence zone (ft.) 25 25 Off-street parking Per 300 sq. ft. floor area or 1 1 Per employee (whichever is greater) 1 Maximum permitted: Building height Stories 3 6 Feet 45 75 Floor area ratio 2 4 Lot coverage 75% N/A The proposed C-2A zoning expands the allowed uses and allowable density, both of which are necessary for the proposed Mixed Use development to have apartments above ground-level commercial spaces plus indoor/outdoor ac ve recrea on facili es. Parking on the property will be a limi ng factor for the achievable density even with structured parking garage levels above and/or below ground planned. Required Silver Lake buffers and lake slopes will also restrict prac cable lot coverage. Page 3 of 4 Page 117

Item #5. City of Dover Rezoning Request (C-PO to C-2A) Subject Property: 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard Access and Infrastructure Analysis The fixed-end generator of Silver Lake Boulevard will have increased traffic from addi onal residen al apartment units. The commercial spaces should substan ally be patronized by the local community living and working on Silver Lake Boulevard, but there will be addi onal trips generated by the commercial spaces. The single point of access into the development from the cul-de-sac of Silver Lake Boulevard may not be adequate to serve the uses and circula on needed throughout the site, and a second point of access may be necessary through DPW Street coordina on since Silver Lake Boulevard is not a DelDOT-maintained roadway. Final traffic engineering may be required to include DelDOT if addi onal trips onto Walker Road do not blend into background traffic. Fire and Emergency Service access shall be provided as required by the Office of the State Fire Marshal, with adequate circula on and ligh ng for life safety and security. Fire hydrants exist in the vicinity of the Silver Lake Boulevard cul-de- sac for suppor ng emergency fire suppression. The buildings will be fully sprinklered. An exis ng sanitary sewer easement through the property leading to the adjacent Silver Lake Pump Sta on may contain both gravity and forcemain sewer pipes. The property development may require permanent reloca on of these lines and easement on the property in coopera on and conformance with the rules and regula ons of the Dover Department of Water & Wastewater. Potable water supply adequacy shall be confirmed and upgraded if necessary with the review and approval of the Dover Department of Water & Wastewater. Stormwater management on the site, if developed to capacity, will be challenging, but preliminary inves ga on indicates rela vely deep groundwater, that will allow subsurface stormwater management. The envisioned development also has significant green roof areas to help mi gate stormwater requirements, and enhance overall landscaping and trail ameni es throughout the site at ground level, and on the roof levels. Conceptual development of this future project has already begun. The project requires a Comprehensive Plan amendment (by separate applica on) to allow Mixed Use development, and rezoning to C-2A for the appropriate mix of commercial and residen al uses envisioned. The proposed rezoning to C-2A is consistent with the surrounding zones and uses, and will enhance and support the local community. Mee ngs with the neighborhood are planned to be held prior to DAC and Planning Commission to steer the commercial spaces towards what is most needed, and most desirable to establish a viable neighborhood center at this property. The Applicant Team looks forward to repor ng to the City on our progress with the neighborhood mee ngs, and to achieving the required Comprehensive Plan and Rezoning approvals to bring these ameni es to Silver Lake Boulevard. Page 4 of 4 Page 118

PLAN NOTES: Item #5. 1) SITE SKETCH BASED ON PLOT BOOK #52, PAGE 97 ONLY. CURVE TABLE 2) SETBACKS SHOWN AS PROVIDED BY CITY OF DOVER PLANNING OFFICE AND DO NOT MATCH WHAT RECORD PLAN SHOWS. 3) 100' RIPARIAN BUFFER CAN BE REDUCED TO 50' (AS SHOWN ON PLAN) PER CITY OF DOVER PLANNING OFFICE. NO. RADIUS / ARC / CHORD BEARING & DISTANCE 4) REMOVAL OF EXISTING VEGETATIVE COVER CAN BE CLEARED AS IT DOES NOT MEET THE CITY OF DOVER DEFINITION OF WOODLANDS. 5) REAR PORTION OF THE SITE SHOWS SITE MAY LIE WITHIN THE 100-FLOOD PLAIN ACCORDING TO FEMA MAP #10001C0166H, C1 R= 60.00' / A= 69.53' / N 81°44'54" W 65.70' 1 "W DATED 05/05/2003. SAID LINE APPEARS TO MEANDER ALONG REAR OF SITE AS SHOWN. L1 C2 R= 30.00' / A= 35.05' / N 81°28'13" W 33.09' '06 ' REZONING/COMP.PLAN NOTES (ADDED BY MOUNTAIN CONSULTING, INC., 103 S. BRADFORD ST): C3 R= 100.00' / A= 63.28' / N 29°52'15" W 62.23' 32 06 1) OWNER OF RECORD ADDRESS: 1075 SILVER LAKE BLVD, DOVER, DE 19901 0 L1 6° 2. 2) SILVER LAKE BLVD WIDTH VARIES ALONG FRONTAGE CUL-DE-SAC. C4 R= 200.00' / A= 47.63' / S 62°14'45" W 47.52' 3) EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT TO BE RELOCATED ONSITE, IF POSSIBLE, WITH FINAL DESIGN. S 1 10 4) EXISTING ZONING: CPO. PROPOSED ZONING C-2A. BR L 5) ENTIRE 5.0374+/- ACRES SUBJECT TO REZONING. L9 BR L > V L ED BR -05 E R BR -06 L 8.1 L 3-0 A K OWNER: DOVER FEDERAL CREDIT UNION BR L S ED-05-06712-02-0300-000 1-0 E BR L "W 1 .0 L L SI BR 0 L8 07 3' BR L °4 BR L 12 BR L PER RECORD PLAN: "EXISTING HIGH WATER LINE OF SILVER LAKE" BR L OWNER: CITY OF DOVER LOCATION MAP N N ' > CAL NON BR L ED-05-06712-02-0500-000 87 "PUMP STATION" PLAN PREPARED BY 2. BR L 15 BR L L7 BR L S 37°3 BR L 10278 South DuPont Hwy , Felton , DE 19943 0'42" E Email: avi.consulting.group@gmail.com 2 BRL BRL 205.0 L1 BR L L BRL BR BRL BRL BRL BRL BRL 2' > REVISIONS BRL BRL BRL BRL BRL BRL BRL BRL 50' S L6 (SEE ETBAC BRL NOT K E# 3) R= 175.00' / A= 156.14' BRL CH: < S 43°30'40" W 151.02' BRL OWNER: DOVER FEDERAL CREDIT UNION ED-05-06712-02-0400-000 BRL CONTAINS 5.0374 ACRES +/- BRL 15' WIDE SANITARY SEWER L5 EASEMENT AS GRAPHICALLY BRL DEPICTED ON RECORD PLAN BRL (PLOT BOOK #522, PAGE #97) BRL L4 BRL BRL OWNERS INFORMATION BRL BRL DOVER FEDERAL CREDIT UNION BRL BR L BR L BR L BRL CITY OF DOVER KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE BR L BRL C4 BR L BR BRL L BR L SITE SKETCH PREPARED FOR BR L BRL BR L CHARLES CHIANG 5°25 BR L BRL BR L 103. '24" W < BR L BRL N 11 BR L 1079 SILVER LAKE BLVD, DOVER, DELAWARE 19904 BRL °4 BR L 06' 4 '3 BR L BRL KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE 0" BR L W BR LINE BEARING DISTANCE L < S5 BRL PLANS BASED ON 46 BR L L1 N 48°00'00" W 2.57' 4. BR L BRL RECORD PLAN #52, PAGE #97 29 BR L L2 N 11°44'30" W 6.64' ' BR L BRL BRL L3 S 78°15'30" W 60.00' BR L BR L BR L DRAWN BY: NP LBR L4 S 81°54'11" E 40.46' BR L CHECKED BY: C1 BR L BR L L5 N 44°03'28" E 56.07' BR L BR SCALE: 1"=40' L2 40' L BR BR L 0' 20' DATE: 03/20/2023 L L6 N 64°34'24" E 60.29' BR L BR L BR L L DATE OF FLD WRK: N/A BR BRL L7 N 58°43'40" E 66.15' L BR BRL BR L BRL OWNER: SILVER LAKE REALTY DE, LLC BR L L BR DATE CRNRS SET: N/A L8 N 68°03'49" E 88.12' ED-05-06712-02-0200-000 BR L L3 C3 C2 FIELD BOOK/PAGE: L BR N/A L1 L9 S 83°00'37" E 57.40' BR L L SCJ FILE NAME: N/A BR BR LAKE L L10 S 66°24'35" E 56.60' SILVER DRAWING #: 1079_SilverLakeBlvd L11 S 77°03'56" E 60.66' BOULEVARD CONTRACT #: 1079_SilverLakeBlvd L12 S 75°28'11" E 14.70' 1 OF ___ SHEET ___ 1Page 119

Item #5. CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: JANUARY 31, 2024 APPLICATION: Lands of Dover Federal Credit Union at 1079 Silver Lake Blvd FILE #: Z-24-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Department of Public Works and Water & Wastewater CONTACT PERSON: Jason A. Lyon, P.E., Director of Water & Wastewater CONTACT PHONE #: 302-736-7025 CONTACT EMAIL #: jlyon@dover.de.us 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 SANITATION / STREETS / STORMWATER / WATER / WASTEWATER / GENERAL 1. Our office has no objections to the proposed rezoning of tax parcel ED-05-067.12-02-04.00-000. Any redevelopment shall adhere to the City of Dover Water/Wastewater Handbook and the Specifications, Standards & Procedures for Public Works Construction. Impact fees may be applied to this property. Future development shall comply with all aspects of the City of Dover’s Cross Connection Control Program. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES SANITATION / STREETS / STORMWATER / WATER / WASTEWATER / GENERAL 1. None ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT SANITATION / STREETS / STORMWATER / WATER / WASTEWATER / GENERAL 1. None 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 . Page 120

Item #5. CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: JAN 31, 2023 APPLICATION: Lands of Dover Federal Credit Union at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard FILE #: Z-24-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Electric Department CONTACT PERSON: Shawn Burgett, Engineering Services & System Ops Superintendent CONTACT PHONE #: 302-674-7568 CONTACT EMAIL #: sburgett@dover.de.us 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 Our office has no objection to the rezoning of: ED-05-067.12-02-04.00-000. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES ELECTRIC 1. Should this site be redeveloped, which includes modifications to the use, the applicant / developer will be responsible for all costs associated with providing the appropriate meter / service to this site based upon the use including any necessary system upgrades or extensions. The appropriateness and adequacy of electric and meters will be assessed at that time. 2. Any redevelopment shall adhere to the City of Dover’s Electric Service Handbook. https://evogov.s3.amazonaws.com/media/27/media/13108.pdf. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT ELECTRIC 1. None. 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 . Page 121

C F #5. Z-24-02 Item I I T R CITY OF DOVER Y E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE O M F A APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY R D.A.C. MEETING DATE: 01/31/24 D S O H V A E L R APPLICATION: Lands of Dover Federal Credit Union at 1079 Silver Lake Blvd. FILE #: Z-24-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover, Office of the Fire Marshal CONTACT PERSON: Jason Osika, Fire Marshal PHONE #: (302) 736-4457 josika@dover.de.us 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 ADDRESS BY THE APPLICANT: CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Proposal is a rezoning application. This office has no objections. ADDITIONAL / SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN APPROVAL: 1. N/A APPLICABLE CODES LISTED BELOW (NOT LIMITED TO): 2021 NFPA 1 Fire Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2021 NFPA 101 Life Safety Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2019 NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2019 NFPA 13 Installation of Sprinkler Systems (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2009 IBC (International Building Code) Latest editions of all other NFPA Codes as defined by the Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations City of Dover Code of Ordinances *If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person listed. Page 122

Item #5. CITY OF DOVER Dover/Kent DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE County Metropolitan APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY Planning D.A.C. MEETING DATE: 2/7/2024 Organization APPLICATION: Z-24-02 Lands of Dover Federal Credit Union at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard FILE # Z-24-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: Dover/Kent County MPO CONTACT PERSON: Malcolm Jacob PHONE #: (302) 387-6030 Issues of concern to the MPO are effective transit, reducing the amount of vehicle emissions by shortening or eliminating trips, and facilities for alternative modes of transportation, including bicycle and pedestrian access. The MPO considers the bicycle facilities required by the City of Dover to be the standard for all applications, not to be waived. City of Dover Planning Commission Zoning Review Z-24-02 Lands of Dover Federal Credit Union at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard 1) The MPO does not have any objections to the proposed rezoning. The property would benefit from pedestrian improvements such as sidewalks and a trail connecting to the middle school. The road should also be able to accommodate the new volume of vehicle traffic. Further comments will be submitted if site development takes place at a later date. 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. Page 123

Item #5. CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION February 20, 2024 Excerpt from Meeting Minutes – Draft The Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 7:00 PM as an In-Person Meeting and also using the phone/videoconferencing system WebEx. The Meeting Session was conducted with Chair Mrs. Maucher presiding. Members present were Mr. Cooper, Mr. Roach (virtual), Mr. Witham, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Reaves, Mrs. Welsh (virtual), and Mrs. Maucher. Mrs. Denney and Dr. Jones were absent. Staff members present were Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Ms. Katherine Oehmke, Mr. Jason Lyon (virtual), and Mrs. Kristen Mullaney. NEW APPLICATIONS Z-24-02 Lands of Dover Federal Credit Union at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard - Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council of a Rezoning application for a parcel of land consisting of 5.04 acres+/-. The property is zoned CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone). The proposed zoning is C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). The property is located at the eastern terminus of Silver Lake Boulevard. Property Owner: Dover Federal Credit Union and equitable owner Charles Chiang. Property Address: 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard. Tax Parcel: ED-05-067.12-02-04.00-000. This is associated with Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application MI-24-01. Ordinance #2024-04. Council District 4. The First Reading of the Proposed Ordinance was held on January 22, 2024 and Public Hearings were scheduled for Planning Commission on February 20, 2024 and City Council on March 11, 2024. Representative: Mr. Burchard, Mountain Consulting Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is the associated request for Rezoning of the property as the lands of Dover Federal Credit Union at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard. The property is just over five acres in size and is presently a vacant tract of land. The current zoning is CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone), and the proposed zoning classification is C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). With this, the Planning Commission will be making a recommendation on the Rezoning which will be forwarded to City Council for their own public hearing and final action. We do find a vacant tract of land at the terminus of Silver Lake Boulevard. Surrounding this property are a number of different zoning districts that already exist. Its neighbor, where the assisted living facility is located is zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and a little further west, the Middle School also has that zoning classification. To its south is the Dover Federal Credit Union property that is zoned CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone). There is an existing office building there. As you move back along Silver Lake Boulevard, you come to the residential areas. One of which is zoned RM-1 (Medium Density Residence Zone) and that is a townhouse community. Across the street from that is another townhouse community zoned RG-3 (Group Housing Zone) and it has also areas of ROS (Recreational and Open Space Zone) covering its open space areas. As you continue on Silver Lake Boulevard, you then come again into areas that are zoned CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone). That is where we see a number of office buildings as you approach Walker Road. With the recommendation that was just made regarding the Comprehensive Plan and its land use Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 20, 2024 Page 1 of 5 Page 124

Item #5. category, the land use category of Mixed Use allows for a variety of different zoning classifications to be considered. One of which is the C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). That zoning district has a mix of opportunities for uses that is presented here on screen and also in the Review Report. The C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) would allow such uses as retail stores, a variety of offices, personal service establishments, restaurants, other service establishments, hotels, places of public assembly, and drive throughs. On the residential side, it allows for one family residences and that would be attached and semi-detached (things like duplexes and townhouses). Also, it allows for apartments and other multi-family dwellings. Additionally in the C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) through a Conditional Use process, there are several uses that could potentially be allowed but would require an additional review process in order to be considered. Those include parking lots, parking structures, and fuel pumps accessory to a permitted use. All uses are to occur within enclosed buildings and a Rezoning request does not lock them into any one particular use that is in this list nor can it. The development of the property would be subject to a site development plan review process. This is just the zoning map amendment. For the zoning map amendment, the Planning Commission has to consider three factors. First, what are the uses permitted by the proposed change? Would they be compatible with existing uses and zones in the area? Second, whether there are adequate public services and infrastructure that exist or can be created or expanded to serve the needs of any future demand. Third, whether the change is in accordance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Staff has made a recommendation in regard to this Rezoning request. They find that the C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) offers a mix of uses, both commercial and residential in nature and would be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan in that Mixed Use land use category. There are a variety of uses even though they fall in different zones in this area both on the commercial and residential side. When we look at the current zoning of CPO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone) to C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone), there is the Bulk Standards Table. They are fairly comparable, but the Planning Staff does note that the C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) would allow for a perhaps taller and denser development plan in the end. It certainly opens the door to a broader mix of uses that would be allowed than the property’s current zoning. From a transportation standpoint, there are certainly a variety of transportation modes and opportunities with this property. Staff notes that any development would have special consideration given to this property’s proximity to Silver Lake. In the DAC Report, the other agencies provided initial comments and those are basically that there are no objections to the proposed Rezoning; and they offered some guidance for forward thinking regarding any future development of the site. Mr. Burchard stated that that synopsis is very thorough and complete, especially as it mentions that this is not approving any specific use at this time but rather allows for the consideration of a mix of uses that would not previously be possible with the zoning as it was. The intent of the applicant is to work within the community to provide amenities that will benefit the community as well as provide additional services within the character of the C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). Mr. Reaves asked the applicant to explain the reason for choosing C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) as opposed to C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone). Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mr. Burchard stated that he doesn’t have the C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) zoning characteristics. He could get back to him on that. He could pull it up and try to describe that. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 20, 2024 Page 2 of 5 Page 125

Item #5. Mrs. Maucher stated that she used to work on Silver Lake Boulevard and there is one way in and one way out. There is a mention on Page 4 of your letter regarding access through the Department of Public Works for a secondary access. Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mr. Burchard stated that is correct. Not knowing fully what the design will be or the requirements of traffic, parking and so on for the uses that will be there, they mention that that may be a possibility of a need. It’s a speculation but we are just trying to say that they aren’t sure what that mix of uses will require from traffic, which also will have to be reviewed by the City, Department of Transportation as well as DelDOT. Perhaps it is not an appropriate comment to make in that application just because it’s introducing an uncertainty. Anything that would be done would have to be approved. Mrs. Maucher stated that the only other access would be to go through the parking lot of the nursing home over to the school and then up. Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mr. Burchard stated that what he meant to say in that statement is simply that there is an access at the nursing home entrance that is existing. It certainly needs to be improved and possibly reworked. The only other access being considered would be a second point of access onto the cul-de-sac itself. There is no other means of access. All would be on Silver Lake Boulevard. Mrs. Maucher stated that they wouldn’t try to connect to the elementary school, and it would still remain one way in and one way out on Walker Road. Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mr. Burchard stated that is correct, on Walker Road to Silver Lake Boulevard. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that going back to the question of the C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) versus the C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). The C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) uses are somewhat similar. There are certain uses that are not allowed in the C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) that we do find in the C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). Those would include hotels, places of public assembly and drive throughs are a Conditional Use in the C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone). There are specific uses that are prohibited and that would be associated with fuel pumps and motor vehicle storage, sales, or repairs that we find in those prohibitions in the C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone). The bigger difference comes in the line of the bulk standards for that zone and that is going to be differences in things like maximum height and setbacks from property lines. Mr. Burchard stated that he is looking for the table specifically of the bulk standards because he does believe that is what made the difference in the request between C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) and C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). Mr. Reaves stated that with regards to the Comprehensive Plan, this development for C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) is supposed to be along major roadways. Which at this time, he doesn’t see Silver Lake Boulevard being a major roadway to classify for the C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). However, another concern with the C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) is the limitation or the expansion of fuel pumps in this particular development. He just had a concern to understand if in your plan of Mixed Use that this is something that you are considering, or would you be satisfied with the C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) which would give you pretty much the same elements of the Mixed Use with Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 20, 2024 Page 3 of 5 Page 126

Item #5. regard to having those restrictions. Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mr. Burchard stated that there is no plan for fuel pumps of any sort. The difference is in the bulk standards; the C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) limits it to two stories and 30 feet which is more limiting than what the desired use of the property would be. Mrs. Maucher opened the public hearing. Resident – unknown name and address The resident stated that she would like clarity on the process. At what point in the process will they have more transparency or transparency at all about the planned project? Responding to the resident, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Rezoning process is that it sets the zoning district. The zoning district then gives a list of uses that potentially could occur on the property. The detail of any development of that property would be a separate Site Development Plan Application review process subject to its own public hearing. Mrs. Maucher closed the public hearing. Mr. Witham stated that with C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone), it talks about in the permitted uses and conditional uses under 14.2. When you deal with the bulk standards as well as the potential use of a fuel pump which is under 14.2, it has to be an accessory to a permitted use. But under 14.3 it says, “all permitted uses and storage accessory there to other than off-street parking, shall be carried on buildings fully enclosing all sides.” Does that mean that a fuel pump would have to be fully enclosed in a building? Responding to Mr. Witham, Mrs. Melson- Williams stated that Mr. Witham’s question is about two portions of the Code where it allows consideration of fuel pumps as a Conditional Use, but then also notes that uses should be within enclosed buildings. She would say that they have not interpreted that a gas pump would have to be physically enclosed in a building. Typically, we see some type of canopy structure over top of it but have not seen that. That statement is in other parts of our Code where fuel pumps are allowed. She doesn’t think that they have interpreted that to be a condition of their placement. It could be considered an outdoor sales area as part of its review. Mr. Witham stated that he thinks his hang up is on fuel pumps because if you define fuel pump as a pump to pump fuel into a car is one thing, but fuel pumps could also be interpreted as a storage tank in an enclosed building for the purpose of blowing up balloons by helium. That may take a pump to do that so that could be a storage pump inside of a building. He would hope that somewhere we do define what we refer to as “fuel pumps”. Mr. Reaves stated that with regards to the major roadway. Is Silver Lake Boulevard to be considered a major roadway? Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mrs. Melson-Williams asked if he was referencing some of the Comprehensive Plan when asking that question. Mr. Reaves stated that was correct. For the C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone), it states that these should be along a major roadway. Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that is a portion of the Comprehensive Plan that’s part of the goals for the Mixed Use land use category. She would say that the Silver Lake Boulevard is probably considered more of a local street or a collector street. The closest larger roadway is likely considered to be Walker Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 20, 2024 Page 4 of 5 Page 127

Item #5. Road. But the definition of “major roadway” is not outlined in the Comprehensive Plan in that goals statement. Mr. Baldwin moved to recommend approval to City Council for application Z-24-02 Lands of Dover Federal Credit Union at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard, seconded by Mr. Witham and the motion was carried 5-2 by roll call vote with Mrs. Denney and Dr. Jones absent. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; it is consistent with the current land use in the area. Mr. Reaves voting no; for concern with the major roadway and also with the C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) which allows for the fuel pumps. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; the request for the proposed zoning is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cooper voting yes; for reasons stated. Mr. Roach voting yes; he hopes that they continue to reach out to the community to try in getting their input in regards to whatever their desired plan is. Mr. Witham voting yes; he is concerned about the access as raised by Mr. Reaves. Perhaps that can be dealt with in a future application. It is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and for the reasons set forth by our Planning Office. Mrs. Maucher voting no; she does have concerns about the access off of Walker Road in the event of an accident or some other formality. There is increased density back in that area. She thinks it is not consistent with the rest of the surrounding communities. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 20, 2024 Page 5 of 5 Page 128

Item #5. MEMORANDUM City of Dover, Delaware Department of Planning & Inspections P.O. Box 475 Dover, Delaware 19903 Phone: 302.736.7196 Fax: 302.736.4217 DATE: March 11, 2024 TO: City Council FROM: Planning Office SUBJECT: Petition of Opposition objecting to MI-24-01 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2024 – Consideration of Amendment to Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map (Revise the Land Use Classification from Office to Mixed Use); and Rezoning Application Z-24-02 Lands of Dover Federal Credit Union at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard, Dover DE A Petition of Opposition and a Statement of Opposition (with signatures) were received (Planning Office and City Clerk’s Office received via email on 3/8/2024) prior the City Council Hearing on March 11, 2024 regarding Rezoning Application Z-24-02 Lands of Dover Federal Credit Union at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard: Rezoning C-PO to C-2A and as associated with MI-24-01 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2024 – Consideration of Amendment to Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map ((Revise the Land Use Classification from Office to Mixed Use). • The Petition of Opposition received from area property owners on Silver Lake Boulevard contained a petition with nine (9) signatures from property addresses in the area objecting to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request and the Rezoning of 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard, Dover. The Petition also listed three (3) signatures via proxy of property owner names (property locations not specified). • The Statement of Opposition received from the Silver Lake Townhouses Community Association, Inc. Members and its Residents (Letter) also contained a petition with ten (10) signatures* from property addresses in the area objecting to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request and the Rezoning of 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard, Dover. The Petition also listed three (3) signatures via proxy of property owners (unknown property locations). The Petition also listed three (3) signatures via proxy of property owner names (property locations not specified). (*Two signatures from one property address.) Title 22 §305 of Delaware Code outlines the criteria for determining the viability of a petition opposing a rezoning request and how a legislative body of a municipality is to proceed in processing the petition. Delaware Code requires that when 20% of eligible lots participate in a petition, the legislative body for the municipality must achieve a three-fourths favorable decision to proceed with the rezoning of the property. See Del. Code excerpt as follows. Page 129

Item #5. Evaluation of Petition of Opposition for Z-24-02 Lands of Dover Federal Credit Union at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard, Dover DE for City Council Meeting of March 11, 2024 Page 2 of 2 Delaware Code: TITLE 22 Municipalities, CHAPTER 3. Municipal Zoning Regulations, Subchapter I. General Provisions § 305 Changes in regulations; procedure. The regulations, restrictions and boundaries may from time to time be amended, supplemented, changed, modified or repealed. In case, however, of a protest against such changes signed by the owners of 20 percent or more, either of the area of the lots included in such proposed change or of those immediately adjacent thereto extending 100 feet therefrom or of those directly opposite thereto extending 100 feet back from the street frontage of such opposite lots, such amendment shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of three fourths of all the members of the legislative body of the municipality; provided, however, that in any municipality of this State with a population in excess of 50,000 persons, the foregoing provisions regarding a protest shall not be applicable to any such change which is proposed in connection with the construction of federally assisted multi-family housing for the elderly and handicapped, in all instances of which such change shall become effective by the favorable vote of a simple majority of all the members of the legislative body of the municipality. The provisions of § 304 of this title, relative to public hearings and official notice, shall apply equally to all changes or amendments. 39 Del. Laws, c. 22, § 6; Code 1935, § 6232; 22 Del. C. 1953, § 305; 67 Del. Laws, c. 183, § 1.; Planning Staff evaluated the Petition and Statement of Opposition along with available property records to determine the adjacency of the signatories’ lots/properties to the subject property at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard as it relates to the requirements of 22 Del. Code §305. The Petition is evaluated based upon the presence (or lack thereof) of signatures from the ten (10) eligible surrounding properties. The attached Petition Exhibit Map and Zoning Petition Summary Analysis Spreadsheet show information from the analysis. • The Petition Exhibit Map shows the subject at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard in yellow. The Eligible Properties shown in blue are those lots and Silver Lake within 100 feet (Red Line) of the subject property boundary and within 100 feet of the street frontage of the subject property. The properties marked with a star are the properties where signatures were included in the Petition and/or Statement of Opposition. • The Petition Summary Analysis Spreadsheet lists the property owners of the ten (10) Eligible Properties and indicates those that signed the Petition (marked with an ‘X’ in the Petitioner column). The Subject Property of the Rezoning is also marked as “Subject.” The other Petitioners are also listed. Planning Staff notes the following from our analysis: • The subject property included in the proposed change consists of only one lot. The subject property is the applicant. • There is a total of ten lots (properties and Silver Lake) within 100 feet of the boundary of the subject property. These are deemed the Eligible Petitioners. • The subject property is located on the cul-de-sac terminus of Silver Lake Boulevard. The evaluation also considered the distance of 100 feet back from the property’s street frontage to capture those properties located directly opposite. This did not add any additional Eligible Petitioners. Page 130

Item #5. Evaluation of Petition of Opposition for Z-24-02 Lands of Dover Federal Credit Union at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard, Dover DE for City Council Meeting of March 11, 2024 Page 2 of 2 • The Statement of Opposition (with Signatures) was received from the Silver Lake Townhouses Community Association, Inc. As this entity is a property owner that falls with the Eligible Petitioner area. It was included in the tally of Eligible Petitioners as a signee. The same Petitioners signed this document as the Petition of Opposition with one additional person representing a property already listed. • The 10 signers of the Petition/Statement and the Statement submitter entity provided two (2) eligible property addresses adjacent to the subject property and immediately across the cul-de- sac from the subject property on Silver Lake Boulevard. The signer and submitter are all property owners. This gives a tally of 2 out of 10 Eligible Property Owners equating to 20%. • Of the signers, 9 signers gave addresses that were outside of the 100 ft. radius for Eligible Petitioners. In Summary, the results of the Petition Analysis are as follows: • 2 out of 10 Eligible Property Owners signed the Petition. • The total number of eligible and verifiable petitioners is 2. • 2/10 eligible and verifiable petitioners equate to 20%. The Petition is valid as per 22 Del. Code §305. Any action to approve the Rezoning of 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard (Ordinance #2024-04) requires a three-fourths majority of City Council. Attachments: • Petition of Opposition Objecting to Rezoning (and Comprehensive Plan Amendment) dated March 7, 2024 and received March 8, 2024 via email • Statement of Opposition: Rezoning Proposal for 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard (and Comprehensive Plan Amendment) dated March 7, 2024 and received March 8, 2024 • Petition Exhibit Map • Petition Summary Analysis Spreadsheet Page 131

Item #5. Page 132

Item #5. Page 2 of 2 Petition to Stop the Rezoning of 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who oppose the rezoning of 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard from 1079 Action petitioned for Silver Lake Boulevard from C-PO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone) to C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). Printed Name Signature Address Comment Date CAil/, /bc;j/Jl?J !xYAJ - 52£ 1)£, -7-21 f\n'b� �ve:t V-0, 3 7•2L/ I Dz_ )°I 0 '.33 :;;t) \}Go--- uJseJ3I 3·-�-J_L\ � G((OJ/Ll, � !JAL lADVtxr :b I l1 .nclc.... 1/ . <;s1 3 ?; ci? 5 "1 e I do. �� 9s9 J: Iv .. ,, LY, ICt_ /3/vl Cl(jl ½1:j Iv{" t#M <. l3M t1 �d� !;,t:? �IL, rj;�r./l::, J/7/2-+ /l/ l 2:'.. I �1"'?0 Y..- - ·�(1 (/ 3)kJUf lJ1f Signatures via Proxy: Tricia Capodanno, Property Owner Page 133 Michelle Kelly, Property Owner Karen Maddy, Property Owner

Item #5. Page 134

Page 1 of#5. Item 5 March 7, 2024 Attn: The Honorable Mayor Christiansen City Council President Hare Members of City Council City Clerk Statement of Opposition Rezoning Proposal for 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard As set forth in this Statement of Opposition, the undersigned property owners and residents at Silver Lake Boulevard and on behalf of the Silver Lake Townhouses Community Association, Inc. (Association), hereby oppose the request for rezoning of the property located at 1079, the eastern terminus of Silver Lake Boulevard (Property), as submitted by property owner Dover Federal Credit Union and equitable owner Charles Chiang. The City of Dover Comprehensive Plan identifies in the Land Development Plan that the Property has a zoning district of Commercial Professional Office Zone (CPO), and land use classification of Office. The Association strongly opposes the requests detailed in Items I and II below. Should development of the Property be approved for a use that is outside of the allowable uses within the current zoning district, CPO, the development would be detrimental to property owners and residents of the Sliver Lake Boulevard community. Item I: MI-24-01 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2024 - Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council on an Amendment to the 2019 Comprehensive Plan with consideration of a request for amendment of Map 12-1 : Land Development Plan to revise the Land Use Classification of the property located at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard, from Office to Mixed Use. Item II: Z-24-02 Lands of Dover Federal Credit Union at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard - Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council of a Rezoning application for a parcel of land consisting of 5.04 acres+/-. The property is zoned CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone). The proposed zoning is C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). Please consider the Association's opposition to Items I and II: Inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan • In the 2019 Comprehensive Plan, adopted on January 13, 2020, the Property is categorized as Commercial land use and in the Commercial Professional Office zone. Title 22 Chapter 7 Section 702 (d) of the Delaware Code states "After a comprehensive plan or portion thereof has been adopted by the municipality in accordance to this chapter, the comprehensive plan shall have the force of law and no development shall be permitted except as consistent with the plan." • Chapter 15 Immediate Actions Section includes that "The City's Official Zoning Map must be evaluated for consistency with the Land Development Plan. Zoning changes necessary to implement the Land Development Plan will be evaluated immediately after the Plan is adopted. The Land Development Plan (Chapter 12 and Map 12-1) is the basis for zoning within the City. Within 18 months of the Comprehensive Plan's adoption, all zoning throughout the City must be consistent with the Land Development Plan." The Planning Commission hearing held on February 20, 2024; pending City Council hearing scheduled for March 11, 2024 to consider the requests detailed in Items I and II; and the Actions History of Page 135

Item #5. Page 136

Item #5. Page 137

Page 4 of#5.5 Item and semi-detached dwellings; apartments and multi-family dwellings are permitted conditionally as part of the CPO. No Consideration for Property Owners ■ Property values are likely to decline in the area if multi-family apartments or condominiums are built. Despite a review and decision by the Planning Commission to approve the request for redesignation and rezoning, as part of a hearing held on February 20, 2024, there has been no transparency about the proposed site development. To date, no information regarding the proposed development has been disclosed to property owners or community members in the area. During the Planning Commission hearing, equity owner Charles Chang stated that he was advised not to engage the community regarding project details at this time. For reasons detailed in this Statement, the Silver Lake Townhouses Community Association, Inc. urges that the City Council of Dover oppose the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and rezoning of 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard. Thank you for your continued service, Silver Lake Townhouses Community Association , Inc. Members and its Residents Page 138

PageItem 5 of#5. 5 Printed Name Signature Address Comment Date ?f 9 5':Z:.?t/c. tbU:3£. /,76_ Gs 0 t Oi)Lk/', rJt /ff6 / CJ 59 • S; 11tr C114 13;;,,r, �, fJ[ j 'i 90'LJ S//�p,rt. 'L-e ,. lft/1> t:>:e. I Signatures via Proxy: Tricia Capodanno, Property Owner Michelle Kelly, Property Owner Karen Maddy, Property Owner Page 139

Item #5. Page 5 of S I . Printed Name Signature Address Comment Date \ (- ?- )f /41"'1ln d 4u.,.. P¾< 1i�lj4LA. 1J/ <JM 5'1l,N!r-LLtke__ BlvJ Jr . I I l ' I l l r - I I I I I I I I Page 140

Item #5. Page 141

Item #5. Rezoning Petition of 3/7/2024 Summary Analysis for Z-24-02 Lands of Dover Federal Credit Union 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard Eligible Petitioners, Del. Code Title 22 c.3 §305 Petitioner Property Address Owner Owner Address Owner Address 2 City State Zip X* SILVER LAKE BLVD SILVER LAKE TOWNHOUSE COMM C/O FINDLAY,LUCY 933 SILVER LAKE BLVD DOVER DE 19904 Subject 1079 SILVER LAKE BLVD DOVER FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 1075 SILVER LAKE BLVD DOVER DE 19901 1075 SILVER LAKE BLVD DOVER FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 1075 SILVER LAKE BLVD DOVER DE 19901 X 973 SILVER LAKE BLVD BRADY,NIKKO S 973 SILVER LAKE BLVD DOVER DE 19904 SILVER LAKE BLVD CITY OF DOVER PO BOX 475 DOVER DE 19903 1080 SILVER LAKE BLVD SILVER LAKE REALTY DE LLC C/O ALTUS GROUP PO BOX 92129 SOUTHLAKE TX 76092 86 REPRESENTATIVE LN MATTOCKS, MARTIN F & ELAINE P 86 REPRESENTATIVE LN DOVER DE 19904 84 REPRESENTATIVE LN CUTLER, KEVIN A 84 REPRESENTATIVE LN DOVER DE 19904 82 REPRESENTATIVE LN RODRIGUEZ, VERONICA K 82 REPRESENTATIVE LN DOVER DE 19904 80 REPRESENTATIVE LN SMITH, ERIC & RACHEL 80 REPRESENTATIVE LN DOVER DE 19904 SILVER LAKE CITY OF DOVER PO BOX 475 DOVER DE 19903 Other Petitioners Address Signee Owner Address 931 Silver Lake Blvd BLANKENSHIP, WANDA Y 931 Silver Lake Blvd DOVER DE 19904 933 Silver Lake Blvd CRANE, WILLIAM & LISA (Lisa signed) 933 Silver Lake Blvd DOVER DE 19904 937 Silver Lake Blvd MASLAR, KATHLEEN MARIE 937 Silver Lake Blvd DOVER DE 19904 937 Silver Lake Blvd Ed Doughterty 937 Silver Lake Blvd DOVER DE 19904 949 Silver Lake Blvd RICHARDSON, CARL S 949 Silver Lake Blvd DOVER DE 19904 959 Silver Lake Blvd SHELDON, JUDY A TRUSTEE 959 Silver Lake Blvd DOVER DE 19901 961 Silver Lake Blvd MCLYMOND, DANA 961 Silver Lake Blvd DOVER DE 19901 963 Silver Lake Blvd Michael Braun** 963 Silver Lake Blvd DOVER DE 19901 971 Silver Lake Blvd WEST, ANGELA M 971 Silver Lake Blvd DOVER DE 19901 Summary Notes * Silver Lake Townhouse Community Association, Inc. Submitted Statement of Opposition. Kent County Property Records have a different contact /address. ** Signed by Michael Braun; property owner is listed as Micromotor 963 Series A Series SUMMARY Lots Eligible to Petition 10 Eligible Petitioners (num.) 2 Eligible Petitioners (percent) 20% Page 142 1 of 1

Item #5. 02/22/2024 City of Dover-Planning Commission Via email CompPlan@dover.de.us I am a property owner with a property located near 1079 Silver Lake Blvd. I attended the Hearing held 2/20/2024, regarding the Rezoning application Z-24-02. This application seeks to change the zoning for 1079 Silver Lake Blvd from C-PO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone) to C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). During the hearing it was discussed that Silver Lake Blvd did not apparently meet the requirements of C- PO as Silver Lake Blvd is not considered a “major” roadway. In fact, Silver Lake Blvd is a two-lane roadway that is effectively a “dead end” street ending at the subject property. There is only one way in and the same way out for access to the subject property. I note further that there is a two-lane bridge further potentially restricting access. Given these limitations, the subject property does not appear to be consistent with the C-2A zoning designation. I was also concerned by the applicant’s apparent reluctance to provide details as to what he intends for the property that warrants the time, effort, and cost of the application. He repeatedly stated that development of the property under the C-2A zoning would provide significant benefits for the surrounding property owners but would not/did not provide details. I note that when the Council had questions regarding the use of “gas pumps” on the property, he was quick to announce that he had no plans that would include “gas pumps”. I feel that the applicant should not be allowed to have it “both ways”. Since he claims that development under C-2A would be good for the neighborhood, and he deflects Council concerns about use by announcing what he does NOT plan to do with his property, he opens the “gate” to being required to provide those things that he IS considering for the property. I request that he be required to release all correspondence, memos, billing records etc. that deal with discussions applicable to this rezoning application and potential uses should the rezoning be approved. Respectfully submitted, Michael W Braun mwbraun@comcast.net Page 143

Item #5. From: Kathleen Maslar To: City Clerks Office; Anderson, David; Sudler, Roy; Boggerty, Andre M. Subject: EXTERNAL: NO to rezone at 1079 Silver Lake Blvd Date: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 11:07:52 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from kathleenmaslar@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. March 7, 2024 Dear Councilman: My name is Kathleen Maslar and I am a homeowner and resident of 937 Silver Lake Boulevard, in Dover. I am writing to state my extreme opposition and request a "NO" vote to the rezoning proposition for the plot at: 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard. My reasons are many and include: ------Increased density, congestion and traffic at a residential location that is a cul-de-sac, with a speed limit of 25 mph, where children's school buses let them off....where they ride their bikes.....where they play! ------Inadequate roadway infrastructure to accommodate an increase in cars. You should be aware that this road is a dead end, includes a narrow bridge crossing, and provides the only way in or out of the neighborhood. -------- Certain environmental impacts, including noise, pollution, and almost certain damage to the surrounding wildlife and their habitat. The property in question backs to the bank of Silver Lake, near the mouth of the St Jones, where there are a significant amount of bald eagle pairings and nestings. I strongly believe that prominent building on this property would likely violate the Bald / Golden Eagle Federal Wildlife Act, and in my opinion, you would be wise to take that seriously. -------The lack of transparency by the potential buyer/ developer/ builder at the Dover Planning Commission Hearing held on February 20, 2024. At that meeting, they refused to give details about what their intention is for the rezoning request. The rezoning, if approved, would allow for development of hotels, high rise apartments, parking structures, etc. I believe they are deliberately misrepresenting the size, character, and capacity of this space, in order to push their mysterious plan through. Please examine this very closely. You ARE our eyes and ears. Do not be fooled. In summary, i am imploring you to listen to the concerns of the residents, and fo visit the space and judge for yourself. I have spoken to people all over this area about the rezoning and I have not met one person who is not in strong objection. This includes the Silver Lake nursing home that is at the end of the street, whose residents will have to be right next to whatever new construction occurs. In closing, I would like to state that I am proud to live in Dover, and I am also proud to be active politically. I know sacrifices are sometimes needed to help a community thrive. However, I believe this particular plan is an abomination. Page 144

Item #5. I thank you in advance for your careful consideration on this issue, and request that you, as my representative, vote NO on March 11, 2024. Many of us plan to attend, and we deserve to have our voices heard. Your vote, Sir, IS OUR VOICE. Sincerely, Kathleen Maslar 302 650 2319 Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer Page 145

Item #5. Walls, Ashley A From: lisa crane <honeybunny0199@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2024 9:24 PM To: City Clerks Office Subject: EXTERNAL: Rezoning property 1079 Silver Lake Blvd Some people who received this message don't often get email from honeybunny0199@gmail.com. Learn why this is important WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello..... My name is Lisa Crane, and I am the homeowner of 933 Silver Lake Blvd, Dover, DE 19901. It has come to my attention that there is a proposal to rezone that address, and I am writing to give a big NO to this proposal. There are eagles and golden eagles who nest in those trees in that area, it would create a disaster in that habitat. The streets are only 2 lane, how are they going to be able to handle more traffic??? Our neighbor is quiet, peaceful, this would increase the noise, smog and scare away the wildlife that inhabit the lake. I AM FIRMLY AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL. Thank you, Lisa Crane 933 Silver Lake Blvd February 28, 2024 1 Page 146

Item #5. Walls, Ashley A From: Sheri K <sherijk@outlook.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2024 10:44 AM To: City Clerks Office Cc: mwbraun@comcast.net Subject: EXTERNAL: Fw: Rezoning of 1079 Silver Lake Blvd Attachments: 02222024 Rezoning issue.docx Some people who received this message don't often get email from sherijk@outlook.com. Learn why this is important WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please see the attached email that was sent by one of our property owners at Silver Lake Blvd. Townhouses, in which I concur. I live at 951 Silver Lake Blvd. and I am writing to vehemently oppose that any restaurants, bars, gas stations, etc. be built at this location. If I had more information regarding the property owner's intent at 1079 Silver Lake Blvd., I would be much more specific about my opposition. For now, I am writing to ensure that my position on this is clear and considered. Kind regards, Sheri Knott 951 Silver Lake Blvd Dover, DE 19904 sherijk@outlook.com 302-423-4332 From: mwbraun@comcast.net <mwbraun@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2024 7:58 AM To: CompPlan@dover.de.us <CompPlan@dover.de.us> Cc: Angie.M.west17@gmail.com <Angie.M.west17@gmail.com>; thehill82@gmail.com <thehill82@gmail.com>; gmrecords@verizon.net <gmrecords@verizon.net>; jasheldon@comcast.net <jasheldon@comcast.net>; kmmaddy@gmail.com <kmmaddy@gmail.com>; Kathy.maslar@uhsinc.com <Kathy.maslar@uhsinc.com>; honeybunny0199@gmail.com <honeybunny0199@gmail.com>; michelleng23@aol.com <michelleng23@aol.com>; bradynx@gmail.com <bradynx@gmail.com>; sherijk@outlook.com <sherijk@outlook.com>; tburns@burnsandellis.com <tburns@burnsandellis.com>; wyblankenship@gmail.com <wyblankenship@gmail.com>; noah.luk@gmail.com <noah.luk@gmail.com>; dranne10@gmail.com <dranne10@gmail.com>; spec.e.d.ed@gmail.com <spec.e.d.ed@gmail.com>; manny.johnson@itsolutions-inc.com <manny.johnson@itsolutions-inc.com> Subject: FW: Rezoning of 1079 Silver Lake Blvd On 2/22/2024,in accordance with instruction contained in the undated “Notice of Hearings on Application to City of Dover Planning Commission and City Council” I did submit the comments noted in the attached document. To 1 Page 147

Item #5. date I have not received a confirmation that my email was received by the City. This email is a request for acknowledgement of receipt. Respectfully Michael Braun From: mwbraun@comcast.net <mwbraun@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2024 9:42 AM To: 'CompPlan@dover.de.us' <CompPlan@dover.de.us> Cc: 'Angie.M.west17@gmail.com' <Angie.M.west17@gmail.com>; 'thehill82@gmail.com' <thehill82@gmail.com>; 'gmrecords@verizon.net' <gmrecords@verizon.net>; 'jasheldon@comcast.net' <jasheldon@comcast.net>; 'kmmaddy@gmail.com' <kmmaddy@gmail.com>; 'Kathy.maslar@uhsinc.com' <Kathy.maslar@uhsinc.com>; 'honeybunny0199@gmail.com' <honeybunny0199@gmail.com>; 'michelleng23@aol.com' <michelleng23@aol.com>; 'bradynx@gmail.com' <bradynx@gmail.com>; 'sherijk@outlook.com' <sherijk@outlook.com>; 'burns@burnsandellis.com' <burns@burnsandellis.com>; 'wyblankenship@gmail.com' <wyblankenship@gmail.com>; 'noah.luk@gmail.com' <noah.luk@gmail.com>; 'dranne10@gmail.com' <dranne10@gmail.com>; 'spec.e.d.ed@gmail.com' <spec.e.d.ed@gmail.com>; 'manny.johnson@itsolutions-inc.com' <manny.johnson@itsolutions-inc.com>; 'triciacapodanno@hotmail.com' <triciacapodanno@hotmail.com>; 'mwbraun@comcast.net.' <mwbraun@comcast.net.> Subject: Rezoning of 1079 Silver Lake Blvd Please see the letter attached regarding Rezoning application Z-24-02 applicable 10 1079 Silver Lake Blvd. Respectfully Michael Braun 963 Silver Lake Blvd 2 Page 148

Item #5. Walls, Ashley A From: Tobi Oakley <tobioakley@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 9:47 AM To: City Clerks Office Subject: EXTERNAL: 1079 silver Lake Blvd. rezoning Some people who received this message don't often get email from tobioakley@gmail.com. Learn why this is important WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. (NO) to the request to rezone 1079 Silver Lake Blvd. Dover Delaware. My opposition to this request is there is no transparency as to what the proposed project on that land parcel is, the increased traffic to our neighborhood will be negatively affected,there will be displacement of a natural wildlife habitat and the roadway infrastructure does not support increased traffic with there only being one way in and one way out of our community,let alone noise and traffic pollution. This community has already had a large decrease in our natural habitat due to the construction of the new Dover Middle School Campus, which has increased noise and dislocated many of the wildlife. Thank you for your time, Sincerely Tobi Oakley Senators Lake homeowners Association 757 289-2337 1 Page 149

Item #5. Anne Hoier Dana McLymond 961 Silver Lake Blvd DM Cel: (585) 739-1343 Dover, DE 19904 AH Cel: (302) 399-2702 Fax: (302) 736-0947 dranne10@gmail.com danam527@gmail.co To: City of Dover Clerk Date: March 4, 2024 Re: An emphatic NO to the request to rezone the property located at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard For whom it may concern, Silver Lake Boulevard is a dead-end street. It is a quiet, residential street with some State buildings at the "busy" end nearest the major cross street and a nursing home at the other along with a field and the property in question (currently being used as a quiet, single tenant, one floor office building). A change in zoning would likely mean a change in how, and to what extent, there would be access to newly developed property. More cars and trucks means more noise, more lights and additional environmental impacts that may not have been anticipated. There would be additional wear and tear on the roadway itself as well. We are concerned about the lack of privacy that would result from further development. We get anxious at the thought that there will be an exponential increase in trespassers. As an older couple, we appreciate the peaceful lakefront view and good neighbors that comprise our small community. We would prefer to keep it that way. We have been told that, so far, the developer has not been forthcoming regarding what they expect to use the space for. Page 150

Item #5. From: JUDY SHELDON To: City Clerks Office Subject: EXTERNAL: Opposition to Z-24-02 Rezoning Application Date: Friday, March 8, 2024 6:41:30 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from jasheldon@comcast.net. Learn why this is important WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. My name is Judy Sheldon. I am a resident at 959 Silver Lake Blvd., and I am writing to clearly oppose the request to rezone the property located at 1079 Silver Lake Blvd. I have multiple reasons and concerns for this opposition. First, I feel there is a lack of transparency about what the developer proposes to build on that property. When the question has been asked, misleading and incomplete answers have been given. A yellow sign on the property appeared one day, and if I could not see the posting when I went to my mailbox, I would not have even known anything about the rezoning application! I feel as established residents in an established community that letters should have been sent to us directly as well as clear answers as to what will be built if the application is approved! Furthermore, I deeply oppose the rezoning application for concern for increased traffic volume and congestion. Silver Lake Blvd. is not equipped to be a roadway such as Walker Road. The infrastructure is not adequate to deal with any increase in road traffic. I already have concerns about the multiple cars speeding down Silver Lake Blvd. to go to work at Silver Lake Nursing Home or the Dover Credit Union Corporate office. Also, as a resident for 16 years of a very quiet, harmonious community, I question the environmental impact and increased noise on us all regarding the proposed development project. To close, I sincerely hope that members of the City Council and the Planning Commission vote no to approve the rezoning application at 1079 Silver Lake Blvd. I would like this letter forwarded to the City Council and to the Planning Commission before the March 11, 2024 meeting as part of the record of materials on the Z-24-02 rezoning application. I request a confirmation and receipt of this email prior to the meeting as well. Sincerely a concerned citizen, Judy Sheldon 959 Silver Lake Blvd. Dover, Delaware 19904 March 8, 2024 Page 151

Item #5. From: bradynx@gmail.com To: City Clerks Office; CompPlan; Hare, William; Anderson, David; Sudler, Roy Subject: EXTERNAL: 1079 Silver Lake Blvd. City Council Meeting 3/11 Date: Friday, March 8, 2024 11:28:32 AM Attachments: Petition 1079 Silver Lake Blvd_Silver Lake Townhouses Community Assoc..pdf Statement of Opposition 1079 Silver Lake Blvd_Silver Lake Townhouses Community Assoc Inc..pdf [Some people who received this message don't often get email from bradynx@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello- Please find the following attachments, submitted for official record on behalf of the Silver Lake Townhouses Community Association, Inc. (1) Statement of Opposition regarding 1079 Silver Lake Blvd. (2) Petition regarding 1079 Silver Lake Blvd. Note: Additional signature pages to be recorded and counted as part of official master submittal. Please record as official submittal. Please confirm receipt. Thank you Sincerely Silver lake Townhouses Community Association, Inc. Page 152

Item #5. Page 153

Item #5. Page 2 of 2 Petition to Stop the Rezoning of 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who oppose the rezoning of 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard from 1079 Action petitioned for Silver Lake Boulevard from C-PO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone) to C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). Printed Name Signature Address Comment Date CAil/, /bc;j/Jl?J !xYAJ - 52£ 1)£, -7-21 f\n'b� �ve:t V-0, 3 7•2L/ I Dz_ )°I 0 '.33 :;;t) \}Go--- uJseJ3I 3·-�-J_L\ � G((OJ/Ll, � !JAL lADVtxr :b I l1 .nclc.... 1/ . <;s1 3 ?; ci? 5 "1 e I do. �� 9s9 J: Iv .. ,, LY, ICt_ /3/vl Cl(jl ½1:j Iv{" t#M <. l3M t1 �d� !;,t:? �IL, rj;�r./l::, J/7/2-+ /l/ l 2:'.. I �1"'?0 Y..- - ·�(1 (/ 3)kJUf lJ1f Signatures via Proxy: Tricia Capodanno, Property Owner Page 154 Michelle Kelly, Property Owner Karen Maddy, Property Owner

Item #5. Page 155

Page 1 of#5. Item 5 March 7, 2024 Attn: The Honorable Mayor Christiansen City Council President Hare Members of City Council City Clerk Statement of Opposition Rezoning Proposal for 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard As set forth in this Statement of Opposition, the undersigned property owners and residents at Silver Lake Boulevard and on behalf of the Silver Lake Townhouses Community Association, Inc. (Association), hereby oppose the request for rezoning of the property located at 1079, the eastern terminus of Silver Lake Boulevard (Property), as submitted by property owner Dover Federal Credit Union and equitable owner Charles Chiang. The City of Dover Comprehensive Plan identifies in the Land Development Plan that the Property has a zoning district of Commercial Professional Office Zone (CPO), and land use classification of Office. The Association strongly opposes the requests detailed in Items I and II below. Should development of the Property be approved for a use that is outside of the allowable uses within the current zoning district, CPO, the development would be detrimental to property owners and residents of the Sliver Lake Boulevard community. Item I: MI-24-01 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2024 - Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council on an Amendment to the 2019 Comprehensive Plan with consideration of a request for amendment of Map 12-1 : Land Development Plan to revise the Land Use Classification of the property located at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard, from Office to Mixed Use. Item II: Z-24-02 Lands of Dover Federal Credit Union at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard - Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council of a Rezoning application for a parcel of land consisting of 5.04 acres+/-. The property is zoned CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone). The proposed zoning is C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). Please consider the Association's opposition to Items I and II: Inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan • In the 2019 Comprehensive Plan, adopted on January 13, 2020, the Property is categorized as Commercial land use and in the Commercial Professional Office zone. Title 22 Chapter 7 Section 702 (d) of the Delaware Code states "After a comprehensive plan or portion thereof has been adopted by the municipality in accordance to this chapter, the comprehensive plan shall have the force of law and no development shall be permitted except as consistent with the plan." • Chapter 15 Immediate Actions Section includes that "The City's Official Zoning Map must be evaluated for consistency with the Land Development Plan. Zoning changes necessary to implement the Land Development Plan will be evaluated immediately after the Plan is adopted. The Land Development Plan (Chapter 12 and Map 12-1) is the basis for zoning within the City. Within 18 months of the Comprehensive Plan's adoption, all zoning throughout the City must be consistent with the Land Development Plan." The Planning Commission hearing held on February 20, 2024; pending City Council hearing scheduled for March 11, 2024 to consider the requests detailed in Items I and II; and the Actions History of Page 156

Item #5. Page 157

Item #5. Page 158

Page 4 of#5.5 Item and semi-detached dwellings; apartments and multi-family dwellings are permitted conditionally as part of the CPO. No Consideration for Property Owners ■ Property values are likely to decline in the area if multi-family apartments or condominiums are built. Despite a review and decision by the Planning Commission to approve the request for redesignation and rezoning, as part of a hearing held on February 20, 2024, there has been no transparency about the proposed site development. To date, no information regarding the proposed development has been disclosed to property owners or community members in the area. During the Planning Commission hearing, equity owner Charles Chang stated that he was advised not to engage the community regarding project details at this time. For reasons detailed in this Statement, the Silver Lake Townhouses Community Association, Inc. urges that the City Council of Dover oppose the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and rezoning of 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard. Thank you for your continued service, Silver Lake Townhouses Community Association , Inc. Members and its Residents Page 159

PageItem 5 of#5. 5 Printed Name Signature Address Comment Date ?f 9 5':Z:.?t/c. tbU:3£. /,76_ Gs 0 t Oi)Lk/', rJt /ff6 / CJ 59 • S; 11tr C114 13;;,,r, �, fJ[ j 'i 90'LJ S//�p,rt. 'L-e ,. lft/1> t:>:e. I Signatures via Proxy: Tricia Capodanno, Property Owner Michelle Kelly, Property Owner Karen Maddy, Property Owner Page 160

Item #5. Page 5 of S I . Printed Name Signature Address Comment Date \ (- ?- )f /41"'1ln d 4u.,.. P¾< 1i�lj4LA. 1J/ <JM 5'1l,N!r-LLtke__ BlvJ Jr . I I l ' I l l r - I I I I I I I I Page 161

Item #5. Walls, Ashley A From: Scott Hampton <hamptons@HirshIndustries.com> Sent: Friday, March 8, 2024 12:25 PM To: City Clerks Office; Anderson, David; Sudler, Roy; Boggerty, Andre M. Subject: EXTERNAL: Imminent Re-zoning Issue Silver Lake Blvd Importance: High Some people who received this message don't often get email from hamptons@hirshindustries.com. Learn why this is important WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Councilmen, My name is Scott Hampton and I live at 45 Representative Ln in Dover, DE. I am writing NO to the rezoning change at 1079 Silver Lake BLVD for these reasons:  Increased density, congestion & traffic volume (on a dead-end residential street, where children catch their buses for etc.)  Inadequate roadway infrastructure to accommodate an increase in cars (on a road with a small bridge crossing & only one way in one way out.)  Unknown environmental impacts (noise, fumes, concern for potential violation of Bald/Gold Eagle habitats & other wildlife)  General lack of transparency about the proposed project (The potential buyer/developers would not state their intent for the re-zoning.) 1 Page 162

Item #5. From: Marty Mattocks To: Anderson, David; City Clerks Office; Sudler, Roy; Boggerty, Andre M. Cc: epbetts2; Mr. Purnell Subject: EXTERNAL: VOTE NO: RE-ZONING OF 1079 SILVER LAKE BLVD Date: Friday, March 8, 2024 5:34:58 PM Attachments: image.png Some people who received this message don't often get email from mmattocks@gmail.com. Learn why this is important WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. We request you vote NO to the request to RE-Zone 1079 Silver Lake Blvd. for the following reasons: 1. Increased density, congestion, and traffic volume (on a dead-end residential street, where children catch their buses for school, etc.) 2. Unknown environmental impacts (including negative impact on deer, fox, geese) Thank you, Marty Mattocks Elaine Mattocks 86 Representative Lane Dover DE 19904 Page 163

Item #5. Walls, Ashley A From: sheath3239 <sheath3239@aol.com> Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2024 8:29 PM To: City Clerks Office Subject: EXTERNAL: Rezoning of 1079Silver Lake Blvd Some people who received this message don't often get email from sheath3239@aol.com. Learn why this is important WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To whom it may concern, 3/9/24 Shelly and Erol Heath who resides at 16 Representative Lane are saying NO to the rezoning request located at1079 Silver Lake Blvd. We are NOT in agreement with the idea of increased density, nor the traffic congestion and safety concerns this would cause for our community. We as a community endure the harsh consequences of noise pollution, and the lost of wildlife and their habitats by the building of the new middle school. Your consideration in regards to the rezoning is greatly appreciated. Sincerely Shelly and Erol Heath 917-678-1936 Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone 1 Page 164

Item #5. From: Angie West To: City Clerks Office; Anderson, David; Sudler, Roy; Boggerty, Andre M. Subject: EXTERNAL: Opposition to Rezoning of 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard Date: Monday, March 11, 2024 9:48:43 AM Attachments: individual opp letter.docx [Some people who received this message don't often get email from angie.m.west17@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning, I am a homeowner on Silver Lake Boulevard. I am vehemently opposed to the proposed rezoning of 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard. Please see my attached opposition statement. I strongly urge City Council to vote NO on this rezoning proposition. Thank you, Angela West Page 165

Item #5. TO: City of Dover Planning Commission and City Council FROM: Angela West, 971 Silver Lake Boulevard; member of Silver Lake Homeowners Association RE: Statement of Opposition to Rezoning of 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard (Application Z-24- 02, Ordinance #2024-04) ____________________________________________________________________________________ I am a homeowner residing on Silver Lake Boulevard. I am writing to express my strong resistance to the proposed rezoning of 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard, as submitted by property owner Dover Federal Credit Union and equitable owner Charles Chiang. This property is currently zoned C-PO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone). The proposed zoning is C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). There are many reasons for my emphatic opposition to rezoning this property, but I am primarily concerned with safety risks. Any commercial or residential construction would increase population density and traffic congestion. The property is not situated on a major roadway – there is only one access point with insufficient road infrastructure to accommodate an increase in traffic and population density. This would be detrimental not only to the residents of Silver Lake Boulevard but also to the residents of the nursing home that sits adjacent to the property in question. According to a study by the American Planning Association (APA), such rezoning often leads to increased noise pollution and decreased air quality due to construction activities. Moreover, it has been observed that traffic congestion can delay emergency services by up to 4 minutes – a significant time when dealing with life-threatening situations (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). Trespassers raise an additional safety concern. My home, as well as all homes in Silver Lake Townhomes, is situated on lakefront property. As it stands, we experience trespassers on our private property at various hours of the day and night. Construction of any kind will undoubtedly bring an influx of trespassers into our backyard. Noise and environmental pollution are also significant concerns. The peaceful ambiance we currently enjoy could be replaced with constant noise from commercial activities. This not only disrupts our daily lives but also poses potential health risks associated with long- term exposure to high noise levels. Furthermore, this proposed rezoning could have devastating effects on local wildlife habitats. Increased human activity and construction work may lead to habitat destruction - threatening biodiversity in our area. Page 166

Item #5. My neighbors and I are vehemently opposed to the rezoning of this property and the destruction and disruption to our beautiful neighborhood that it would bring. Sincerely, Angela West Owner, 971 Silver Lake Boulevard Page 167

Item #5. FINAL READING City of Dover CITY OF DOVER PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2024-04 1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY 2 OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3 1079 SILVER LAKE BOULEVARD 4 5 WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property within the 6 limits of the City of Dover; and 7 WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted use of property 8 described below from CPO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone) to C-2A (Limited Central 9 Commercial Zone). 10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 11 DOVER, IN COUNCIL, MET: 12 1. That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning 13 Ordinance of the City of Dover have been amended by changing the zoning designation from CPO 14 (Commercial and Professional Office Zone) to C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) on that 15 property located at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard (at the eastern terminus of Silver Lake Boulevard), 16 consisting of 5.04+/- acres, owned by Dover Federal Credit Union. 17 (Tax Parcel: ED-05-067.12-02-04.00-000; Planning Reference: Z-24-02; Fourth Council District) 18 20 ADOPTED: * 21 Actions History 22 04/22/2024 - Scheduled for Public Hearing/Final Reading - City Council 23 03/11/2024 – Deferred - Public Hearing/Final Reading - City Council 24 02/20/2024 - Public Hearing - Planning Commission 22 01/22/2024 - First Reading - City Council Page 168

Item #6. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING The Regular City Council Meeting was held on April 8, 2024, at 6:30 p.m. with Council President Hare presiding. Council members present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Neil, Dr. Pillsbury, Ms. Arndt, Mr. Rocha, Mr. Sudler, and Mr. Lewis. Staff members present were Police Chief Johnson, Ms. Marney, Mr. Hugg, Mr. Rodriguez, and Ms. Rivera. Mayor Christiansen was also present. OPEN FORUM The Open Forum was held at 6:15 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Hare declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council was not in official session and could not take formal action. There were no members of the public that wished to speak during the Open Forum. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Elder Ellis B. Louden. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council President Hare. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Rocha, and unanimously carried. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA All Consent Agenda items are considered routine and non-controversial and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of Council requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered a separate item. Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the consent agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Sudler, and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. PROCLAMATION-ARBOR DAY The City Clerk read the following Proclamation into the record: WHEREAS, each year the City of Dover, Delaware celebrates the last Friday in April as “Arbor Day,” Established by J. Sterling Morton, a Nebraska pioneer, on April 10, 1872. In 1885, Arbor Day was named a legal holiday whose mission is to inspire people to plant, nurture, and celebrate trees. Arbor Day observances are also an integral part of community recognition programs such as Tree City USA; and WHEREAS, the City of Dover was named a Tree City USA in 2023 for the thirty-fourth consecutive year by the National Arbor Day Foundation in recognition of the City’s outstanding urban forestry program. Arbor Day is an occasion to plant trees and spotlight the numerous natural benefits that trees provide. Trees help absorb the sounds of traffic in urban areas by 40%, neighborhoods with trees are seven to nine degrees cooler than those without, trees also reduce Page 169

Item #6. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 8, 2024 PAGE 2 energy costs by up to 25% by shading buildings and protecting them from winter winds; and WHEREAS, homes with trees have higher property values, and green space plays a major role in improving mental and physical health. Planting and maintaining trees absorbs carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, mitigating the effects of climate change; and WHEREAS, publicly demonstrating our commitment to the environment is a great way to build pride among the City of Dover residents, as well as to position our community as an attractive place to live. NOW, THEREFORE, I, ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE, do hereby proclaim April 26th, 2024 as Arbor Day in the City of Dover and urge all citizens to support efforts to care for trees along our streets, in our parks, and in our yards. As the City of Dover plants trees on public property, I urge all citizens to plant trees on their properties to enhance the environment and promote the well-being of present and future generations. PROCLAMATION – MONTH OF THE MILITARY CHILD The City Clerk read the following Proclamation into the record: WHEREAS, according to the United States Department of Defense, there are 1.6 million military children who face many challenges and unique experiences as result of their parents’ service. Since 1986, the military community has honored and recognized military children and youth in the month of April for their continuous sacrifices, courage, and resilience; and WHEREAS, military children say goodbye to deploying family members, not knowing when they will see them again. Some of these young people endure deployments and separations, spending months or even years away from their beloved parent. Birthday, holidays, graduations, and other important milestones are celebrated with just a phone call or virtual hug; and WHEREAS, this month we share our gratitude for these children. We recognize the hardships they face and commit to supporting the physical, social, and emotional health and safety of their families. NOW, THEREFORE, I, ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE, do hereby proclaim April 2024 as Month of the Military Child in the City of Dover and urge all citizens to show support by wearing purple during the month of April in their honor and thank military children for their strength and sacrifices. PROCLAMATION – NATIONAL LINEMAN APPRECIATION DAY The City Clerk read the following Proclamation into the record: WHEREAS, the City of Dover Electric Department lineman (and women) have a dangerous job working on power lines that keeps electricity flowing to our homes and businesses. After 2012’s Hurricane Sandy, the 113th Congress passed a bill designating April 18 as National Lineman Appreciation Day. The bill became law in 2013; and Page 170

Item #6. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF April 8, 2024 PAGE 3 WHEREAS, this day honors the hard work that the City of Dover’s linemen put in to keep the power on. These people work around the clock to provide light to family households and any other premises. Linemen often do their job in the most dangerous of conditions and must face the worst weather conditions; and WHEREAS, the most dangerous task they must do every day is handling wires that pulse thousands of amps of current. Lineman are the people in charge of restoring power, setting up emergency systems to carry the city through, and putting life back in order when things get tough; and WHEREAS, the truth is that The City of Dover’s linemen have existed for as long as electricity has been a standard part of modern living here in Dover, Delaware. It is impossible to have power lines carrying electricity to our homes and businesses without them. They keep the lights on and the furnaces going. NOW, THEREFORE, I, ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN, MAYOR OF THE FITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE, do hereby proclaim April 18, 2024, as National Linemen Appreciation Day in the City of Dover and urge all residents to express their heartfelt appreciation to all the men and women who so diligently serve to ensure that electrical power continues to flow to the homes and businesses of this city. PRESENTATION – DOVER POLICE DEPARTMENT 2023 ANNUAL REPORT Chief of Police, Thomas A. Johnson, Jr. reviewed the Dover Police Department 2023 Annual Report (Exhibit 1). Responding to Mr. Lewis, Chief Johnson stated that he had reviewed the burglary trend numbers, comparing the current year to the previous year. He expressed surprise at the current year's total of 25 burglaries, noting that historically, Dover sees somewhere between 40 and 60 burglaries a year. Chief Johnson mentioned that upon double-checking last year's numbers, his team found no explanation for the decrease. He explained that when looking at the long-term data, the 55 burglaries reported are more in line with the normal data calculations he has observed in Dover, and the same trend applies to robberies. Regarding narcotics, Chief Johnson explained that the numbers are a result of a combination of proactive and reactive efforts. He noted that the figures can fluctuate based on law enforcement's observations and their ability to take advantage of opportunities, such as obtaining a federal indictment against a major player. He emphasized that resources can only be allocated to one area at a time. Chief Johnson concluded by stating that the decrease in the total number of cases does not surprise him, attributing it to a particularly significant job that occurred in the middle of the calendar year. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Chief Johnson clarified that the reported numbers are related to 911 calls and do not necessarily indicate the level of activity of an animal control unit. He explained that the figures reflect the computer-rated dispatch system's categorization of calls, which includes those where the basic complaint mentioned by the caller was related to animals. Chief Johnson clarified that the 572 calls received last year and the 466 calls in the current 2023 report are all calls that were responded to by sending someone to investigate each one. If they discover an issue that requires action, they have been referring those cases to the state. Chief Johnson mentioned that the process of finding someone to fill the animal control position has been Page 171

Item #6. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 8, 2024 PAGE 4 challenging. Once a candidate was hired, it became evident to both parties that it was not a suitable fit. Efforts are ongoing to fill the position. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Chief Johnson stated that the arrangement is not a formal contract but rather an agreement for services if Dover does not have its own animal control service. He emphasized that as a city the size of Dover with a significant number of animal-related events, having access to a dispatcher for patrol officers dealing with strays or aggressive animals is crucial. Chief Johnson expressed appreciation for having these resources available in challenging situations. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Chief Johnson stated that he was not aware that they were paying the state for this service. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Chief Johnson stated that this is a common issue where the nomenclature used can sometimes mislead readers, particularly when the implied word not explicitly stated is "crime.” He explained that the key question is whether a crime report needs to be generated, and if so, it is clear that the report was required. However, not every incident requires a crime report that must be reported to the FBI annually. Instead, officers may file what is known as an NPR (Non-Police Report), which documents incidents that do not meet the criteria for inclusion in the official crime report database. While a report is being created, it is not classified as a crime report. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Chief Johnson explained that the distinction lies in the use of a firearm: simply having a gun out and at the ready is different from using it in the direction of a citizen to elicit a response. Chief Johnson clarified that if a firearm is used in situations like a gunpoint encounter, a takedown, or a felony stop, it is well documented as a use of force. However, if an officer simply removes their firearm from the holster as a precautionary measure, such as sensing potential danger around a corner, and does not point or use it in any way, that action is not considered a use of force and may not require a formal report. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Chief Johnson explained that there is a formal program of Part A (or Part One) and Part B (or Part Two) crimes, depending on whose book they read. The major crimes, such as robbery, burglary, rape, murder, arson, and auto theft, fall under Part A, while all other crimes are classified as Part B. He mentioned that reconciling reports involves coordination between their records room and the Bureau of Identification, which is a time-consuming process. However, this effort allows them to accurately report crime statistics. The State of Delaware uploads data related to Dover's corporate limits, or any actions taken by the Dover Police Department on behalf of the city to the federal government for reporting purposes, and those are the numbers that he reports back. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Chief Johnson described their efforts as wide-ranging. He explained that they heavily invested in both public service announcements and video recruiting last year, and this approach has proven to be effective in appealing to diverse audiences. Chief Johnson further explained that the hard part is trying to find the medium to get into those places and spaces. He stated that they utilize both digital and in-person approaches. The digital lens refers to their online recruitment efforts, while the in-person lens includes job fairs that they attend, often as part of a Tri-State effort. Chief Johnson stated that they are not just in Delaware; they are Page 172

Item #6. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF April 8, 2024 PAGE 5 going all over the place. Chief Johnson explained that they go to criminal justice programs, police academies in other states, military installations, and job fairs. He explained that their recruiting policy includes a dedicated subsection focused on diversity. This subsection aims to proactively notify groups such as the NAACP, Noble, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, and various other networking groups they collaborate with. Chief Johnson stated what works best for them is personal references. They are always striving to create connections to receive these referrals. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Chief Johnson stated no, he believes the annual survey is still open. They leave the survey open for a couple of months to capture as large a sample size as possible. Chief Johnson will certainly make the results available and encourages council to raise awareness of the survey. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Chief Johnson stated that they had three (3) individuals graduate. He believes that there were two (2) white males and one (1) black male on stage on March 1st. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Chief Johnson stated that there were four (4) Caucasians and one (1) black male that Major Spicer referred to them. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Chief Johnson stated that is the part he would need to follow up on how many total applicants were recruited for this class as he does not have that data with him. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Chief Johnson stated that it is reflective of what their victim services unit is doing, and they try to keep track of the communities that they are serving. Chief Johnson explained that while victim services encompass various activities, such as supporting individuals after a traumatic event such as a severe car accident, the primary focus of that unit and its mission is centered around domestic violence. He further stated that without contextual data regarding the specific support needs related to those numbers, he could confidently say that they are likely identifying those individuals as domestic violence victims. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Chief Johnson stated the training program is a combination of their philosophy and the motivation that they are given through accreditation. Chief Johnson explained that some of the training is mandated by the state, which requires a certain number of hours of in-service training every year. This training covers firearms, first aid, control tactics, and sexual assault recognition, as mandated by state law. Chief Johnson further explained that the calendar is filled with mandated deadlines and training sessions that the organization must adhere to, ensuring that the entire team receives the required training. He mentioned that there are professional standards related to ethics, bias, and diversity training, as well as specialized training in case law. Chief Johnson stated that some canned programs send people to field training, ensuring that if there is a subspecialty, they receive regular training to maintain proficiency. This is done for both risk management and proficiency purposes. Chief Johnson explained that through the zone of succession planning, he is making sure that he has the most qualified candidates for promotional considerations going forward, and that could extend out to a few years down the road. Chief Johnson aims to ensure that their investment in leadership training, starting at the master corporal level and through the sergeant to lieutenant, the captain, et cetera, will provide council with plenty of well-trained and educated internal candidates for consideration when the time comes for him to move on. Chief Johnson stated that there is a wide Page 173

Item #6. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 8, 2024 PAGE 6 range of training available, including theory-related, technical, and leadership training, in addition to the mandated training requirements. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Chief Johnson stated that they have not been doing well for probably two and a half years to three (3) straight years. Chief Johnson further stated that there is a young man currently serving as a cadet and they have open positions. He expects the background investigations to be completed within the next couple of weeks and anyone who clears the investigation will be offered an interview. Chief Johnson explained that this is a great job for someone who may be in college. There will be a way to convert the hours spent as a cadet into internship credits or college credits. Chief Johnson mentioned that they have been working on establishing a connection between Delaware Technical College and Delaware State University for a couple of years now. They are trying to make the process more seamless, but the challenge lies in the amount of time it takes to hire and train someone to be fully functional. This process takes almost a semester, so they need to be about half a year ahead of the group that may need the positions, even though they may not yet realize they need them. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Chief Johnson stated that the department conducts annual evaluations for everyone, with the process starting right after the first of the new year with the unit supervisors. The system has been in place for as far back as anybody can remember, and his assessment of the program is that it is okay and serves its purpose. Chief Johnson explained that it is connected to the promotional process, and they are in the process of trying to identify the best revision to the program over the years as the department has specialized. Chief Johnson further explained that they are having a hard time reconciling an administrative patrol officer versus someone who is in field operations versus someone who is in investigations. He noted that it is difficult to fairly evaluate with as the questions on their evaluations are somewhat different. Chief Johnson explained that there are several dozen different evaluations in circulation, and they are not currently confident that these forms are serving them in the best. He stated that they are in the process of reviewing other options used by other departments and locations both in- state and out-of-state. The goal is to implement a more accurate method of evaluating officers, with the goal of having it in place for use starting January 1st, 2025. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Chief Johnson stated that they have police mountain bikes. Chief Johnson explained that the cadets will utilize them when there is cadet staffing and on certain occasions, the community policing unit will use that as a mode of transportation depending on their deployment for the day. Chief Johnson’s current focus is on restoring staffing levels to where they need to be and meeting council’s expectation for the Downtown unit to be prepared to integrate with the progress of the revitalization, specifically the Mosaic Plan. Chief Johnson explained that part of an officer’s unobligated time, usually around 30% to 35% of their 12-hour workday, comes after completing tasks they cannot control, such as radio calls, administrative assignments, and daily responsibilities. Chief Johnson explained that when there are fewer officers available to handle 911 calls and other critical tasks, the overall unobligated time for the group of patrol officers decreases. Chief Johnson hopes that as staffing levels improve and they can increase the number of officers in a patrol platoon, they will see more unobligated time. This will allow the sergeant and the master corporals to ensure that officers are getting out to locations and making connections that constituents would like to see. Chief Johnson emphasized that they are aware of this need and are committed to addressing it. Page 174

Item #6. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF April 8, 2024 PAGE 7 ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 25, 2024 The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of March 25, 2024, were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Mr. Boggerty, and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen. COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT – MARCH 26, 2024 The Council Committee of the Whole met on March 26, 2024, at 6:01 p.m. with Council President Hare presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson, Ms. Arndt, Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Neil, Dr. Pillsbury (via WebEx), Mr. Rocha (via WebEx), and Mr. Sudler. Mayor Christiansen was also present. Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Mr. Shevock (via WebEx) and Ms. Smith (Legislative, Finance, and Administration). Dr. Jackson-Short and Ms. Vonderlear Smack (Safety, Advisory, and Transportation) were absent. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Ms. Arndt and unanimously carried. SAFETY, ADVISORY, AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE The Safety, Advisory, and Transportation Committee met with Chairman Lewis presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Concerns with Trash Dumping in Lincoln Park (Councilman Sudler) Councilman Sudler reviewed the background regarding the trash dumping complaints in Lincoln Park. Committee Action Not Required. Mr. Eddie Kopp, Chief Code Enforcement Officer explained that trash dumping is an ongoing issue in Lincoln Park, and he is working with the property managers when the trash is on the property. Mr. Kopp stated that one of the issues with the particular property is that the trash is not always dumped on the property; at times, it has been placed in the middle of the right of way. Therefore, public works must go out and pick it up as soon as possible. He explained that there are active cases open regarding the property, and most recently, he has seen trash on the inside of the fence as well as the outside. Mr. Kopp explained that the biggest problem around the city is that once one piece of trash is put out, it triggers everyone to pile more trash up as well. He stated that he dealt with a similar situation in The Hamlet where someone placed a couch outside and then within hours there was a whole house sitting next to the couch. Mr. Kopp stated that no dumping signs have been placed in the area, and he has reached out to the Page 175

Item #6. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 8, 2024 PAGE 8 property manager, which is Dover Housing Authority. They were going out every couple of days to pick up the trash, but they cannot keep up with the dumping. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Kopp stated that he has recommended putting cameras out and moving the fence but there is nothing in the code that allows him to force them to make the changes. He explained that the city has installed signs, and they are trying to be proactive with enforcement but in his opinion, the cameras will not deter the dumping. He believes the best solution would be to move the fence closer to the property line so that there is no longer a small area of grass that can be utilized for dumping. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mayor Christiansen stated that he would arrange a meeting with Dover Housing Authority and Mr. Kopp to discuss coming up with a solution to possibly move the fence. Mr. Anderson expressed appreciation for Mr. Kopp and his code enforcement team. Mr. Anderson suggested the possibility of holding a neighborhood meeting for people who may be willing to share with the police department information such as ring camera footage. Mr. Anderson also suggested partnering with DNREC, which has a program to set up hidden cameras to help aid in the catching of those dumping in the area. Ms. Arndt explained that clearly, the area has been a longstanding dump site because even on Google Maps there is trash in the photo. Ms. Arndt questioned if putting up flyers in the neighborhood would be beneficial in letting them know that the city is taking a stand and is going to find out who is doing the dumping and enforce the penalties associated. Ms. Smith suggested posting signs offering a reward for information regarding who is dumping the trash. Mr. Lewis stated that he would forward to Mr. Kopp the information he was given regarding the hidden camera program from DNREC. Mr. Lewis explained that they would be willing to collaborate with the city and it would be at no cost to the city. Mr. Lewis stated the only issue he could foresee is that if the individuals dumping walk from down the street rather than pull up in a vehicle to the site may be hard to identify unless they can get a clear picture of their facial features to post on the police department website. Mr. Kopp reiterated that code enforcement's goal is to get it cleaned up, however, they cannot pursue the individuals dumping it. Mr. Lewis stated that Mr. Kopp could be the contact person who collaborates with the police department to assist in getting the people involved identified and to file charges. Page 176

Item #6. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF April 8, 2024 PAGE 9 Mr. Kopp explained that he reaches out to DNREC regularly because items like tires, hazardous waste, and oil must be referred to them. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend approving that the Chief of the Dover Police Department and code enforcement collaborate on the issue of cameras and enforcement of the policies to start the discussion. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Sudler and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Legislative Update on Public Safety Legislation (Chief Johnson, Dover Police Chief) Chief Johnson reviewed the background regarding the public safety legislation. Committee Action Not Required. Chief Thomas Johnson, Dover Police Department reviewed House Bill No. 115 – Civil Asset Forfeiture (Attachment #1). Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Chief Johnson stated that in their last meeting, the Special Law Enforcement Assistance Fund (SLEAF), with his abstention, allocated him $45,000 towards replacement night vision goggles for the Special Operations Response Team. He explained that in low-light situations the goggles make it easier for the entry officers to distinguish between a threat and the innocent. Chief Johnson stated that the current equipment is about 15 years old, it is outdated, breaking, and in need of being upgraded. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Chief Johnson stated that they have noticed that a lot of legislation seems to be implementing changes if five or ten other states have done the same. He explained that he is not aware of a large or moderate-sized asset forfeiture situation that would be a good example of the necessity of such. Chief Johnson questioned where the justification in Delaware is. Jeff Horvath, Executive Director of the Delaware Association of Chiefs of Police stated that SLEAF has been under attack before. One example was when an agency in Mississippi seized a farm that had been in a family for a hundred years because the son was using it to make drugs. Mr. Horvath stated that in Delaware, it would not have been seized unless they could show that the property was being used to run an entire drug organization. He stated that when that state makes a change, then legislators propose the same change. Mr. Horvath stated that the Office of Defense Services and the Public Defender's Office are much more aggressive than in past years. Mr. Horvath explained that a lot of agencies use the funds to upgrade technology, provide crucial training to homicide detectives in the State of Delaware among other training, and provide the required sixteen hours of training for the Chiefs. Page 177

Item #6. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 8, 2024 PAGE 10 Mr. Neil requested that Chief Johnson provide council with the areas with which he is most concerned so that they could reach out to members of the General Assembly and point out the areas of interest. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Chief Johnson stated that there is a perception that other police departments are going over the top with asset seizures because they are using them to fund the police department or make it easier for councils to not have to allocate as much of the taxpayer dollars to the police department. He explained that the basic core services are not funded by SLEAF. Chief Johnson explained that currently, the General Assembly has control over what happens with seized assets rather than relying on the Attorney General's Office and their oversight. The person who will chair the meeting is the State Prosecutor as the designee of the Attorney General and perhaps some feel that the money should be invested in other areas or at the very least be debated before the budget. There is no guarantee that SLEAF will get any allocation from the state budget as it is written currently. Chief Johnson reviewed the proposed Senate Bill – Law Enforcement Quotas (Attachment #2). Responding to Mayor Christiansen, Chief Johnson stated that there are management formulas that look at productivity. For example, if they were to look at parking tickets and everyone's productivity, there is a formula that says to take the average of all the officers, and everyone that is at least 75% of the average number is in the bottom portion for acceptable productivity. Anyone that fell short of that shows that they did not meet the standard of what their productivity should have been. Responding to Mayor Christiansen, Mr. Horvath stated that the current bill as proposed is poorly written. As it is written, an officer not being dispatched to a complaint or investigation could do nothing at all and the chief would have a hard time disciplining him, managing him, or directing him. Mr. Horvath explained that there was a conversation explaining that was not the intent, but he believes that it needs to be clarified. Chief Johnson reviewed House Substitute No.2 for House Bill No.55 – Individuals who are Homeless (Attachment #3). Responding to Mr. Anderson, Chief Johnson stated that the only way that he could have an impact on an individual is if they were within the footage strictly carved out by the code governing sex offenders upon their release. They would have free roam of the streets up to the distances prescribed by the law regarding daycares, schools, and protected institutions. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Chief Johnson stated that he could do nothing if they set up in front of a house in a residential neighborhood. Page 178

Item #6. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF April 8, 2024 PAGE 11 Responding to Mr. Anderson, Chief Johnson stated that he believes that a parking garage would be included as a public area. For example, the parking garage that is under construction for the courts would be public because it uses taxpayer money and is on government land. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Chief Johnson explained that the park ordinance would apply to everyone so they would have to leave if they were visible. However, if you take them out of a parked car and put them behind a tree line where they cannot be seen, then they would have to discover them to address the issue. Mr. Horvath stated that line 103 states “A political subdivision of the state may not adopt any policy including a law ordinance or regulation contrary to subject subsection A, which allows them to occupy public land”. He explained that the city ordinance telling them that they could not be in Silver Lake Park after dark would be invalid because of the bill. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Chief Johnson explained that the bill does not address any one specific behavior, but rather refers to other parts of the code as far as the violation of any particular law. Chief Johnson stated that Seaford attempted to adopt an ordinance to address the individuals walking up and down the medians and obstructing the view of drivers in high-volume intersections. Chief Johnson stated that they are visual obstructions, soliciting, and they are a risk to themselves and a hazard to the free flow of traffic. However, the Attorney General’s Office and the state squashed Seaford's ability to follow through on the ordinance on the grounds of the First Amendment and the individual's right to solicit financial assistance in a public space. Chief Johnson emphasized that the state is not on the same page as the City. An example of that is the current issue of the state not wanting to enforce their own no trespassing signs on state property where people are setting up residences in tents and other mediums within the city. Mr. Sudler asked Chief Johnson to provide council with the key points from the Seaford ordinance so that they may draft language that may help the state level see their viewpoint and what they are confronted with. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Kopp stated that a car would not constitute a dwelling. Mr. Kopp explained that in the 1970’s, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) adopted a code that created the standards that transitioned mobile homes into manufactured homes. For example, a shed is not a dwelling, it is an accessory structure. Mr. Kopp explained that an RV or car as stated in the building code is a vehicle, it may be their home, but it is not a dwelling, and it would not fall under the building code. Ms. Smith recommended looking at what other cities the size of Dover are doing in terms of their policies and legislation. Ms. Smith stated that Seattle has an enormous homeless problem and recommended looking at what they are doing to address the issues. Page 179

Item #6. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 8, 2024 PAGE 12 Mr. Anderson moved to recommend instructing staff to give extreme concern on the measures to the lobbyists with the DLLG and that staff prepare a draft letter on each of the issues for circulation so that members of council can give their input and express their opinion. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler. Mayor Christiansen asked that the letters be prepared in the next seven to ten days so that approval can be obtained before the state is back in session. Mr. Anderson moved to recommend instructing staff to give extreme concern on the measures to the lobbyists with the DLLG and that staff prepare a draft letter on each of the issues for circulation so that members of council can give their input and express their opinion within the next seven to ten days. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Sudler and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Lewis moved for adjournment of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 7:34 p.m. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met with Chairman Anderson presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Boggerty moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried. Evaluation of Bids – College Road Concrete & Steel (Paul Waddell, Electric Director) Mr. Paul Waddell, Electric Director reviewed the background and analysis regarding the College Road concrete and steel bid. Staff recommended awarding the contract to AUI for RFP#24-0023EL, for $133,405.86. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Waddell stated that with the demolition of McKee Run, they are having to relocate the functionality of some of the equipment because the switchyard is going away. Therefore, they are moving some of the equipment over to the College Road substation. Mr. Waddell stated that the location is behind the McKee water tower. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Waddell stated that AUI is out of Maryland. Page 180

Item #6. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF April 8, 2024 PAGE 13 Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Waddell explained that they are seeing the same non-responsiveness to bids. Mr. Waddell stated that some of the reasons they have not heard from contractors are that they do not have the people to do the work, it is not the scope of work they want to do, and they would like to have the opportunity to do larger jobs. Mr. Waddell stated that these are only concrete pads and some steel work and for some contractors, it is not a big enough job. Mr. Hare moved to recommend accepting the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Sudler and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Proposed Ordinance #2024-08 – Amending Appendix C – Downtown Redevelopment, Article II – Definitions, Section 4 – Target Area (David S. Hugg, III, City Manager) Mr. David S. Hugg, III, City Manager reviewed the background to the proposed ordinance #2024-08. Staff recommended approval of Ordinance #2024-08. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hugg stated that the 14 acres include two banks, City Hall, the library, the old post office, and Treadway Towers. The properties included become eligible for both state housing and Downtown Development District incentives, and after adoption, they are eligible for the Downtown City incentives. The projects could potentially include 30 new apartments as well as retail shops at the old post office site, and restaurant redevelopment in Treadway Towers. Mr. Hugg also stated that the city's Downtown Development District program is up for renewal, and they are working with a consultant to create the district that will include areas in multiple directions that will have to come back before council. Mr. Hare moved to recommend accepting the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Sudler and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Anderson moved for adjournment of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 7:43 p.m. Mr. Hare moved for adjournment of the Council Committee of the Whole meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 7:43 p.m. Page 181

Item #6. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 8, 2024 PAGE 14 By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Sudler and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. MONTHLY REPORTS – February 2024 By motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Mr. Sudler, the following monthly reports were accepted by consent agenda. City Council’s Community Enhancement Fund Report City Manager’s Report Controller/Treasurer’s Budget Report Fire Chief’s Report Police Chief's Report FIRST READING PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2024-08 – AMENDING APPENDIX C – DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT, ARTICLE II – DEFINITIONS, SECTION 4. – TARGET AREA (DAVID S. HUGG, III, CITY MANAGER) Mr. Hugg briefed the members on the Proposed Ordinance #2024-08 – Amending Appendix C – Downtown Redevelopment, Article II – Definitions, Section 4. – Target Area (David S. Hugg, III, City Manager) In accordance with Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of the proposed Ordinance as read by the City Clerk, by title only, as follows: ORDINANCE #2024-08 – AMENDING APPENDIX C – DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT, ARTICLE II – DEFINITIONS, SECTION 4. – TARGET AREA FINAL READING PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2024-02 – AMENDING CHAPTER 106 – TRAFFIC AND VEHICLES, SEC. 106-136 – ON-STREET PARKING (COUNCILMAN NEIL AND COUNCILWOMAN ARNDT) Mr. Neil moved that the Final Reading of the proposed ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Ms. Arndt, and unanimously carried. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Lewis stated that it was brought to his attention by an 87-year-old constituent who lives in the Second District, owns a home with a detached garage, and suffers from severe mobility conditions. It is easier for him to walk in front of his house where he currently has an official handicap parking space. Mr. Lewis asked how that was going to affect him and what kind of resolution do they proposed. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Neil stated that according to the ordinance, the current arrangement will continue until the authorization of his placard ends. After that, the situation will be reassessed. Mr. Neil expressed hope that they would be open to this arrangement because the constituent has a legitimate need, as evidenced by his previous requests for a wheelchair ramp. The location of the wheelchair ramp, whether it exits or enters, would determine whether the person would use the driveway leading up to it or approach from the street if that is where the entrance to the ramp is located. Mr. Neil emphasized that the current arrangement would remain in place until the placard expires. He clarified that this change ensures that the constituent will not lose his parking spot at this time. Page 182

Item #6. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF April 8, 2024 PAGE 15 Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Neil stated that the situation should be taken into consideration. He emphasized the need to trust the city staff and their credibility, stating that he does not foresee the city suddenly becoming overly strict and authoritarian. He expressed hope that this would not be the case. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Neil stated that it was true that the amendment that Mr. Anderson and Ms. Arndt agreed to, had been incorporated into the ordinance. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Rocha stated that since Mr. Lewis referred to the age of the person in question, he believes that at DelDOT, if a person is over a certain age, they are entitled to a placard that does not expire. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Lewis stated that he was referring to the parking space, not the placard because the placard is good for three (3) years. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Duca explained that the Public Works Department keeps information on each placard to track their expiration dates. They contact homeowners to update records before repainting the spots regularly. All this information is tracked in a GIS system to monitor spots throughout the city. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Duca stated that was correct and that she recommends that the constituent bring their special situation to Public Works’ attention on their property so that they are aware of it upfront. By motion of Mr. Anderson, seconded by Mr. Neil, Council, by a roll call vote of eight (8) yes (Anderson, Boggerty, Neil, Pillsbury, Arndt, Rocha, Sudler, and Hare), and one (1) no (Lewis), adopted Ordinance #2024-02 as follows: BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: That Chapter 106 – TRAFFIC AND VEHICLES, Article III – STOPPING, STANDING AND PARKING, be amended to read as follows: Section 106-136 – On-street accessible parking On-street accessible parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with the following regulations: (1) ANSI. Requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for Passenger Loading Zones are to be met. (2) Signs, markings. The city will provide necessary signs and markings, including installation at the city’s cost. (3) Curb ramp. If a curb ramp is required to provide access from the road to the sidewalk, the party making the request shall provide labor and materials to Page 183

Item #6. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 8, 2024 PAGE 16 complete the work. All costs of the ramp installation will be the responsibility of the party making the request. All work shall be done in accordance with city standards. (4) Private property. All work on private property will be the responsibility of the property owner. (5) State roads. On state-maintained roads, approval for any required curb depression must be obtained from the department of transportation. (6) On-site spaces. On-street accessible parking spaces shall not be provided in lieu of any required on-site accessible spaces. (7) No more than one parking space on public property shall be set aside, identified, or otherwise reserved for use by a person with disabilities who is a City resident and who has available for his/her use a driveway, parking pad, or other type of off-street parking space or private garage, on the premises of his/her residence or within 200 feet of his/her residence that provides at least the same proximity for such resident to his/her residence as the proposed parking space on public property would provide. Proof of two current department of motor vehicles disabled parking permits is required. Failure of an applicant to disclose the foregoing information to the Public Works Department shall constitute grounds for disapproval or nonrenewal of reserved parking spaces on public property. Any citizen who wishes a review of a disposal or nonrenewal based upon disability concerns shall be allowed a review by the city ADA Coordinator or city manager designee. This provision also applies to all renewal applications.Disabled parking spaces on public streets and parking lots are for public use for valid placarded vehicles, not for personal or private use. ADOPTED: April 8, 2024 CITY MANAGER'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Hugg had no announcements. MAYOR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Christiansen stated that the NASCAR races are coming up on April 26th, 27th, and 28th, and they are going to have a lot of new events, for both race car enthusiasts and local fans. Mayor Christiansen further stated that on May 3rd, there is a concert and fireworks on Legislative Mall, kicking off the Dover Days Festival, which is on May 4th. Mr. Christiansen said that the Dover Air Force Base Airshow will be held on May 17th, 18th, and 19th. COUNCIL MEMBERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Boggerty stated that the podcast with Councilman Andre Boggerty, Dover and Beyond was officially launched. He invited everyone to visit his Facebook page, his personal page, and his councilman page, as the podcast is publicly available Mr. Boggerty explained that his first interviewee was Councilman Anderson, discussing the budget, and that was part one. Mr. Page 184

Item #6. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF April 8, 2024 PAGE 17 Boggerty stated that June 29th will be his Unity Day at Williams Park, and this year they are focused on anti-bullying. Mr. Boggerty expressed excitement about partnering with various organizations at the state and corporate levels who will help sponsor this year's event. The meeting adjourned at 8:31p.m. ANDRIA BENNETT CITY CLERK All ordinances, resolutions, motions, and orders adopted by the City Council during their Regular Meeting of April 8, 2024, are hereby approved. ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN MAYOR /AB Exhibits Exhibit #1 - 2023 Police Department’s Annual Report Executive Summary Page 185

EXHIBIT #1 Regular City Council Meeting of 04/08/2024 Item #6. Dover Police Department Professionalism Integrity Courage 2023 ANNUAL REPORT Page 186

Item #6. Division Commanders Captains of Police Captain Randy Robbins Captain Kevin Kober Captain Aaron Dickinson Office of Professional Operations Division Administrative Division Standards Commander Commander Commander Page 187

Item #6.  Civilian Administrative Staff Matthew Carey Robin Adkinsr Frank Grosso Emily Waldridge Christopher Menge Page 188

Item #6. AGENCY SUPPORT SPECIALISTS Critical Non-sworn Roles and Role-players: The LAN/IT Team is complimented by our Analyst, Mr. Alex Hassman. Mr. Vance Schaeffer is our Building Craftsman. The Evidence Technician is Mrs. Amanda Bekka. Mr. Collin Chesley in our Police Cadet. The GVI Analyst is Mr. Tim Stump. Mr. Andrew Morris & Mr. James Stubbs - Sex Offender Agents. The Emergency Communications Unit includes Mr. Donald Stiller, Mrs. Patricia Mazzola, Mr. Connor Logan, Mr. Lee Jackson, Miss Denae Jackson, Mr. Matthew Heitmann, Mr. Matthew Hawkins, Mr. Mark Hall, Mr. Donald Edwards, Miss Kayla Duncanson, Mr. Chad Davis, Mr. Nicholas Cathell, and Miss Mackenzie Atkinson. The Police Records Unit team includes Ms. Lisa Hoffer, Mrs. Brenda Unruh, Mrs. Elizabeth Turner, Mrs. Jill Ridgeway and Miss Jenna Ridgeway. Page 189 Mrs. Rebecca McNamara is the Office Administrator and Assistant to the Chief of Police.

Item #6. Victim Services Coordinator Ms. Diane Glenn retired - 30 years service Ms. Casey Wilson joined us – 15 years experience Goal = Lessen the trauma + provide support (CJ process) Assist victims through difficult times and decisions Services provided depends upon individual needs Death notifications * Crisis Intervention Criminal Justice Updates * Court Accompaniment Assistance with violent crime compensation Victim Services Unit Page 190

Item #6. Client Services - 2023 Total Victims Served 427 Existing Victims Served 113 Age/Gender/Ethnicity - 2023 New Victims Served 314 250 210 216 Call Outs 19 200 165 137 150 98 Victims Compensation… 45 100 52 10 8 34 10 Crisis Intervention 50 2 0 127 0 Phone Contacts 322 Personal Contact 102 Social Service Referrels 134 Criminal Justice Info 992 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Victim Services Unit Page 191

Item #6. TIME DISTRIBUTION, HOURS 2021 2022 2023 Criminal Investigation Productivity 28,969.00 30,916.50 31,855.90 Administrative 39,668.25 47,390.25 44,957.25 Interview 1,389 1,021.00 870.00 Evidence Processing 2,777.75 2,616.50 1,963.50 of Special Duty 10,554.50 10,114.00 7,479.50 Meeting 3,674.00 4,316.00 4,083.50 Assist Other Agency 4,234.00 4,608.50 6,431.00 Sworn Training 21,074.50 16,858.00 25,377.00 Collision Investigation 3,045.75 2,696.00 2,844.00 Patrol 22,695.75 26,243.50 26,232.50 Officers Traffic Enforcement 4,736.00 3,096.00 2,765.50 Traffic Control 1,385.50 947.50 720.50 Community Service 3,558.50 4,150.00 3,295.50 Intelligence 1,523.75 840.50 572.80 Arrest Processing 1,306.75 1,343.00 1,330.90 Court 2,336.50 2,715.50 2,938.50 Transport 1,580.50 2,060.50 1,061.00 Equipment Maintenance 3,920.25 4,527.00 4,085.00 Total on Duty 158,430.25 166,460.25 168,863.85 Page 192

Item #6. Patrol Unit Commander Directs Four (4) Uniform Patrol Platoons Supervisor of the Mobile Field Force Unit Patrol engages most of the Calls for Service Patrol engages most of the Emergency Calls Patrol handles most of the Prisoner Transports 1,324 Calls for Shoplifting 1,969 Calls for Domestic Situations 2,464 Calls for Violent Crimes 1,873 Property Crimes Lt. Paul Kuntzi 35 Crime-related Firearms recovered 45 Overdose Interventions with Narcan Page 193

Item #6. Patrol Unit is the Backbone! High-Risk Traffic and Pedestrian Stops Emergency First-Aid Procedures Time-sensitive Rescue Efforts Crime Scene/Evidence Preservation Crisis Intervention Techniques Active Assailant Response Page 194

Item #6. Patrol Unit is the Backbone! DUI Recognition Together with many other worthy recipients, Officer Anthony Valenti was honored with the Outstanding Service Award at the Delaware Office of Highway Safety / Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) awards ceremony held in Dewey Beach on November 2, 2023. Officer Valenti is a veteran Delaware Law Enforcement Officer who has been serving with the Dover Police Department since January 9, 2023. In his first year of service with us he arrested a total of 14 individuals for Driving Under the Influence and was the consensus choice of the staff for this honor. Officer Valenti is a credentialed Drug Recognition Expert who provides training on driving under the influence to recruits at both the Dover Municipal and State of Delaware Police Academies. Page 195

Patrol Unit – Collision Data Item #6. One of the most common calls for service – Traffic Safety remains a high priority for the Department Investigated 2,288 traffic collisions - 553 injuries - impairment in 76 – Five (5) people lost their lives Serious incidents - specially trained staff - Accident Reconstructionist - Special equipment MCpl. Derrick Mast Cpl. Kody Frye Page 196 MCpl. Brian Wood Cpl. Melissa Ragona

Patrol Unit – Control Tactics Item #6. Certified Police Control Tactics Instructor Methodologies: Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, Judo, and Thai Kickboxing Helps to develop/enhance Departmental policies Involved in analysis and training program updates Blends Control Tactics with other “less than lethal” techniques to preserve life and reduce injuries The instructor team includes: Sgt. Christopher Bumgarner, MCpl. Willie Johnson, Cpl. Brandyn Clancy, Cpl. Logan Spicer, Cpl. Thomas Rivera, Cpl. David Spence, Cpl. Craig Mitchell, Cpl. Alvin Hudson, PFC Joshua Hebert, PFC Jordan Marucci, and PFC Anthony Slaughter. PFC Diego Zamora Page 197

OIS / LIFESAVING AWARD Item #6. June 11, Ptwm. Finnegan responded to a trespassing call Unknown info – escalated to a domestic violence incident She finds aggressive suspect with a firearm - Call for help PFC Seibert – 1st Backup on scene – Others still coming Suspect fired a shot / took hostages / attempt to barricade in the house An officer-involved shooting occurred to rescue/protect hostages – 1 round (Seibert) Suspect seriously wounded – Officers provided First Aid - PFC Seibert’s trauma kit After placing tourniquets - Continued medical assistance - on scene/in the ambulance Suspect survived the incident – Charges are still pending – AG cleared PFC Seibert Sgt. Jeffrey Gott Page 198 PFC Brittney Finnegan PFC Samuel Seibert Ptlm. Anthony Weedon PFC Jake Shepherd Ptlm. Anthony Valenti

Item #6. Years 2022 2023 Total Calls Processed 41,421 43,045 Crime Report Required 9,684 10,142 Calls for Service Total Misc. Service Calls 12,711 12,749 Property Checks 2,892 3,385 Communication Alarms Community Assist 2,135 1,324 1,939 957 Center Megan’s Law Activity 1,094 1,021 Traffic Enforcement 692 1,100 Property Retrieval Assist 928 878 Assist Other Agency 879 836 Loud Noise 427 594 Psychiatric 412 546 Shots Fired 160 136 Page 199

Item #6. Investigations Unit Commander Directs Criminal Investigations Unit Directs Crime Scene Unit Directs Drug, Vice, Organized Crime Unit Directs Street Crimes Unit Responsible for Task Force Officers Responsible for Sex Offender Agents Lt. Robert Roswell Monitors the functionality of GVI Page 200

Item #6. Investigations Unit is the “nerve center” * Investigate the most serious and violent crimes * Financial and identity theft investigations * Perform background investigations. * Liaison with other Investigative Agencies Page 201

Investigations Unit – Criminal Item #6. 2021 2022 2023 Shootings 47 40 46 (63% clearance rate) Robberies 20 21 26 (85% clearance rate) Burglaries 44 25 55 (75% clearance rate) Homicides 4 3 2 (100% clearance rate) Page 202

Investigations Unit - Shootings Item #6. Shootings 2022 2023 Total confirmed shots fired 60 55 Reports 40 46 Injury Sustained 22 11 Property Damage/Misc. 18 35 Clearance Rate 68% 63% A review of shootings in 2023 revealed a reduction in shots fired, 55 down from 60. Those 55 calls resulted in 46 reportable crimes, up from 40 in 2022. Within those 46 crimes, only 11 were human wounds, down from 22. Conversely, 35 of 46 crime reports involved property damage, up from 18. Page 203

Investigations Unit – Major Case Item #6. December 14, 2023 - 911 Call Homicide – Ann Avenue Ambush shooting – Third in 12 days 4 Victims – All random Evidence – Interviews – Technology Vehicle Identified in less than 16 hours Suspect Identified in less than 24 hours December 15, 2023 – Suspect in custody Exceptional Performance – Page 27 Page 204

Investigations Unit – DVOC Item #6. 2022 2023 Dover DVOC and Street Crimes Units Marijuana (Grams) 23,341.13 23,752.48 continue to focus their efforts on Cocaine (Grams) 1,945.82 13,646.99 gang investigations and Heroin (Grams) 126.26 1,101.02 arresting violent offenders. Ecstasy (Doses) 294.16 2,282.5 Their investigations lead to the arrest of Prescription Pills 1,976.75 60.5 major drug dealers and individuals Methamphetamine (Grams) 5,689 2,801 illegally possessing firearms. Fentanyl (Grams) 455.31 9,415.56 Firearms 134 127 They were responsible for the seizure of 127 illegal firearms last year. Currency $151,419 $163,347 Case Total 1,679 943 Page 205

Item #6. DVOC Unit – Major Case Federal Wiretap: “In the Trenches” March – May New Castle – Kent Cocaine – Crack – Fentanyl Almost 3,500 hours invested Surveillance – Intercepts – Search Warrants Three (3) Dover locations raided Four (4) Defendants Federally Indicted 7.5 kilos of fentanyl - 2.8 kilos of crack 10 kilos of cocaine - 300 grams of meth 300 grams of xylazine - 4 firearms - $91K USC Exceptional Performance - Police Chief’s Page 206

Directs Specialized Item #6. Operational Units Special Enforcement * Community Policing Unit Unit Commander * Behavioral Health Unit * Police Athletic League * “Roy” the Facility Dog * Motorcycle Unit * Youth/School Resource Officers * Police Cadet Program * Parking Enforcement Lt. Jordan Miller * Animal Control/Welfare * Extra Duty / Special Events Page 207

Item #6. Special Enforcement Unit Community Policing Resolve neighborhood/community issues Community outreach events Build relationships between police & community Neighborhood watch – Civic organizations PAL / BHU / Roy / Cadets – Quality of Life issues Page 208

Item #6. Community Community Events Policing Coffee With a Cop – Hometown Holiday event Habitat for Humanity projects NeighborGood Partners activities initiatives of Tracy Palmer Ministries Event Coordination Hometown Holiday on the Mall Faith and Blue Weekend in October Sgt. Jennifer Lynch Operation Gobble in November Shop with a Cop at Dick’s Sporting Goods Page 209 Holiday Heroes at the Dover Target store

School Resource Officers Item #6. Par staffing is Five (5) veteran Police Officers (specially trained) Build relationships * Counseling/Mentorship * Safety/Security Service to: Dover High School, Dover Middle School, Parkway Academy, Kent County Secondary ILC, and liaison to: all Elementary Schools, Holy Cross (Pre K-8), Campus Community (K-8) Charter and the Academy of Dover (K-8) Charter Schools. Preventing juvenile delinquency as well as providing a safe learning environment. Community Policing Youth Unit Page 210

Item #6. Community Policing Police Athletic League State Fire School Washington D.C. Capital School District Football Combine First long-distance Field Trip 21st Century Program Day in Their Boots Museum Visits In School CPR/AED/FA Education Youth Academy Government Buildings After School Basketball/Bike Safety Mission/Goal – Provide Educational & Recreational opportunities - Mentoring Page 211 Thank You Corporal Anthony Smith – PAL Board of Directors – Program Supporters

Item #6. Dover Police & Dover Behavioral Health Funded – State of Delaware & CJC Grant CPU Officer + Clinical Field Partner Mental Health or Substance Abuse CFS University of Delaware Comprehensive Opioid, Stimulant and Substance Abuse Program (Data) BHU attempted to aid 628 people with 271 successes (Up from 211 & 92 in 2022) Prevention – Emergency Response – Follow Up – Education – Break Down Barriers Community Policing Behavioral Health Unit Page 212

Item #6. EXCEPTIONAL PERFORMANCE AWARD Cpl. Cliff Figueroa Cpl. Nathaniel Weir Ptlm. Tevin Thomas Corporal Figueroa, Corporal Weir & Patrolman Thomas responded to a suicidal subject. Upon arrival - no answer - able to gain access - observed erratic behavior from the subject. Officers made a tactical entry - able to remove a large butcher knife from in front the subject. After a struggle - less lethal option - able to remove additional knives from the subject’s hands. Subject sustained a large head laceration - immediately treated by the officers. Most likely stopped a military veteran from taking his own life - compassion and dignity. Page 213

Item #6. Community Policing Facility Canine “Roy” Human partner is Corporal Lee Killen Community relations to emotional relief after incidents involving tragic circumstances Customers – Residents – Students Dover Library “story time” Supports the Community Response Vehicle Habitat for Humanity chose to honor Corporal Lee Killen (and of course Roy) Stress Management – Officers & Staff with their Honorary Habitat Hero Award. Page 214

Item #6. Special Enforcement Motor Unit Sergeant Ian Thompson Ongoing Traffic Safety Mission Major role - Ceremonies and Parades Support Patrol & other Special Units Support Community Events Funeral Escorts – Presidential Escort Delivered Annual Motor School Folded Down in October – Staffing Partial return – late Spring 2024 Full return – late Summer 2024 Page 215

Item #6. DANGEROUS MOVING VIOLATIONS 2022 2023 % Change DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE 166 162 -2% SPEEDING 385 654 70% STOP SIGN 102 149 46% CARELESS OR INATTENTIVE DRIVING 438 463 6% OTHER DANGEROUS MOVING VIOLATIONS 758 768 1% SUBTOTAL 1,849 2,196 19% Traffic LICENSE & REGISTRATION VIOLATIONS 2,255 2,625 16% Enforcement OTHER VIOLATIONS Summary SEATBELT VIOLATIONS 54 64 19% CHILD RESTRAINT VIOLATIONS 16 26 63% USE OF CELL PHONE WHILE DRIVING 47 50 6% ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS 2,026 2,193 8% SUBTOTAL 2,143 2,333 9% CIVIL RED LIGHT 11,295 10,238 -9% GRAND TOTAL 17,542 17,392 -1% Page 216

Item #6. Lieutenant Derek Lawson Lieutenant Kevin Streadwick Administrative Unit Commander Internal Affairs Commander Responsible for the Vehicle Fleet Internal Administrative Investigations Supervises the Police Facility Use of Force review process & the Building Craftsperson Personnel Early Warning System Resource Supervisor for the Addressing Citizen Complaints Public Information Officer of Misconduct Central Services Coordinator Role Professional Standards Inspections Page 217

Item #6. o Training, Recruitment, and Applicant Testing o Ensures compliance with the standards • Police Officer Standards & Training (POST) • Commission on Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) • Departmental Policies - Federal mandates o Supports the Dover Municipal Police Academy – instruction/physical fitness tests Planning & o Host essential training courses o Coordinate attendance to schools/external training Training Unit o Onboarding & Field Training Program o Recruit qualified and diverse applicants Page 218

Item #6. 7 police officers hired 15 civilians hired 771 civilian training hours 10,944 officer training hours Planning & 180 ride-along hours Training Unit 35th Citizen Police Academy Page 219

LIFESAVING AWARD Item #6. On October 30, 2023, platoon Officers responded to an unresponsive subject. Officers found the subject in a confined space – hinder medics – extracted Subject had no pulse – Officers began chest compressions – set up an AED Officers began moving furniture - took turns with CPR/BVM - delivered initial shock Officers interviewed family - passed along medication - other pertinent information PFC Max Alderson Ptlm. Anthony Weedon Dedication – Teamwork – Knowledge – Response time – early application of AED Page 220 PFC Brittney Finnegan PFC Samuel Seibert PFC David Spence Ptlm. Phillip Nelson Ptlm. Anthony Valenti

Item #6. Class #5 Delivered two separate sessions during the year Certified 40 new Officers from 10 police agencies Certified 12 Reciprocity Candidates Academy coordination passed from MCpl. Justin Richey to Corporal Willie Johnson Staff Instructors include Corporal Alvin Hudson PFC Siobhan Burton & Corporal Anthony Smith Class #6 Dover Municipal Police Academy Page 221

Item #6. LIFESAVING AWARD PFC Joshua Hebert PFC Kevin Bottomley PFC Anthony Slaughter On December 8th Patrolmen First Class Bottomley, Hebert & Slaughter responded to a shooting. Found victim laying on the sidewalk - immediately began evaluating injuries Discovered two gunshot wounds - placed chest seals on the injuries Relied on their medical training - placed the victim in the recovery position Quick decisions - Communication - Teamwork Page 222

Item #6. CIVILIAN / OFFICER OF THE YEAR Mrs. Elizabeth Turner PFC Samuel Seibert Page 223

Item #6. New Sworn Officers Ptlm. Tyshaun Cole Ptlm. Kevin Bottomley Patrolman Patrolman Patrolman Patrolman Patrolman Patrolman Ryan Dellerba Jean Jacques LaFleur Philip Nelson Tevin Thomas Colton Peck Anthony Valenti Page 224 Ptlm. Robert Stevenson Ptlm. Chase Strickland

Item #6. Retired Members Victim Services Captain Sergeant Master Corporal Diane Glenn Christopher Hermance Bernardo Fioravaniti Carlton Turner 30 Years of Service 26 Years of Service 20 Years of Service 21 Years of Service Page 225

Item #6. Questions? Page 226

Item #7. COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE The Council Committee of the Whole met on April 09, 2024, at 6:00 p.m. with Council President Hare presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson, Ms. Arndt, Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Neil, Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Rocha, and Mr. Sudler (arrived at 6:03 p.m.). Mayor Christiansen was absent. Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Mr. Lewis (Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement), Mr. Shevock (via WebEx), and Ms. Smith (Legislative, Finance, and Administration. Mr. Tholstrup (Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement) was absent. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Boggerty and unanimously carried. PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE The Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee met with Chairwoman Arndt presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and unanimously carried. Mayor and Council Reports – March 2024 Council President Hare Council President Hare had no report to give. First District Dr. Pillsbury reported that she attended the St. Patrick’s Day Parade along with the First District Town Hall. Mr. Rocha reported that he facilitated the Unsheltered Working group along with Ms. Arndt. He also worked closely with Dr. Pillsbury and Mr. Boggerty to arrange a meeting for the First District regarding the property at 10 Merion Road in Fox Hall. Mr. Rocha reported that he attended the farewell of Director Eaton, the Governors Outstanding Volunteer Service Awards, and the opening of the Hope Center on Division Street which was opened by the Wilmington Hope Commission. Second District Mr. Lewis had no report to give. Third District Mr. Neil reported that he attended the St. Patrick’s Day Parade along with Dr. Pillsbury, the Delaware League of Local Governments meeting regarding Marijuana, the Governors Outstanding Volunteer Service Awards, the farewell luncheon for Robin Eaton, and the ribbon cutting for Crumbl Cookie. Mr. Neil reported that he requested staff help on several questions dealing with trash at the Valero, signs in a community, and cats in a community based on constituent complaints. Mr. Neil commended Mr. Hugg, Ms. Duca, and Ms. Melson-Williams for their quick Page 227

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING APRIL 09, 2024 PAGE 2 Item #7. response to the complaints. Mr. Neil reported that he sent out a series of alerts regarding the sewer main break, as there were a number of questions that had been received. Finally, Mr. Neil reported that he sent written comments to the legislative bills that were brought to council's attention by Chief Johnson. Ms. Arndt reported that in addition to Councilman Neil's remarks, she also participated in the Governor's Outstanding Volunteer Service Awards. Ms. Arndt commended Mr. Todd Stonesifer, Chair of the Downtown Dover Partnership, on his award and expressed appreciation for all of his efforts on behalf of the city. Ms. Arndt also reported that she attended the most recent Silver Lake Commission meeting where she presented a draft procedure for dedicating city parks. Ms. Arndt stated that the procedure was well received, and she will be working with staff to bring the procedure back to the committee for discussion. Fourth District Mr. Sudler reported that he attended the Delaware League of Local Governments meeting regarding marijuana and CBD regulations. Mr. Sudler stated that it was interesting to hear about the lack of strict regulations on CBD versus marijuana. Mr. Sudler stated that he and Mr. Anderson held a meeting for the Silver Lake residents regarding their concerns about the proposed new zoning and development that could take place in their development. Mr. Sudler also reported that he followed up with constituents' concerns regarding trash dumping in the Lincoln Park area near Simon Circle. Mr. Sudler stated that they met on-site to further hear their concerns. Finally, Mr. Sudler stated that Mr. Anderson, Mr. Lewis, the mayor, the city manager, Commissioner Angel, Representative Phillips, and himself will be meeting regarding House Bill No. 55 and the language concerns within the bill on April 16, 2024. In preparation for their Fourth District Town Hall to be held at Levy Court to bridge a partnership between Mr. Anderson, Commissioner Angel, and himself to address some of the homeless issues around April 26th through the 29th. Mr. Anderson reported that in addition to Councilman Sudler's comments, they have been addressing constituent concerns regarding a local business needing to call the police four times in the last week with complaints of open drug use, and clients and staff being harassed by beggars. A second complaint was received about an individual sleeping in an alley and using the bathroom between trash receptacles on a different street. Also, a complaint was received regarding the use of dirt bikes on the streets again. Mr. Anderson reported that he attended the National League of Cities Congressional Conference, where they discussed several items that he will be able to bring back to staff, as well as some grant opportunities that are not being utilized yet. Finally, Mr. Anderson reported that they are in the process of planning their Fourth District Town Hall. At-Large Mr. Boggerty reported that he attended the meeting with a neighborhood in the first district regarding a home on Merion Court, and they will be holding a follow-up meeting. He is currently planning his Unity Day for June 29, 2024, and the focus will be anti-bullying. Mr. Boggerty reported that he participated in the St. Patrick's Day Parade and has recently launched his podcast which will be called Dover and Beyond with Councilman Boggerty. He explained that the podcast can be found on his personal Facebook page as well as his council Facebook page. Mr. Boggerty thanked Mr. Anderson for being his first guest, and they discussed finances and how the city budget works. He also explained that he was a panelist for the aging population at the Modern Maturity Center and discussed transportation, employment, and how best to support organizations like Meals on Wheels and the Modern Maturity Center, he attended the opening of the Hope Center, and the ribbon cutting of Crumbl Cookie. Finally, Mr. Boggerty reported that the residents of Page 228

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING APRIL 09, 2024 PAGE 3 Item #7. Capital Park had raised concerns about their basketball court. Through collaborative efforts with Senator Paradee and other stakeholders, they successfully had the court repaved, ensuring that the children can now engage in safe and enjoyable playtime. Finally, Mr. Boggerty reported that along with Councilman Sudler, he attended the celebration for all the Dover High School teams. Mayor Christiansen Mayor Christiansen was absent, and no report was. Ms. Arndt moved for adjournment of the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 6:16 p.m. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met with Chairman Anderson presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Anderson requested to move item five (5) on the agenda to item three (3). Mr. Sudler moved for adoption of the agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Boggerty, and unanimously carried. Discussion – The National League of Cities (NLC) Service Line Program for the City of Dover (Dennis Lyon, HomeServe Regional Director Mr. Dennis Lyon, HomeServe Regional Director, reviewed the presentation titled NLC Service Line Warranty Program by HomeServe (Attachment #1). The committee recommended referring to staff for evaluation. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Lyon stated that for each individual incident, such as those occurring on external lines, coverage of up to $8,500 would be provided. Similarly, for incidents within the internal plumbing, homeowners would receive coverage of up to $3,000 for associated costs. Mr. Lyon explained that excluding any royalty or revenue share, the water coverage and service are priced at $5.49 per month, while sewer coverage is priced at $7.49 per month, and in-home plumbing coverage is available for $9.49 per month. The aim is to maintain price points so that individuals who may not be financially equipped to handle such issues can still affordably protect themselves without significant financial strain. Mr. Lyon stated that he could not provide an average cost of services because they vary but he does know that fewer than one percent of their claims exceed the $8,500 threshold. Mr. Lyon explained that the reason for the low percentage is attributed to the vetting of contractors and the utilization of actuarial methods and underwriting to estimate the volume of business they can direct their way. By ensuring contractors are shielded from issues such as homeowners lacking funds or requesting payment plans, they offer them rates typically 15 to 20% lower than those available to the general public. This strategy significantly contributes to keeping the costs down. Mr. Lyon explained that in an instance where the cost exceeds $8,500, the homeowner would be informed before the work began as they would be responsible for the overage. However, the homeowner would pay the overage at the same rate that the contractor bills them. Page 229

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING APRIL 09, 2024 PAGE 4 Item #7. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Mr. Lyon stated that the rate is standardized and that there are no inspections of the home or any questions about the age of the lines or what materials may have been used. Coverage begins after a 30-day waiting period. Mr. Lyon also explained that claims do not count against eligibility, and the rates remain unchanged despite the filing of a claim. Mr. Rocha moved to recommend referral back to staff for evaluation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Lyon explained that their partnership agreement incorporates indemnification clauses to safeguard the partners from any potential civil litigation. Mr. Lyon clarified that they have not experienced any situations where a partner has been involved in a dispute, and precautionary language in the agreement is in place to protect the partners. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Lyon explained that he included a monetary option in the agreements, referred to as a licensing fee. This fee would be set at $5,000 annually for the initial three years of the agreement, totaling $15,000, with the flexibility for the city to utilize these funds as they deem necessary. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Lyon stated that HomeServe selects the most skilled contractors and are deeply committed to community engagement and diversity. Mr. Lyon explained that they embrace and celebrate all aspects of the community. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Lyon stated that they have collaborated with a partner who supplied a list of minority-owned businesses to contact. Mr. Lyon clarified that the partner's familiarity with the community allows for targeted outreach, offering insights on which businesses to prioritize and which ones to avoid. This strategic approach helps ensure the consistent delivery of high- quality service, which is their constant goal. Evaluation of Bids – North Bradford Street Rehabilitation Project (Jason Lyon, Water/Wastewater Director) Mr. Jason Lyon, Water/Wastewater Director, reviewed the background and analysis for the North Bradford Street rehabilitation project. Staff recommended awarding the contract to Sam’s Construction, LLC, for the City of Dover North Bradford Street Rehabilitation Project, Bid #24-0025PW, for the amount of $1,103,390.70. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Lyon stated that Sam’s Construction has done numerous projects on several street programs, and their work has always been adequate. Mr. Lyon explained that they reached out to Sam’s Construction to make sure they understood the bid because there is some uniqueness to it. Mr. Lyon stated that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) has led to a substantial influx of funding nationwide, prompting contractors to submit higher bids in the hope of securing projects and earning a good profit margin. It is possible that George & Lynch may not be well-versed in the new product being utilized for this particular project. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Lyon explained that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), initiated by the Federal Government, is directing funds toward various infrastructure projects such as streets, roads, bridges, and water/wastewater facilities across the country. He noted that the abundance of projects available may contribute to the city receiving fewer bids. Many of these Page 230

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING APRIL 09, 2024 PAGE 5 Item #7. projects are either unique, highly specialized, or relatively straightforward, and contractors are often overwhelmed with their existing workload. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon clarified that the two projects in question were funded by the city and have been continued due to their complexity. He further elaborated that the funds for these projects had to be allocated on an annual basis, indicating that grant money was not involved in the process. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon stated that the money was accounted for in past budgets, which occurred in Fiscal Years 2021 and 2022. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon stated that the majority of grants available are typically geared towards emergent contaminants, water or wastewater projects, and environmental considerations. He pointed out that the current project does not meet the criteria for these grants unless it pertains to improving compliance with the American Disabilities Act (ADA). Mr. Lyon further explained that, as previously discussed, grants can be obtained through the Transportation Alternative Program offered by the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT), although they did not seek funding for the current project. However, they did submit applications for grants to address accessibility issues on State Street by enhancing the sidewalks. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon stated that the different materials being utilized for the project are what make it unique. Instead of the traditional method of cutting out concrete sidewalks and removing nearby trees, which has been a sensitive topic, they are using a more environmentally friendly solution. Mr. Lyon explained that they are utilizing a pervious concrete material for the sidewalks allowing them to preserve the surrounding trees while addressing the issues caused by root growth. Mr. Lyon related the material to that of kinetic sand. Mr. Lyon explained that the public works team does not have the equipment necessary to make a mill and overlay for a project, and the project includes not only the sidewalks being improved but also the curb. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon stated that informally, at various functions, discussions often revolve around comparable projects and the diverse contractors engaged by various municipalities. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Mr. Lyon stated that the project is estimated to span approximately 180 calendar days. Upon approval and finalization of the contractual paperwork, the project is slated to commence in June, with an anticipated completion date of December. Mr. Hare moved to recommend accepting the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried. Proposed Ordinance #2024-07 – Amending Chapter 80 – Personnel, Article IV – Pension Plans and Retirement Benefits, Division 3 – General Employee Pension Plan (Councilman Anderson and Councilwoman Dr. Pillsbury) Mr. Anderson reviewed the background regarding the proposed changes to proposed ordinance #2024-07. Staff recommended approval of proposed Ordinance #2024-07. Page 231

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING APRIL 09, 2024 PAGE 6 Item #7. Dr. Pillsbury moved to recommend renumbering section 80-511 to 80-510 and taking the current section 80-510 and renumbering it to 80-511 with the changes as discussed. Mr. Anderson seconded the motion. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Anderson expressed agreement with the point made regarding the exclusions under the new section 80-510. He acknowledged the importance of carefully examining whether this section is even necessary in its current form. Mr. Anderson emphasized that while the section is part of existing law, it is important to thoroughly review and potentially revise it if needed. He suggested that obtaining a legal opinion on the matter before it is brought to the floor would be a wise decision. Ultimately, Mr. Anderson reiterated his agreement with Dr. Pillsbury on the matter. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Anderson confirmed that they would implement this change first before addressing her next question. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Anderson stated that he is aware of the discussion with the Pension Board where major topics were extensively deliberated upon, with the majority of the board members expressing agreement. However, the recent staff-related change was not brought up during those discussions as it was a suggestion received only the night before this meeting. This proposed alteration is more centered around legal matters brought forth by the Human Resources and Finance Departments. Mr. Anderson emphasized that this aspect does not play a significant role in the current issue at hand. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sudler expressed his understanding of the situation and emphasized the importance of ensuring that all voices and stakeholders have the opportunity to be heard. He proposed moving to open the meeting to allow for a discussion on the topic at hand, specifically regarding the questionnaire. Mr. Sudler suggested suspending the rules to facilitate dialogue and potentially hear from the president or a representative of the pension organization to provide their perspective and address any concerns they may have. He stressed the significance of including the stakeholders who would be impacted by the decision in the discussion before moving forward with a vote. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Anderson affirmed that it was correct to focus solely on the amendment at hand and then open up the discussion regarding the ordinance. Responding to Mr. Hare, Mr. Anderson clarified that the discussion was centered around the Human Resource staff amendment only. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Anderson stated that the proposed change in the law would extend coverage for college students up to the age of 26, aligning with current healthcare regulations. He explained that this adjustment was recommended by the pension committee as an expansion of existing benefits to better accommodate students. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Anderson confirmed that unmarried individuals would be eligible for survivor's benefits, with a spouse being the automatic next beneficiary. If the individual is no longer married due to being completely unmarried, single, divorced, or widowed, then the children would be next in line to receive survivor's benefits for a period of time. Mr. Anderson suggested that if there is any ambiguity regarding the issue at hand, it would be fair to include a definition section in the ordinance to address and clarify any potential confusion before it becomes a problem. Page 232

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING APRIL 09, 2024 PAGE 7 Item #7. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Hare emphasized the importance of clarifying the provisions related to chronic alcoholism, narcotic addiction, and eligibility for disability benefits in cases where individuals are not under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of a work-related injury. He highlighted the distinction between individuals claiming disability solely based on alcoholism or drug addiction versus those who sustain a legitimate injury while sober at work. Mr. Hare also raised the question of eligibility for disability benefits for individuals who take time off to engage in activities in another country, emphasizing the need for a legal opinion on such cases to ensure clear guidelines and avoid any potential misunderstandings in the ordinance. It is essential to address these concerns to provide fair and consistent access to disability benefits for all eligible individuals under the specified circumstances. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Anderson stated that the disability provisions in question pertain to individuals who are vested in the pension plan, regardless of whether their disability is work- related or not. He highlighted that individuals who meet the criterion of being vested in the pension plan and become disabled are eligible for immediate access to the benefits they have accrued through their contributions, without having to wait until a specific age threshold, such as 60 years old. This exception is designed to provide financial support to individuals facing disability challenges, recognizing their vested status in the pension plan. The focus is on enabling individuals to access the funds they have contributed over time to support them during periods of disability. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Anderson explained that the disability exception within the pension plan does not prevent individuals from accessing other forms of financial support like social security benefits, workers' compensation, or short-term disability insurance. These additional resources may still be available to individuals who qualify for them based on their specific circumstances. Mr. Anderson mentioned that there are distinct levels within the pension plan. For instance, after reaching five years, there are benefits that begin to accumulate and grow over time. Contributions made by employees are retained by them, but the portion contributed by the city is not kept if the employee is not vested in the plan. It is important to note that vesting in the pension plan may be subject to specific criteria and timelines, which determine when an individual is entitled to receive their full benefits. Mr. Anderson also invited staff to provide additional insights or clarification on this topic to ensure accurate information is communicated. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Hare provided further insight into potential scenarios involving a lineman who sustains an injury while on the job. Mr. Hare mentioned that if the lineman were to be injured while working on a bucket truck, there is a likelihood that they may seek legal representation and pursue disability benefits. In such cases, it is possible that an agreement or settlement could be reached with regard to the benefits the individual is entitled to based on their contributions and eligibility. Mr. Hare also noted that if the injury occurred off-duty, such as in a car accident, the situation would be handled differently. He concluded by expressing gratitude for the discussion. Responding to Ms. Smith, Mr. Anderson stated that the city is involved in the state plan for healthcare and benefits, recognizing that there may be connections to assist individuals with their state plan. However, he admitted that he is not entirely certain of the details and suggested that the question could be directed to staff for further investigation and clarification. This approach would ensure a more comprehensive understanding of how the city's benefits are intertwined with the state plan and how they can be utilized to support individuals in need. Page 233

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING APRIL 09, 2024 PAGE 8 Item #7. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Dr. Pillsbury explained that the reason for raising the issue was due to the restrictions imposed by HIPAA regulations. As a healthcare provider, Dr. Pillsbury highlighted that there are limitations on disclosing information about a person's specific conditions, such as alcoholism or substance abuse history. Dr. Pillsbury expressed concerns about the broad and general exclusions in the context of these regulations, stating that they could potentially pose significant challenges. In today's environment, Dr. Pillsbury emphasized that such issues could present considerable obstacles and need to be carefully addressed. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Sudler stated that expressed his agreement and elaborated on the importance of addressing chronic alcoholism and mental health issues within the healthcare profession. He emphasized that chronic alcoholism should be viewed as a treatable disease that warrants a comprehensive treatment plan to help individuals become productive members of the organization. Mr. Sudler highlighted the various workplace factors such as burnout and role strain that can contribute to substance use, whether legal or illegal. He emphasized the need for a proactive approach to assessing and addressing mental health issues among organizational citizens. Mr. Sudler proposed utilizing psychometric instruments and anonymous surveys to identifying the need for mental health services and resources for employees. He argued against penalizing individuals with mental health illnesses and stressed the importance of providing benefits to facilitate access to treatment. Mr. Sudler underscored the significance of early intervention and resource allocation to prevent detrimental outcomes for employees, such as losing pensions due to substance abuse issues later in their careers. He concluded by advocating for a proactive and supportive approach to mental health and substance abuse issues in the workplace. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Hare discussed the limitations of mandating alcohol abuse classes or mental health sessions for employees who are effectively fulfilling their job responsibilities without any complaints. He argued that as long as an individual is performing their duties satisfactorily and there are no issues, they should not be compelled to attend such programs. Mr. Hare highlighted the scenario of someone potentially being an alcoholic but functioning well at work, questioning the necessity of enforcing classes or interventions in such cases. He emphasized the distinction between personal behavior outside of work hours and job performance, suggesting that as long as an employee's behavior is not affecting their work performance, interventions should not be imposed. Mr. Hare acknowledged that extreme situations, such as health complications from alcohol abuse, may require intervention and assessment by appropriate personnel. However, he underscored the importance of considering an individual's job performance and behavior within the workplace context when determining the necessity of mandated programs. Overall, Mr. Hare emphasized the importance of balancing individual rights and job performance when considering interventions related to alcohol abuse or mental health in the workplace. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Anderson reaffirmed his understanding of the process regarding disability benefits within the city. He mentioned his involvement with the Pension Board and shared that disability benefits could be granted without employees losing their paid time off. However, he clarified that the disability benefits would only begin once the individual had exhausted all their accumulated time off with the city. Mr. Anderson explained that this process is in accordance with existing laws and is also linked to IRS regulations and other relevant statutes. By highlighting the structured process tied to disability benefits within the city, Mr. Anderson aimed to provide clarity on how employees can access these benefits without losing their accrued paid time off. Page 234

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING APRIL 09, 2024 PAGE 9 Item #7. Dr. Pillsbury stated that regarding the need for correction in 80-513, noting the adjustments made to 80-510 and 80-511 in section B, it was suggested that the fourth line should reference 80-511 instead of 80-510 to align with the previous amendments. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Anderson stated that upon making this correction, it was confirmed that the change would be adopted without objection. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Anderson acknowledged the need for improvement in the language of the existing law, and he suggested having the solicitor review it for potential clarity enhancements. This recommendation was made with the understanding that no actual changes were being proposed at that moment, but rather a review for possible language improvement in line with the current regulations. It was noted that such a review could potentially lead to a more precise and understandable law without necessitating any substantive alterations. Christina Kober stated that she serves on the Pension Board, and she noted that the Pension Board once again comes before council to address concerns about current ordinance changes that are here before them this evening. The board and its membership spent numerous hours addressing necessary changes to the current ordinance. Regrettably, the two (2) council members on the Pension Board seemed to have taken forth their own recommendations of the proposed ordinance changes. Without further discussion with the Pension Board for the vigilance of our membership, they would not have even known that the ordinance was being revised or even on the agenda for tonight's meeting. She inquired about the status of open communication and transparency in the city government. Some of their members are present, standing united to support their efforts for fairness and transparency in the way the city government should work. They are frustrated, and they are angry. They collectively believe their words and efforts are meaningless. In December, council members spoke of their commitment to making retirees their first priority. Yet after last month's meeting, there is still no action taken. They believe an agreement was reached on a cost of living increase. Ms. Kober expressed frustration at the lack of communication within the city government, noting that it has been non-existent. Furthermore, she highlighted the absence of a system of checks and balances. Both retirees and board members are physically present for this meeting while also participating remotely. They remain committed to striving for parity, fairness, and transparency. The General Employee Pension Board members drafted proposed ordinance changes 2024-07, which was considered by the board on February 8th, 2024. The board members recommended amendments to the ordinance during that meeting, and it was unanimously approved for recommendations to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee as revised. The two (2) sponsors of the ordinance serve on the Pension Board. On February 8th, amendments were submitted to the City Clerk's office for the next Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee packet. Since February 8th, the Legislative, Financing, and Administration met on February 13th, 27th, March 12th, March 25th (special meeting) and then on March 26th. Ms. Kober stated that the reason cited for the delay in considering the ordinance was the staff's need for additional time to prepare for tonight's meeting. Ordinance 2024-07, as recommended by the Pension Board, underwent revisions by the ordinance sponsors. However, these revisions were incorporated into the packet without markup indicating the sponsors' amendments, and the original texts adapted by the Pension Board were not provided alongside. The transparent process for considering the sponsor's amendments would be the ordinance as recommended for adoption by the Pension Board to be presented at this meeting, where the sponsors and the others would have Page 235

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING APRIL 09, 2024 PAGE 10 Item #7. been given the opportunity to propose amendments. A transparent process for considering the sponsors' amendments would involve presenting the ordinance as recommended for adoption by the Pension Board at this meeting. During this presentation, sponsors and other stakeholders would be given the opportunity to propose amendments. Instead, neither the original ordinance nor the ordinance revised by the Pension Board has ever been posted on the ordinance listing on the city's website. It is the only ordinance missing from that listing. The action history of the ordinance does not include any reference to the Pension Board's deliberations or recommendations for adopting the revised version of the ordinance. The ordinance lacks a synopsis summarizing the amendments, whether revised or otherwise. Ms. Kober noted that until Thursday, when the ordinance was included in the meeting packet and posted on the website, only the sponsors were aware of the significant changes made to the Pension Board's ordinance. To her, it is a lack of transparency and a matter of egregiousness. On a side note, the General Employee Pension Board met on March 4th to discuss a COLA increase. The city's actuary attended the meeting to provide insights and discuss the recommendations. The request for a COLA increase was initiated on February 9th, 2023, and subsequently discussed on the following dates: April 27th, June 27th, August 3rd, November 2nd, and February 8th, 2024. On March 4th, the board approved the recommendations for a COLA increase to be forwarded to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee for further action. It has not yet been placed on the Legislative, Finance, and Administration agenda for consideration. There is no good reason why they are still waiting for a cost of living increase. It is important for someone to provide a clear explanation for the ongoing delay and what specific obstacles or reasons are preventing the city from moving forward with the COLA increase. She knows that is off-topic to what they are saying with the ordinance, but this crap is getting old. Responding to Ms. Kober, Mr. Anderson explained that the delay in implementing the COLA increase was due to the fact that a draft recommendation for an ordinance had been put forward, but an ordinance can only come into existence once it is introduced by council members. He clarified that recommendations alone do not have the force of law until they are formalized through the proper legislative process. Mr. Anderson emphasized that the proposed changes to the board's membership were not directly related to whether employees would receive the COLA increase or not. He believed that focusing on altering the board's composition would have been a distraction from the core issue at hand. Instead, the discussions with staff were aimed at addressing various concerns related to workload, Human Resources issues, and other internal matters. Through thorough diligence and collaboration with the affected departments, adjustments were made to the initial proposal to ensure that the heart of the recommendation was preserved while incorporating necessary technical corrections. These modifications were then introduced for consideration, ultimately aiming to create a product that addressed staff concerns while upholding the essence of the COLA increase proposal. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Kober emphasized the issue as one of transparency. She expressed frustration, stating, "We have been waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting. Oh, we do not have money. Meanwhile, you are handing out money left and right to other people. We have been waiting. We are supposed to be the priority, in your words. So when are we going to be heard and action taken?" Responding to Ms. Kober, Mr. Sudler stated that it begins at this evening’s meeting with the ordinance. Additionally, they have part two, which they have already been collaborating on with staff for the budget. Page 236

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING APRIL 09, 2024 PAGE 11 Item #7. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Kober emphasized that transparency entails having members present during discussions and question sessions so they can fully understand the proceedings. She clarified that while they may not necessarily disagree with some of the points raised, it is essential to be included in the process to effectively communicate with their members. It looks sneaky when they change things and then they do not show what was recommended, what the board voted on, and what they were supposed to take forward. Responding to Ms. Kober, Mr. Anderson stated that if anyone wants to see them, they are in an earlier package. Responding to Ms. Kober, Mr. Sudler expressed disappointment at the notion that the sentiment towards the city's valued employees could be one of deception. He found it disheartening that such a perception existed. Mr. Sudler emphasized his belief in Team Dover's integrity and expressed regret if their actions had contributed to this perception. He reaffirmed his belief that the majority, if not all, city council and committee members are dedicated to enhancing the well-being of the employees and recognizing their contributions over the years. Mr. Sudler acknowledged the disheartening nature of the sentiment and expressed his commitment to taking action to address the concerns. He apologized for any distress caused by the situation and assured them that steps would be taken to rectify it. Dr. Pillsbury expressed her position as a newcomer to the Pension Board, acknowledging her lack of familiarity with past proceedings. She recalled the presentation of the proposed change and the subsequent process of routing it through various departments. Dr. Pillsbury emphasized that these efforts were aimed at advancing the initiative. She noted her understanding that many of the suggested alterations stemmed from the retirees and members of the Pension Board. Dr. Pillsbury highlighted a particular concern regarding Section 80-508, which addresses an annual increase, indicating that this aspect was a significant focus for the stakeholders involved. She stated that efforts were being made to address these concerns. Upon revisiting the document, Dr. Pillsbury raised newly formulated questions, indicating the need for legal guidance before final approval. Expressing confusion over certain comments, Dr. Pillsbury asserted that there was no clandestine or backward approach to the process. She recalled previous meetings where discussions were held openly, with both parties actively engaged in reviewing the details. Dr. Pillsbury explained that her questions arose from a thorough examination of the document and stressed the importance of legal input before finalizing any decisions. She reiterated the collaborative effort to seek feedback from departments like Human Resources and expressed a desire to work together toward a resolution. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Anderson expressed agreement with Councilwoman Pillsbury's observations. He explained that all ordinances originate from an idea, and nearly 90% of the initial concept is reflected in the current version. Mr. Anderson clarified that ordinances undergo refinement as they progress through different departments. He cited an example where concerns from the Finance Department led to a change regarding the frequency of reporting. While initially intended as a quarterly report, it was modified to align with monthly statements, which would become law if the ordinance passed. Addressing concerns about election security and residency requirements, Mr. Anderson mentioned that adjustments were made to ensure clarity. He highlighted various amendments made in response to objections from Human Resources and Finance Departments, as well as minor adjustments for clarity and consistency. The goal, he emphasized, was to create an ordinance that could withstand legal scrutiny and serve the city Page 237

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING APRIL 09, 2024 PAGE 12 Item #7. effectively. Mr. Anderson concluded by expressing confidence that the ordinance, once reviewed, would not disrupt city operations. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sudler stated that he appreciated his efforts in explaining to the retirees. However, with no disrespect intended towards Mr. Anderson, he strongly feels that it is essential to hear directly from them. Council has had ample opportunity to express their viewpoints, but tonight, they are present, and he believe that it is crucial to listen to their perspectives, whether they are favorable or unfavorable. While they may believe they are attentive to their concerns, he thinks it is important to afford them uninterrupted time to speak. Mr. Sudler stated that if Mr. Anderson were in agreement, he would like to proceed in this manner. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Anderson indicates a desire to address concerns in an organized and structured manner tHuman Rough normal order. By suggesting that they handle the discussion in a systematic way, he is demonstrating a commitment to ensuring that all viewpoints are considered and given a fair opportunity to be heard. Bob Gedney, Chairman of the Pension Board, stated that he had met with Dr. Pillsbury and Mr. Anderson. Mr. Gedney noted that believe it or not, himself and Mr. Anderson, are the seniors on this board. Mr. Gedney inquired about the process regarding obtaining legal opinions or clarity. He emphasized the importance of tracing the source of the advice from the attorney to ensure a thorough understanding of what can or cannot be modified, including any necessary adjustments to the language. Responding to Mr. Gedney, Mr. Anderson wanted it noted for the record that when they receive the attorney's review, the Pension Board also receives it, preferably around the same time. It goes without saying that once received, this information is privileged, so it is essential to keep it confidential. Ms. Kober expressed her desire to address some issues first. Returning to Mr. Sudler for further discussion, Ms. Kober thanked him. She acknowledged a correction, stating that members have been waiting for resolution since 2018, not since February of 2023. Ms. Kober expressed confusion and highlighted the lack of transparency and communication regarding changes, mentioning that the link sent out on Thursday contained Ms. Pillsbury's changes, not theirs. Ms. Kober explained the need for open dialogue, communication, and transparency. She mentioned a willingness to engage in discussions and expressed a desire for collaboration rather than dictation of decisions. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Kober expressed her intention to address additional concerns raised. She emphasized her increased vocal presence due to being the sole retiree on the Pension Board. Ms. Kober highlighted her extensive service of 31 and a half years, underscoring her perspective as a retiree with firsthand experience. She shared her personal struggles, including the lack of a COLA raise and the impending insurance increase of 27% in July and having retired four (4) years ago. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Traci McDowell referenced Mr. Anderson's statement that an ordinance is not official until it has been formally introduced. She pointed out that according to their code, the Pension Board is responsible for making recommendations. Ms. McDowell reiterated the process for ordinances to be proposed, drafted, and recommended by a committee before being approved by Legislative, Finance and Administration Committee. She criticized Page 238

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING APRIL 09, 2024 PAGE 13 Item #7. changes made to the ordinance without proper procedures, expressing frustration about the situation. Nobody between that meeting and this meeting has a right to change the ordinance. Ms. McDowell highlighted specific changes on page five (5) of the document, where a recommended 3% annual increase was adjusted to 2% without proper consultation. She stressed the importance of following the correct process and involving the Pension Board in discussions prior to making amendments. Ms. McDowell suggested that unauthorized meetings may have taken place based on the changes made without proper consultation. Responding to Ms. McDowell, Mr. Anderson stated that it was a legal meeting. They were there, and the meeting had proper notice. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. McDowell noted that the last meeting did not resemble the current situation. She proceeded to explain a specific issue starting on page five (5) concerning the approval process for pension applications by the Pension Board. Due to difficulties in assembling a quorum, the Human Resources Department was permitted to handle sending applications monthly. However, this arrangement has not been implemented as agreed upon. The Pension Board desired to revert to the original application process, as indicated by an asterisk in the document showing a deletion related to this issue. Ms. McDowell expressed concern that these modifications were not conducted transparently or collaboratively with the board but rather arbitrarily by two (2) members who also held positions as council members and chair of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee. Notably, changes from "they" and "theirs" to "one" and "ones" were highlighted by Ms. McDowell as potentially distancing the governing body from employees and retirees. Despite perceiving this change as impersonal, Ms. McDowell emphasized more critical concerns at hand. Ms. McDowell asserted that if the process had been followed properly, the Clerk's Office would have handled it, and the changes would have been clearly highlighted. The original ordinance, as well as revisions made by the Pension Board, would have been available on the city's website, but none of them are present. She characterized the situation as a bait-and-switch tactic that began from the outset. Referring to page 17 of 25, Ms. McDowell recalled discussions from August, where the Pension Board members expressed a desire to review the ordinance. This recommendation, she noted, stemmed from a former city clerk. She pointed out that the proposed change in Section 80-521.3 alters the composition of the committee, as Mr. Anderson previously mentioned. The rationale behind this change, she explained, was to address the underrepresentation of retirees on the board, considering there are approximately 334 participants in the plan. However, despite this reasoning, the provision was removed from the adopted ordinance. Ms. McDowell expressed uncertainty about the timing of this removal and its implications. Ms. McDowell proceeded to discuss various changes within the ordinance. On page 13, she highlighted alterations regarding the identification that could be used to identify individuals and their addresses. These changes, she noted, align with practices in the state of Delaware, particularly with council elections. She explained the importance of accurate address information, especially in cases where there are multiple individuals with similar names. Moving to page 14, she noted changes in Section 85.201(D), which she described as brief. On page 15, she addressed Section 85.23, questioning the redundancy of a provision regarding the vice chair assuming duties in the absence of the chair. She also noted changes to Section 85.26, where the Pension Board's authority to call meetings with Human Resources members was removed. Additionally, Ms. McDowell discussed concerns raised about the payment of funds, noting that Pension Board members had requested access to expenditure reports to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities. However, this Page 239

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING APRIL 09, 2024 PAGE 14 Item #7. request was not included in the revised ordinance. She questioned why the responsibility for approving funds and retirement applications was not left with the Pension Board, given their fiduciary role. Finally, she highlighted concerns about the timing and availability of quarterly reports, suggesting they were not provided in a timely manner. Ms. Kober mentioned that they did receive one report in September, which contained only one line item stating "expenditures" with no further explanation. She emphasized the importance of receiving detailed information, especially regarding retirements, as there had been instances where retirees' figures were incorrect, leading to overpayments or underpayments, and issues with insurance deductions. Ms. Kober stressed that if they were to be held accountable, they should have access to this critical information. Ms. McDowell pointed out that the issue Ms. Kober raised ties into the discussion about the changes on page 17, specifically in Section 85-276. This section originally required an updated list of retirees and beneficiaries to be provided to the general employee pension plan board members whenever a new application was approved by the board. However, this provision was removed from the revised ordinance. Ms. McDowell highlighted another change on page 18, specifically in Section 85-28. The Pension Board members had recommended that the general employee pension plan board seek outside subject matter legal assistance when necessary. However, this recommendation was struck from the revised ordinance. Responding to Ms. McDowell, Mr. Anderson emphasized that no committee has the authority to unilaterally seek legal assistance outside of established city policies. He noted that the proposed reconstitution of the board, which would distinguish it from other boards like the police board, is a non-starter. Instead, he stressed the importance of focusing on ensuring retirees receive the necessary compensation rather than altering the political makeup of the board. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. McDowell stated that yes, it is a non-starter for him. Responding to Ms. McDowell, Mr. Anderson stated absolutely. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. McDowell stated that it is not a non-starter for the people that would like to know the discussion. In a public meeting transparently, because that is what the City of Dover does. Responding to Ms. McDowell, Mr. Anderson stated that he would agree with the city manager that the draft was a draft proposal, not a draft ordinance. He emphasized that the only ordinance that holds weight is the one officially introduced. Mr. Anderson echoed Mr. Hugg's sentiments and supported the stance of the Clerk's Office and other authorities, emphasizing that according to Dover's charter, an ordinance must be introduced by council members, as Ms. McDowell is well aware. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. McDowell stated that he is correct, it has to have a first reading. Responding to Ms. McDowell, Mr. Anderson reiterated that the ordinance currently under consideration is the one that exists, emphasizing that the draft proposals presented in the packet are merely preliminary and subject to change. He clarified that the final version of the ordinance is the one brought forward on the specified date. Page 240

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING APRIL 09, 2024 PAGE 15 Item #7. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. McDowell raised a question regarding the accessibility of the ordinance in question compared to other ordinances pending and adopted since 2009, which are readily available in a list on the city's website. She questioned why this particular ordinance required individuals to search through packets instead of being easily accessible online like others. Ms. McDowell suggested that everyone could verify this information by visiting the "Ordinance and Resolution Listing" on the website. She expressed her intention to share remarks from an email before concluding her statement. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. McDowell stated that in the action history on the ordinance that was in their packet, did not ever mention that the Pension Board considered this item. There was no synopsis that explained what all of the recommendations were. Ms. McDowell read an email that had been sent to Council President Hare earlier that day from Janice Green (Attachment #2). Responding to Ms. McDowell, Mr. Boggerty expressed his disappointment and suggested remanding the issue back to the board for a thorough review. He emphasized the need for complete transparency in the matter to ensure clarity and understanding on both sides. Mr. Boggerty requested that this process be expedited with a sense of urgency, even if it requires a special meeting to address any ambiguities and ensure a timely resolution. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Hare stated that he does not disagree with Mr. Boggerty. He suggested considering a process where both versions are compared and presented, perhaps by tabling the issue for further review. This would allow everyone to see the differences and make a more informed decision. Mr. Hare stated that they probably need to determine as soon as possible what type of financial increase they're going to implement. While administrative matters like checking IDs are important, addressing the COLA and other financial aspects should be prioritized. It is crucial to get this resolved promptly so it can be included in the budget and distributed to the people. If they address it now, it would be beneficial. This needs urgent attention, especially considering the significant turnout today. The financial aspect is currently at risk, so it is imperative to address it promptly. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Kober stated that two (2) is acceptable because they have been asking for parity, and that is parity. They initially proposed three (3) because they were uncertain about what else they might receive. However, during the Pension Board meeting, it was unanimously agreed upon and passed that 15% was sufficient if she recalls the exact wording correctly. So yes, they would accept a 2% parity to align with everyone else. Mr. Boggerty moved to divide the question and recommend the approval of the 2% COLA raise annually as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Marney stated that it would cost roughly $1.9 million, but that she did not have the paperwork in front of her. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Sudler expressed his belief that a 2.5% offer should be made in good faith with his motion, considering the wait until 2025 and the extended waiting period for some individuals since 2018. He emphasized that it would demonstrate goodwill in business transactions and negotiations. Mr. Sudler empathized with the employees, noting the lengthy duration since 2018. He highlighted that these individuals are not only city employees but also considered as part of the city's family. Page 241

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING APRIL 09, 2024 PAGE 16 Item #7. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Anderson emphasized the importance of parity in addressing the issue at hand. He raised a concern about potential changes to other pension plans as well. Mr. Anderson then suggested focusing on considerations for the upcoming calendar year 2024. He explained that an increase could be implemented in the 25 budget, ensuring that individuals are not left out. He clarified that there should be no need to alter future plans, as two (2) distinct issues are being addressed. Mr. Anderson mentioned that efforts are being made to secure funding and presented a proposal that will tackle the current situation. He noted that tangible changes could be expected in the next four (4) to five (5) months, likely around August or September, rather than waiting until the end of the calendar year. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Boggerty expressed his agreement and acknowledged the validity of Councilman Sudler's perspective but pointed out the challenges that altering the current situation could pose for other unions. Mr. Boggerty emphasized the need for practicality and transparency in negotiations, citing the importance of avoiding overcommitment and potential harm to all parties involved. He also mentioned plans to revisit the issue with the unions to address any grievances and ensure equity. Despite understanding the appeal of Councilman Sudler's proposal, Mr. Boggerty emphasized the necessity of maintaining the current agreement, which includes a 2% increase for Fiscal Year 2025. He concluded by affirming the importance of adhering to the decisions made thus far and seeking a balanced resolution that benefits the entire community. Responding to Ms. Marney, Mr. Boggerty mentioned that the agreed-upon date for any changes would be January 1, 2025. He stressed the importance of honoring the commitments and agreements already in place, emphasizing the significance of sticking to the terms that have been agreed upon. Mr. Boggerty noted that in negotiations, it is common to agree to certain terms, finalize them by signing, ratifying, and then proceeding accordingly. He suggested that the focus should be on confirming and ratifying the 2% increase, as it is a realistic option compared to the proposed 2.5%. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Dr. Pillsbury stated that she believed introducing the 2.5% increase had complicated the issue. She expressed concerns that focusing on the higher percentage might overshadow the outstanding debts that were owed. Dr. Pillsbury emphasized the importance of honoring previous commitments and suggested that sticking with the 2% increase would be a more appropriate course of action. Effective January 1, 2025, they will continue to address the outstanding amount that has been a primary focus of both the requestor's desires and the committee's efforts. Dr. Pillsbury moved to recommend the approval of the 2% COLA raise annually effective January 1, 2025 with the understanding that staff brings council a proposal regarding the catchup plan as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and carried with Ms. Smith voting no. Mr. Boggerty moved to remand the non-financial issues of the modifications of the ordinance between the Pension Board and the council, to be reviewed by the City Solicitor and resubmitted to council for review and approval. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Responding to Ms. McDowell, Mr. Boggerty stated that expressed his preference for consolidating both documents to create a single cohesive ordinance that everyone can agree upon. He Page 242

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING APRIL 09, 2024 PAGE 17 Item #7. emphasized the importance of clarity in the transition from section 511 to 510 and requested that the final document be comprehensive and conclusive. Mr. Boggerty delegated the task of organizing the logistics of merging the documents to the board, with the ultimate goal of achieving consensus in the revised version. Responding to Ms. McDowell, Mr. Boggerty highlighted the importance of ensuring that the document is legally sound before being presented for review. He proposed that once the document has been properly vetted and reviewed for legal compliance, it should be returned to the Pension Board simultaneously for their review before being presented to the council. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Neil shared his understanding that the document presented is actually an ordinance, implying that any modifications would need to be made through amendments by the Council. He indicated that the sponsors likely initiated any changes made to the ordinance and that he believed this to be the standard procedure for making alterations. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Anderson stated the understanding presented was incorrect. He pointed out that the charter explicitly outlines the protocol for introducing and amending ordinances. Mr. Anderson emphasized the need to refer to the specific section of the charter that addresses amendments to ordinances to clarify any misconceptions. He highlighted that according to the charter, only members of the council have the authority to introduce ordinances, not committees. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Anderson expressed his belief that the issue raised would likely become irrelevant. He noted that individuals would have the opportunity to express their opinions before the matter is brought back to the council. Therefore, any concerns raised would essentially be resolved through the opportunity for public input. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. McDowell stated that she believes it is semantics because what they are saying is that the Pension Board or the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee, or any committee can introduce an ordinance, and that is not what they have done. They have made a recommendation to this board about an ordinance amendment. It is semantics. It is not being introduced or whatever the word Mr. Anderson is saying, but it is being referred to. That is why they have committees. She knows council knows who Janice Green is and they know that she knows what she is talking about. That is what the committees are for. Responding to Ms. McDowell, Mr. Anderson mentioned that there had been a change in the charter regarding the introduction of deduction ordinances. While it may not be available at the moment, he stated that the current debate is essentially focusing on semantics and that ultimately, the board will still review the matter. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Hare stated that if the issue is merely about semantics and requires introduction by a councilman, he would be willing to introduce it if they put something together. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. McDowell pointed out that according to the charter, any ordinance originating from a committee implies that it can do so without the need for a specific sponsor. This means that no individual council member is required to sponsor the ordinance. Page 243

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING APRIL 09, 2024 PAGE 18 Item #7. Responding to Ms. McDowell, Mr. Hare stated that whatever assistance is required, he will be available. If they do not need his involvement, he will not be there. Dr. Pillsbury suggested that it would be beneficial to have the attorney present at the meeting to ensure that any document or proposal brought back is in an approved form, thus avoiding any potential legal issues. She stated that there were numerous legal concerns regarding the original proposal that still remain unresolved. Dr. Pillsbury emphasized the importance of having the attorney present during committee meetings to address any legal questions that may arise and ensure that the final document is suitable for approval by the group. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Hare expressed uncertainty about the topic for discussion but suggested focusing on catching up on past issues. He recalled that a proposal was presented in 2018 but no action was taken at that time. Mr. Hare proposed that if a 2% increase is considered, it should be retroactively applied from 2018 to 2025, ensuring that individuals receive the appropriate pay adjustment for those years. This approach would calculate the 2% increment for each year from 2018 onwards, thereby compensating for the missed increases. Downtown Development District Renewal Application (David S. Hugg, III, City Manager and Ann Marie Townshend, Senior Project Manager at the Rossi Group) Mr. David S. Hugg, III, City Manager, and Ann Marie Townshend, Senior Project Manager at the Rossi Group, reviewed the background and analysis of the Downtown Development District renewal application (Attachment #3). Staff recommended approving the application as presented. Mr. Rocha commended Ms. Townshend and her team on their presentation and recommendations as presented. Ms. Arndt stated that the city has been running the program for 10 years, it is a lucrative program, and it would be nuts for the city to not continue with the investment. Ms. Arndt explained that it uses state money to leverage private investment and she is in full support. Mr. Neil commended Ms. Townshend and the Rossi Group for their in-depth presentation and the phenomenal job they have done. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Townshend stated the application goes to the state planning office and the bulk of the expansion will occur in the fourth district. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Townshend stated that in the first 10 years, $1.6 million in funding was received for smaller projects. When considering the proposals for the old post office, or the old Acme site, some of the suggested projects could be nearing a larger magnitude of funds. For instance, in Wilmington, where numerous substantial projects have been undertaken, an approximate total of $34 million has been allocated over the 10 years. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Townshend stated that the current post office, a small corner owned by Chesapeake Utilities, the police station, and the Justice of the Peace Court are not eligible for the incentives. On the other side of the transit center, the R.E. Michel Warehouse has been in operation for many years and likely would not become open for redevelopment. To better utilize Page 244

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING APRIL 09, 2024 PAGE 19 Item #7. the 50 additional acres the proposed properties will have to be removed, which requires a public hearing. Ms. Arndt moved to recommend acceptance of the staff recommendation and approval of the application. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Responding to Ms. Smith, Ms. Townshend stated that DelState is not eligible for the incentives because they are a state institution. The Delaware Marijuana Control Act – Overview and Options for Dover (David S. Hugg, III, City Manager, and Ann Marie Townshend, Senior Project Manager at the Rossi Group) Mr. David S. Hugg, III, City Manager, and Ann Marie Townshend, Senior Project Manager at the Rossi Group, reviewed the background and analysis of the Delaware Marijuana Control Act for Dover. Staff recommended guidance as to which approach Dover wishes to pursue; prohibit or restrict but allow. If the desire was to allow under restriction, then subordinate decisions needed to be made regarding where and under what conditions. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Hugg stated that the sales do not benefit the city. The businesses would pay building permits, business licenses, and any other fees required for a retail business. The other component would be the manufacturing and testing process, but the city is not allowed to charge them higher license fees as a revenue source. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hugg stated that it would benefit the city by being added to the tax roll however, it would be much like Crumbl Cookie. The business will have water, sewer, electric uses, and employees but a majority of the tax dollars will go to the state, the city will only receive the utilities and license fees. Ms. Browyn Sherman, Transportation, and Community Planner at the Rossi Group reviewed the presentation entitled "The Delaware Marijuana Control Act – Overview and Options for Dover”. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Mr. Hugg suggested that limitations on placing a similar facility within 500 feet of another facility could be imposed as a conditional use or established as a provision with specific restrictions. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hugg stated that there may be a few spaces available in Garrison Oak, Cassidy Commons, out on Horse Pond Road and Lafferty Lane. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hugg clarified that medical marijuana dispensaries are considered permitted retail uses. As a result, any potential ordinance would not impose restrictions on medical marijuana or establishments like Best Buds Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Townshend suggested that an ordinance could serve as an opportunity to include a definition of medical marijuana from the state statute and explicitly state that these establishments are permitted in all retail locations. Mr. Anderson opened the floor for a one-minute round table. Page 245

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING APRIL 09, 2024 PAGE 20 Item #7. Mr. Sudler stated that he would like to see a conservative approach taken. In Florida, they had retail stores on the main highway, but he noted that they were medical marijuana facilities. Mr. Rocha stated that he agrees with a conservative approach. Mr. Rocha explained that he would prefer to not have recreational marijuana being smoked in public spaces like the downtown area. In consideration of the dispensaries, he would prefer that they not be downtown but rather out on the main highway. Mr. Rocha emphasized that he would like there to be some type of odor control for the manufacturing and a restriction on smoking at a restaurant or public space. Mr. Rocha expressed concerns about the potential for businesses to have a significant amount of cash on hand. As federal regulations do not currently permit the legalization of marijuana, these businesses are unable to deposit their earnings in banks, leading to an accumulation of cash on their premises. Mr. Anderson stated that the State of Delaware is working on a proposal to deal with state charter banks. Ms. Smith stated that she recommends the conservative approach, as it should not be allowed downtown, around schools, churches, places where the community meets, and anywhere it could be dangerous for young people. Mr. Shevock stated that he is conservative and would prefer not to see it in Dover at all. Mr. Neil stated that he would rather not have legalized marijuana, but it is here to stay. Mr. Neil recommended that the ordinance have input from the police department in terms of security. He emphasized that he does not want the businesses to be in the downtown district, around schools or kids. Mr. Neil explained that it is just another business and they do not want to keep business out of the city. Finally, Mr. Neil recommended that the ordinance should include regulations pertaining to odor control in all manufacturing establishments. Mr. Boggerty expressed concerns about the insufficient land available for accommodating the businesses and recommended looking at the next bigger zoning section. Mr. Boggerty proposed incorporating guidelines for odor mitigation and mandating a double-door entry to enhance security. Finally, Mr. Boggerty concurred with the idea that consumption in public areas should be prohibited. Dr. Pillsbury expressed support for everything that has been said so far and had nothing further to add. Ms. Arndt also agreed that everything had been said and she is interested to see what they will bring back for a vote. Mr. Hare recommended that the businesses should not be situated within the Downtown Dover Business District, in close proximity to schools, or hospitals. He also agreed that there should be clear restrictions on the permissible locations for such establishments. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Townshend mentioned that the Delaware League of Local Governments had previously advocated for a percentage allocation for local governments, but their efforts were unsuccessful. She expressed doubt that the state would reconsider this allocation at present. Page 246

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING APRIL 09, 2024 PAGE 21 Item #7. Ms. Vonderlear Smack, 1001 White Oak Road, Dover, explained that she was never a fan of marijuana until she received a stage three cancer diagnosis. She shared that she struggled with sleep deprivation and severe pain, and it was only when her doctors suggested using a marijuana pen that she found relief and was able to finally get some rest. Mr. Neil moved to recommend that staff come back with recommendations based on what was heard and to include other zoning options. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hare and unanimously carried. Mr. Anderson moved for adjournment of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 9:54 p.m. Mr. Hare moved for adjournment of the Council Committee of the Whole meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 9:54 p.m. William F. Hare Council President Attachments Attachment #1 - NLC Service Line Warranty Program by HomeServe Attachment #2 - Email from Janice Green Attachment #3- The Dover Downtown Development District Presentation Page 247

ATTACHMENT #1 Item #7. Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 4/8/2024 Dennis Lyon Regional Director Dennis.Lyon@HomeServeUSA.com 412.266.9545 Page 248

Item #7. NLC Service Line Warranty Program by HomeServe HomeServe Key Statistics* • Over 4.8 million customers 4.8 out of 5 stars Offering customer Program endorsed • Over 8.5 million policies services for over 20 years satisfaction since 2010 • Over 1,200 municipal and utility partnerships • Job serviced every 34 seconds “The National League of Cities is proud to partner with this • Customer savings to date: highly reputable and reliable program. Their exemplary record of over $2 Billion customer service and transparency is what has driven the success * As of January 2023 of this partnership over the years.” Clarence Anthony, Executive Director National League of Cities 2 Page 249 ©2023 HomeServe USA Corp. PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL

3 Item #7. Aging Infrastructure Challenging for cities and homeowners Lateral lines are subjected to the same elements as public lines • Ground shifting, fluctuating temperatures, tree root penetration, corrosion, and more Out of sight, out of mind • Water and sewer lines located outside, usually underground Failed lines waste thousands of gallons of water • Presents a potential environmental hazard Common homeowner misconceptions • City is responsible for maintenance of the water and sewer lines on their property • Repairs are covered by their homeowner’s policy Page 250

Homeowners are unprepared for Item #7. emergencies and expect solutions from the city/utility 78% of homeowners believe the utility provider should educate them on repairs and preventative measures. (Ipsos Public Affairs/HomeServe 2019) 56% of Americans can’t cover a $1,000 emergency expense with savings. (Bankrate 2022) 60% of homeowners with annual household incomes under $50,000 a year reported having $500 or less or no money set aside for a home repair emergency. (Harris Poll/HomeServe 2021) 4 Page 251

Item #7. NLC Service Line Warranty Program Benefits • Only Service Line program endorsed by NLC and multiple state leagues • No cost to municipality. No public funds used. Administered by us • Billing, Claims, Customer Service, and Contractor management • Optional revenue share for municipality • Free public awareness campaign • Educates residents • Peace of mind – one call solution • Repairs performed to code by licensed and vetted contractors Page 252 ©2023 HomeServe USA Corp. PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL

6 Item #7. 3 Separate Products External Water External Sewer In-home Plumbing Line Line & Drain Up to $8,500 per incident Up to $8,500 per incident Up to $3,000 per incident to repair/replace broken, to repair/replace broken, on all water, sewer, and cracked, or leaking cracked, or clogged drain lines inside the exterior lines exterior lines home after point of entry No annual or lifetime Toll-free emergency limits, deductibles, Homeowner opt in or out number available service fees, forms, or at any time – no penalty 24 hours a day, 365 paperwork days a year No pre-inspection – 30 Locally based, fully Guaranteed repairs day waiting period licensed and vetted contractors Page 253

Item #7. Program-Funded Direct Mail Communications • No public funds used in marketing, distribution, or administration of the program • Direct mail only – no telemarketing or door-to- door sales • Up to 3 mailing campaigns per year • Partner must review and approve marketing material before every campaign • Marketing clearly states city does not provide program and is voluntary for homeowner • City role: provide logo and approve material • Economy of scale; transparency; maximize public education • Can enroll by mail, phone, or web 7 Page 254

8 Item #7. Solution for Residents and Municipalities Residents Municipalities Educates residents about their responsibility for exterior lines Reduces calls to the City Optional low-cost protection Timely repairs reduce water loss from line against potentially expensive breaks – use of local contractors infuses money water, sewer, plumbing repairs into your local economy Money saved by residents can be reinvested in your local economy No cost for the City to participate, optional non-tax 10% revenue share per product, per month Page 255

Item #7. NLC Service Line Warranty Program Summary The NLC Service Line Program helps residents understand their lateral line responsibilities before they have an unexpected issue and allows them to choose how they wish to prepare for these potentially expensive incidents. Our program increases the quality of life within your community by helping residents when they need it the most, while also reducing the number of distress calls made to the City. 9 Page 256 ©2023 HomeServe USA Corp. PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL

Item #7. Our Promise: We will be a trusted steward of your brand and reputation. Questions? For more information contact: Dennis Lyon Regional Director Dennis.Lyon@HomeServeUSA.com 412.266.9545 10 Page 257

ATTACHMENT #2 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting ofItem #7. 4/8/2024 Walls, Ashley A From: Rivera, Arielle M Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2024 5:34 PM To: Walls, Ashley A Subject: FW: EXTERNAL: Fwd: Pension Ordinance From: Bill Hare <billh2323@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 8:48 PM To: Rivera, Arielle M <arivera@dover.de.us> Subject: EXTERNAL: Fwd: Pension Ordinance WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Janice Green <janicenky@gmail.com> Date: April 9, 2024 at 6:23:31 PM EDT To: billh2323@comcast.net Subject: Fwd: Pension Ordinance Council President Hare, During this past year or so, I have been contacted by several current, retired, and previous City employees regarding the actions of City Council, as well as actions and lack of by City Staff. I understand their concerns and have my own, but have hesitated to get involved. Now I feel compelled to say something – Regarding tonight’s Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee agenda, item #5, Proposed Ordinance #2024-07, which amends the pension ordinance. Apparently, it was originally drafted by members of the Pension Board, and ultimately approved by the Pension Board on February 8, 2024 at which time, the Board recommended its adoption to the LF&A Committee. For whatever reason, the Pension Board’s recommendation has been delayed in its consideration by the LF&A Committee (which is another issue – see next paragraph) but will be considered this evening; however, the ordinance being presented IS NOT THAT OF THE PENSION BOARD!!! Unless there are typographical or clerical corrections, any substantial amendments should be presented and considered during the LF&A committee meeting (the purpose of the committee’s review before presentation to City 1 Page 258

Item #7. Council). I’ve been advised that the Pension Board’s recommendation has been altered by the sponsors of the proposed Ordinance. NO WAY should a Board’s recommendation to a committee be altered in any way whatsoever (except for typographical or clerical corrections as previously indicated). ANY amendments should be presented and openly discussed during a public meeting – my goodness, that’s why such a committee system was created. I, as the City Clerk, during my tenor, followed the policies and procedures enacted by City Council – I felt it was my responsibility since Council is elected and may not be familiar with such issues. Any time a Board or Committee made a recommendation, it was submitted at the next Committee/Council Meeting (as a matter of fact, the minutes or excerpt containing the recommendation would be made a part of the packet so that members would be made aware of the discussion and ultimate recommendation – I don’t see the Board’s minutes from their February 8th meeting). If there were issues or concerns with the recommendation, that particular Committee or City Council considering a Board/Committee’s recommendation could make additional amendments, table the issue, defer the matter, etc., but it was the City Clerk’s Office job to ensure matters and issues were presented in accordance with those policies and procedures (and the Dover Code). We tried to keep City Council and Committee Members out of trouble LOL. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend tonight’s meeting in person but will be watching and hope that this matter is rectified so that the committee considers the recommendation of the Pension Board as they ORIGINALLY RECOMMENDED. Regarding another issue of my concern is the one-time COLA being considered for participants of the Defined Pension Plan. Apparently there have been “corrections” to the salaries of several City Employees, which have been adjusted substantially over the past few years, and I mean substantially! With this in mind, knowing that several of us retirees weren’t even compensated appropriately during our employment, wouldn’t it make sense to consider a substantial one- time COLA? I would encourage you, as Council President, to determine the status of this one-time COLA and have it presented for final consideration and action by City Council without any further delay. I thank you for your time and consideration. 2 Page 259

Item #7. Janice Janice C. Green Retired City Clerk for the City of Dover 302-233-0065 (cell) 3 Page 260

ATTACHMENT #3 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of 4/8/2024 Item #7. The Dover Downtown Development District Page 261

Downtown Development Districts Item #7. • The DDD Act of 2014 was enacted to Statewide Implementation • Spur private capital investment. • Dover, Wilmington, and Seaford were • Stimulate job growth. the first districts designated in 2015. • Help build a stable community of long-term • Today there are 12 designated DDD’s. residents by improving housing opportunities. • The initial designation is for 10 years. • Assist municipalities in strengthening neighborhoods while harnessing the attraction • Dover is currently seeking a 5-year that vibrant downtowns hold. renewal. Page 262

Program Successes Item #7. Housing • More than 60 new homes constructed by Habitat for Humanity, NeighborGood Partners, and others. N. Kirkwood St. Businesses • New businesses have benefited from DDD incentives. Rail Haus Beer Garden, Janaid’s Salon & Stonerail Market Page 263

Financial Impact Item #7. Incentives Results • City: Waives Impact fees, building permit • Total state rebates since program fees, new business license fees; offers a started in 2015: $1.6 Million 10-year property tax abatement, a transfer tax rebate, and a historic tax credit. • 2018-2023 Total value of City • Downtown Dover Partnership: incentives used: $73,134.20 Architectural, Façade, Critical improvement, and business retention/expansion grants. • Private Investment: $13.2 Million • State & County: 20% construction rebate and a $10,000 matching program. Page 264

Key Projects Item #7. • $25 million investment from the State • Critical Water & Wastewater Infrastructure • 120 S. Governors Ave. 6-story building • 129 S. Governors Ave. parking garage and mobility hub • The Old Post 4-story building Page 265

Proposed Boundary Changes Item #7. • Southwest Proposed Removal: Government Owned Properties (22 acres) • Eastern Addition Approved 2/1/2024: Extends east from State St. along Loockerman St. to St. Jones River (14 acres) • Eastern Addition: Bounded by State St., Kings Hwy & Division St. (7 acres) • Northern Additions: DSU and Army Reserve property – possible redevelopment (12 acres) • Western Additions: Primarily industrial, wester gateway to downtown (38 acres) Page 266

Recommendations Item #7. • Reduce the minimum investment requirement to qualify for City incentives • Establish an MOU with the Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP) • Increase marketing efforts • Implement process improvements • Create flowcharts for permitting and approvals • Develop fillable forms • Expand training for City staff • Designate a program liaison to resolve issues Page 267

Next Steps Item #7. Page 268

Item #14. CITY OF DOVER FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2023 TO JUNE 30, 2024 QUARTERLY REVENUE REPORT As of March 31, 2024 FY24 FY24 Unaudited 75% ORIGINAL REVISED YTD % BUDGET FY23 Unaudited FY22 Audited GENERAL FUND BUDGET BUDGET REVENUES RECEIVED COMMENTS REVENUES REVENUES 1 Property Taxes $ 15,515,100 $ 15,515,100 $ 15,659,000 100.9% $ 15,546,900 $ 14,709,100 2 Payment In Lieu of Taxes 541,000 541,000 543,800 100.5% 540,700 532,000 3 Transfer from Electric Fund 8,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 75.0% 8,000,000 11,000,000 4 Intrafund Service Receipts Electric 4,244,000 4,244,000 2,670,400 62.9% 3,702,300 3,686,300 5 Transfer from Transfer Tax Fund 2,000,000 2,000,000 1,820,300 91.0% 2,334,900 3,902,200 6 Business Licenses 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,474,400 105.3% 1,452,200 1,400,900 7 Intrafund Service Receipts Water 1,158,100 1,158,100 728,700 62.9% 1,010,300 1,029,900 8 Intrafund Service Receipts Wastewater 834,300 834,300 525,000 62.9% 727,800 704,700 9 Sanitation Fees 3,842,400 3,842,400 2,956,300 76.9% 3,652,800 3,371,700 10 Permits & Other Licenses 1,702,000 1,702,000 2,598,900 152.7% 2,407,000 1,641,900 11 Transfer from Municipal Street Aid Fund 750,000 750,000 591,200 78.8% 796,800 792,300 12 Fines & Police Revenue 521,600 521,600 606,100 116.2% 630,200 508,100 13 Police Extra Duty Fees 240,000 240,000 313,800 130.8% 470,600 412,000 14 Transfer from Police Grant Funds 165,000 165,000 133,900 81.2% 71,200 312,500 15 Transfer from Police Fed Grant Funds - - 65,800 0.0% 43,800 127,400 16 Court of Chancery Fees 3,500,000 3,500,000 2,920,900 83.5% 2,021,300 2,095,800 17 Transfer from Water/Wastewater Fund 1,000,000 1,000,000 750,000 75.0% 2,000,000 1,000,000 18 Transfer from Civil Traffic Penalties Fund 150,000 150,000 45,800 30.5% ERLSP is for July to November 23. 54,500 198,600 19 Library Revenues & County Reciprocal Pymt 122,200 122,200 376,200 307.9% Residual Library Tax $.3MM 579,300 260,600 20 Franchise Fees 610,000 610,000 265,900 43.6% 424,000 605,300 21 General Fund Grant Receipts 718,500 758,500 400,800 52.8% 468,600 802,800 22 Recreation Revenue 126,500 126,500 99,900 79.0% 148,200 128,600 Garrison Oak Lots 1, 2 , 11, 10, 3, 9 $2.9MM; Rent 23 Other Miscellaneous Receipts 3,256,000 3,411,000 3,178,800 93.2% $.1MM; Sale of Assets $.1MM 313,900 373,300 24 Interest Income 200,000 200,000 35,100 17.6% 269,700 94,600 TOTALS $ 50,596,700 $ 50,791,700 $ 44,761,000 88.1% $ 47,667,000 $ 49,690,600 Final Budget $ 47,667,000 $ 49,690,600 Page 269

Item #14. CITY OF DOVER FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2023 TO JUNE 30, 2024 QUARTERLY REVENUE REPORT As of March 31, 2024 FY24 FY24 Unaudited 75.0% ORIGINAL REVISED YTD % BUDGET FY23 Unaudited FY22 Audited WATER FUND BUDGET BUDGET REVENUES RECEIVED COMMENTS REVENUES REVENUES 1 Water Fees $ 6,550,000 $ 6,550,000 $ 4,825,900 73.7% $ 6,711,400 $ 6,144,800 2 Water Impact Fees 225,000 225,000 207,500 92.2% 393,300 176,700 3 Water Tank Space Leasing 435,500 435,500 435,600 100.0% Billed at beginning of FY 399,800 502,800 4 Interest Income 50,000 50,000 201,000 402.0% 170,300 16,200 Penalties $7.9K; Water Meters $9.2K; Sale of 5 Other Miscellaneous Revenues 25,200 25,200 84,500 335.3% Assets $19.5K; State Grant $47.8K 70,600 105,600 TOTALS $ 7,285,700 $ 7,285,700 $ 5,754,500 79.0% $ 7,745,400 $ 6,946,100 Final Budget $ 7,745,400 $ 6,946,100 FY24 FY24 Unaudited 75.0% ORIGINAL REVISED YTD % BUDGET FY23 Unaudited FY22 Audited WASTEWATER FUND BUDGET BUDGET REVENUES RECEIVED COMMENTS REVENUES REVENUES 1 Wastewater Fees $ 4,600,000 $ 4,600,000 $ 3,437,300 74.7% 4,590,000 4,349,200 2 Wastewater Adjustment Fees - County Trtmt 3,526,000 3,526,000 2,472,900 70.1% 3,029,800 3,022,600 3 Groundwater Inflow Adjustment 2,200,000 2,200,000 1,600,900 72.8% 2,135,600 2,013,800 4 Wastewater Impact Fees 225,000 225,000 191,700 85.2% 357,700 177,000 5 Interest Income 50,000 50,000 218,400 436.8% 160,500 11,200 Penalties $12.7K; Sale of Assets $5.4K; State 6 Other Miscellaneous Revenues 200 200 68,200 34100.0% Grants $50.0K 37,000 17,700 TOTALS $ 10,601,200 $ 10,601,200 $ 7,989,400 75.4% $ 10,310,600 $ 9,591,500 Final Budget $ 10,310,600 $ 9,591,500 FY24 FY24 Unaudited 75.0% ORIGINAL REVISED YTD % BUDGET FY23 Unaudited FY22 Audited ELECTRIC REVENUE FUND BUDGET BUDGET REVENUES RECEIVED COMMENTS REVENUES REVENUES 1 Sales to Customers $ 91,107,000 $ 91,107,000 $ 62,557,100 68.7% $ 75,400,700 $ 77,465,400 2 Purchase Power Adjustment - - - 0.0% 16,465,600 (5,060,700) 3 Utility Tax 1,636,400 1,636,400 991,800 60.6% 1,516,700 1,151,100 4 Rate Stabilization Reserve 900,000 900,000 - 0.0% 10,000,000 2,800,000 Penalties and Rent $.2MM; Delay Contrt Damages 5 Miscellaneous Revenue 849,000 849,000 2,195,800 258.6% $1.3MM; All Other $.7MM 429,600 815,700 6 Interest Income 550,000 550,000 1,402,100 254.9% 1,022,000 144,000 TOTALS $ 95,042,400 $ 95,042,400 $ 67,146,800 70.6% $ 104,834,600 $ 77,315,500 Final Budget $ 104,834,600 $ 77,315,500 Page 270

Item #15. City of Dover Capital Investment Plan and Project Status Report As of March 31, 2024 3rd Quarter FY24 Points to Remember * Includes Project Carry-Forward Budget Amendment Ordinance # 2023-09 (approved by Council on 10/9/23). * Original Project Budget = Original Total Project Budget initially included in approved annual budget. * Latest Project Budget = Revised Total Project Budget included in most recent approved annual budget or one of the following: bond resolution, revolving fund loan agreement, Council approved budget amendment, or City Manager approved amendment as per the Budget Amendment Procedure. * Actual Expenditure/Expense totals are subject to change, due to delays to the month-end closing process. * Water Quality, Inflow/Infiltration, Distribution Upgrades, and New Development projects are budgeted as a blanket project, and once individual projects are identified and estimated, they are created using an allocation of the overall budgeted amount. Community Police Grants Police Grants Total Current Year Budget Funding Sources General Transportation Federal State ARPA Water Wastewater Electric CIP Budget Balance $ 5,860,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 5,110,900 $ 2,830,500 $ 1,826,700 $ 12,417,300 $ 28,045,400 General Billings for Reimbursement of Expense 342,000 342,000 Federal Grants 752,000 5,000,000 5,752,000 State Grants 3,354,200 716,700 405,000 2,072,000 6,547,900 Other (Loan) 2,856,400 2,856,400 Transfer from Water/WW Impact Fee Reserve 75,100 306,000 381,100 Transfer from Water/Wastewater Oper. Fund 1,536,700 2,270,900 3,807,600 Transfer from General Fund 2,947,100 2,947,100 Transfer from Lodging Tax 450,000 450,000 Transfer from Depreciation Reserve 8,442,900 8,442,900 Transfer from Parkland Reserve 1,077,300 1,077,300 Transfer from Future Capacity Reserves 2,000,000 2,000,000 Transfer from Other Reserves 500,000 500,000 Interest Income 50,000 25,000 75,000 Total Funding Sources $ 16,545,000 $ 716,700 $ 752,000 $ 405,000 $ 5,110,900 $ 6,564,300 $ 4,428,600 $ 28,702,200 $ 63,224,700 Page 271 1 of 12 3RD QTR FY24 CIP-PROJECT STATUS REPORT.xlsx

PROJECT STATUS REPORT - GENERAL FUND Item #15. 3rd Quarter FY24 - as of March 31, 2024 PAST, CURRENT & FUTURE BUDGETS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Latest Project Original Revised Fiscal Project Project Project To Date Fiscal Year Fiscal Year YTD Budget Code Item Budget Budget Expenses Budget Budget Charges Balance Status Fire Department FR1800 Annual Contribution for Engine 5 $ 777,000 $ 777,000 $ 284,796 $ 77,700 $ 77,700 $ 58,254 $ 19,446 Paying monthly FR2000 Annual Contribution for Squad #1 (Rescue) 956,000 834,000 187,530 83,400 83,400 62,510 20,890 Paying monthly FR2200 Annual Contribution for Engine 1 770,000 852,200 92,371 123,200 123,200 92,371 30,829 Paying monthly CT2256 Brush 1 110,500 110,500 110,471 - - 42,340 (42,340) Received; CT grant FR2400 Tower Ladder 2 1,623,600 1,623,600 1,965,812 135,300 1,968,500 1,965,812 2,688 Funded by loan & bond Total Fire Department $ 4,237,100 $ 4,197,300 $ 2,640,981 $ 419,600 $ 2,252,800 $ 2,221,287 $ 31,513 Code Enforcement Awaiting delivery of Veh #11. Veh. #17 must be --- Misc Automobiles $ 34,600 $ 63,600 $ 42,369 $ 21,231 reprogrammed. Total Code Enforcement $ 34,600 $ 63,600 $ 42,369 $ 21,231 Inspections --- Misc Automobiles $ - $ 30,100 $ 30,068 $ 32 Veh #19 Received Total Inspections $ - $ 30,100 $ 30,068 $ 32 Police $796,614 encumbered Replacing 16 vehicles; submitted budget adjustment to cover cost increases --- Misc Automobiles $ 876,300 $ 957,600 $ 160,784 $ 796,816 totaling $153,600 Budget adjustment submitted to move excess funds PD2301 Police Officer Body Worn Cameras & Tasers $ 876,400 $ 903,000 $ 352,657 229,500 309,200 229,476 79,724 to cover vehicle purchases Budget adjustment submitted to move excess funds PD2302 Axon In-car Cameras 368,000 368,600 - 36,700 36,700 - 36,700 to other projects and vehicle purchases $36,472.00 encumbered, budget adjustment PD2401 Police Station Exterior Building Maintenance 36,100 36,100 - 36,100 36,100 - 36,100 submitted for cost increase $8,300.00 encumbered, budget adjustment submitted PD2402 Police Station Roof Repair 7,900 7,900 - 7,900 7,900 - 7,900 for cost increase PD2403 Public Assembly Room Carpet Repl - - - - - 12,714 (12,714) Budget adjustment submitted for cost increase Total Police $ 1,288,400 $ 1,315,600 $ 352,657 $ 1,186,500 $ 1,347,500 $ 402,974 $ 957,240 Public Works - Administration --- Misc Automobiles $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 27,660 $ 2,340 Veh #669 received 3/14 Total Admin $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 27,660 $ 2,340 Streets --- Trucks $ 762,200 $ 762,200 $ 48,435 $ 713,765 Veh #322 ordered --- Misc. Equipment 90,100 90,100 67,754 22,346 Veh #304, #306, & #382 received, #392 on order ST2003 Meeting House Branch Improvement $ 1,115,600 $ 1,115,600 $ 390,775 - 364,900 123,302 241,598 Design approximately 80% complete ST2007 Operations Yard Relocation and Impr. 445,000 445,000 183,121 - 106,200 67,815 38,385 Complete ST2101 FY21 Street, Concrete, and Alley Program 936,000 936,000 701,108 - 808,700 876 807,824 Project to be heard by CCW in April ST2201 FY22 Street, Concrete, and Alley Program 1,168,000 1,168,000 - - 350,000 - 350,000 Project to be heard by CCW in April ST2302 Buckson St/Carvel Dr/Ross St Repairs - 1,102,700 265,760 - 1,102,700 265,760 836,940 Project underway, approximately 50% complete Total Streets $ 3,664,600 $ 4,767,300 $ 1,540,763 $ 852,300 $ 3,584,800 $ 573,942 $ 3,010,858 Sanitation Veh #440, 442, & 446 received, #443 & #449 --- Trucks $ 707,800 $ 1,464,400 $ 581,775 $ 882,625 ordered Total Sanitation $ 707,800 $ 1,464,400 $ 581,775 $ 882,625 Grounds --- Trucks $ 113,000 $ 147,800 $ 142,590 $ 5,210 Veh #558 & #577; C/F #557 --- Misc. Equipment 101,500 101,500 93,570 7,930 Toro Mower; Stump grinder Total Grounds $ 214,500 $ 249,300 $ 236,160 $ 13,140 Stormwater --- Misc Equipment $ 294,000 $ 294,000 $ - $ 294,000 Other (loan) Veh #363 Ordered SW2204 East Lake Garden Basin Improvements $ 580,000 $ 500,000 $ 44,500 - 500,000 - 500,000 Project Reprogrammed to FY27 SW2206 MS4 Inventory/Inspection & Green Technology 43,600 100,000 43,519 100,000 100,000 - 100,000 Project to begin this Spring SW2303 Persimmon Park Place Drainage Basin Impr. 1,200,000 1,200,000 646 - 1,200,000 - 1,200,000 Design complete, awaiting easement sign off from SW2305 Mirror Lake Drainage Basin Improvements 350,000 707,700 123,320 - 707,700 120,600 587,100 Project started in early September, 15% complete Page 272 101 2 of 12 3RD QTR FY24 CIP-PROJECT STATUS REPORT.xlsx

PROJECT STATUS REPORT - GENERAL FUND Item #15. 3rd Quarter FY24 - as of March 31, 2024 PAST, CURRENT & FUTURE BUDGETS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Latest Project Original Revised Fiscal Project Project Project To Date Fiscal Year Fiscal Year YTD Budget Code Item Budget Budget Expenses Budget Budget Charges Balance Status Westminster Ditch sinkhole project to begin this SW2401 Misc. Emergency Storm Sewer Repair 88,000 88,000 - 88,000 88,000 - 88,000 Spring, depending on railroad permits SW2402 Silver Lake Dam Repairs 300,000 80,000 - 80,000 80,000 - 80,000 Awaiting bids on project in January Design contract approved by CCW, kick off meeting SW2407 Water Street Flooding Improvements 882,500 115,000 16,100 110,000 115,000 16,100 98,900 in mid January. SW2408 UG Stormwater Strg-Governors Ave 425,000 425,000 - 425,000 425,000 - 425,000 Awaiting State to invoice the City for this work SW2409 Downtown Upgrades 418,000 38,000 - 38,000 38,000 - 38,000 Presenting design contract to CCW in January Total Stormwater $ 4,287,100 $ 3,253,700 $ 228,085 $ 1,135,000 $ 3,547,700 $ 136,700 $ 3,411,000 Facilities Management FC2303 City Hall Window Replacement $ 50,000 $ 79,300 $ 81,930 $ - $ 79,300 $ 61,260 $ 18,040 Complete FC2402 City Hall Exterior Paint 80,000 80,000 14,989 80,000 80,000 14,989 65,011 Complete Total Facilities Management $ 130,000 $ 159,300 $ 96,919 $ 80,000 $ 159,300 $ 76,249 $ 83,051 Public Works - Engineering --- Trucks $ 48,300 $ 48,300 $ 41,322 $ 6,978 Veh #005 received Total Engineering $ 48,300 $ 48,300 $ 41,322 $ 6,978 Library LB2301 Replace Heat Pumps $ 116,000 $ 87,300 $ 86,048 $ - $ 87,300 $ 57,365 $ 29,935 Complete Total Library $ 116,000 $ 87,300 $ 86,048 $ - $ 87,300 $ 57,365 $ 29,935 Parks & Recreation --- Misc Automobiles $ - $ 77,300 $ 77,252 $ 48 Veh #593 received --- Misc Equipment - Ball Field Grooming Machine 35,000 35,000 34,139 861 Received PR2300 Dover Park Building Improvement $ 800,000 $ 1,473,500 $ 1,103,813 - 1,473,500 977,352 496,148 45% complete PR2301 Dover Park Splash Pad 200,000 500,000 255,767 - 500,000 254,617 245,383 Contracted; 12% complete PR2304 Schutte Park Dog Park 75,000 14,800 73,058 - 14,800 12,894 1,906 Complete PR2401 Dover Park ADA Accessible Playground 310,000 800,000 619,063 800,000 800,000 619,063 180,937 11% complete; ADA play equipment received Total Parks & Recreation $ 1,385,000 $ 2,788,300 $ 2,051,701 $ 835,000 $ 2,900,600 $ 1,975,316 $ 925,284 Procurement/Inventory --- Other Equipment $ - $ 70,000 $ - $ 70,000 Forklift #120 on order Total Procurement/Inventory $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 70,000 $ - $ 70,000 Fleet Maintenance --- Misc Automobiles $ - $ 358,500 $ 326,085 $ 32,415 7 Electric vehicles; received Veh#EV7 --- Other Equipment - 141,500 106,871 34,629 Received --- Public Chargers - - 22,393 (22,393) Complete CS2305 Industrial Hot Water Pressure Washer $ 5,700 $ 5,700 $ 5,700 - 5,700 5,700 - Received and complete CS2405 Wash Bay Doors 30,000 30,000 9,110 30,000 30,000 9,110 20,890 Doors installed, awaiting door switches Total Fleet Maintenance $ 30,000 $ 535,700 $ 470,158 $ 65,542 City Manager CM2401 Emergency Operations Plan Update $ 40,000 $ - $ (10,000) $ - $ - $ 10,000 $ (10,000) Completed initiation and dept info gathering tasks. Total City Manager $ 40,000 $ - $ (10,000) $ - $ - $ 10,000 $ (10,000) Information Technology IT2402/IT2302 Cisco Switches $ 50,000 $ 26,000 $ 25,359 $ 26,000 $ 26,000 $ 15,506 $ 10,494 To be paid out monthly for 5 years Additional server purchased, another one may not be IT2404 Replacement of 3 Servers 42,000 42,000 - 42,000 42,000 - 42,000 needed IT2406 Barracuda Backup 40,000 40,000 11,788 40,000 40,000 11,788 28,212 To be paid out monthly for the next 5 years. Budget transfer pending for out of service network IT2407 IBM Series Server 7,500 20,700 14,553 7,500 7,500 - 7,500 switches Total Information Technology $ 139,500 $ 128,700 $ 51,701 $ 115,500 $ 115,500 $ 27,294 $ 88,206 TOTAL GENERAL FUND $ 15,287,700 $ 16,697,500 $ 7,038,853 $ 5,689,100 $ 16,486,900 $ 6,910,640 $ 9,588,974 Page 273 101 3 of 12 3RD QTR FY24 CIP-PROJECT STATUS REPORT.xlsx

Item #15. PROJECT STATUS REPORT - COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION FUND 3rd Quarter FY24 - as of March 31, 2024 PAST, CURRENT & FUTURE BUDGETS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Latest Project Original Revised Fiscal Project Project Project To Date Fiscal Year Fiscal Year YTD Budget Code Item Budget Budget Expenses Budget Budget Charges Balance Status Community Transportation - 203-12-99 CT2268 E Loockerman St & State St Concrete $ 356,900 $ 368,400 $ 300,297 $ - $ 368,400 $ 300,297 $ 68,103 Complete Plan has been developed, staff to coordinate with Downtown Dover CT2315 Various Concrete Repair Locations 252,600 341,100 - - 341,100 - 341,100 Master Plan and Utility Upgrades Project received additional funds- working with LL to improve the CT2322 Dover Little League 221,400 7,200 - - 7,200 - 7,200 area this Spring TOTAL COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION FUND $ 830,900 $ 716,700 $ 300,297 $ - $ 716,700 $ 300,297 $ 416,403 Page 274 203 4 of 12 3RD QTR FY24 CIP-PROJECT STATUS REPORT.xlsx

Item #15. PROJECT STATUS REPORT - POLICE FEDERAL GRANTS 3rd Quarter FY24 - as of March 31, 2024 PAST, CURRENT & FUTURE BUDGETS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Latest Project Original Revised Fiscal Project Project Project To Date Fiscal Year Fiscal Year YTD Budget Code Item Budget Budget Expenses Budget Budget Charges Balance Status Federal Police Grants - 207-11-17-33 PDGMISCFED-2024-LINE 1 Covert Ground Based Utility Pedestal Camera Kit $ 11,980 $ 12,000 $ 11,980 $ - $ 12,000 $ 11,980 $ 20 Complete Subsequently determined to be a lease. Will be removed PDGCOPS-2024-LINE 1 Wireless License Plate Reader Cameras 73,900 73,900 71,931 73,900 73,900 71,931 1,969 from this report next quarter. $273,462.00 encumbered in progress - system upgrades being worked with PDGMISCFED-2023-Line 4 & Advantech and Electric PDGMISCFED-2023-Line 5 CW Camera System Upgrades 900,000 1,100,000 414,585 900,000 900,000 414,585 411,953 Department TOTAL FEDERAL POLICE GRANTS $ 985,880 $ 1,185,900 $ 498,496 $ 973,900 $ 985,900 $ 498,496 $ 413,942 Page 275 207 5 of 12 3RD QTR FY24 CIP-PROJECT STATUS REPORT.xlsx

Item #15. PROJECT STATUS REPORT - POLICE STATE GRANTS 3rd Quarter FY24 - as of March 31, 2024 PAST, CURRENT & FUTURE BUDGETS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Latest Project Original Revised Fiscal Project Project Project To Date Fiscal Year Fiscal Year YTD Budget Code Item Budget Budget Expenses Budget Budget Charges Balance Status State Police Grants - 209-11-17-32 PDGSLEAF-2021-LINE 1 Digital Video Management System $ 6,400 $ 6,400 $ 6,380 $ - $ 6,400 $ 6,380 $ 20 Complete PDGSLEAF-2024-LINE 2 Vantage Tactical Robot - 33,500 33,500 - 33,500 33,500 - Complete TOTAL STATE POLICE GRANTS $ 6,400 $ 39,900 $ 39,880 $ - $ 39,900 $ 39,880 $ 20 Page 276 209 6 of 12 3RD QTR FY24 CIP-PROJECT STATUS REPORT.xlsx

Item #15. PROJECT STATUS REPORT - ARPA FUND 3rd Quarter FY24 - as of March 31, 2024 PAST, CURRENT & FUTURE BUDGETS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Latest Project Original Revised Fiscal Project Project Project To Date Fiscal Year Fiscal Year YTD Budget Code Item Budget Budget Expenses Budget Budget Charges Balance Status Project substantially complete, ST2301 FY23 Street, Concrete, and Alley Program $ 1,200,000 $ 548,000 $ 827,112 $ - $ 548,000 $ 198,570 $ 349,430 awaiting invoices. Work underway, approximately 95% WD2302 Elevated Water Tower Maint. - Aero Park 655,000 130,000 590,000 - 130,000 65,000 65,000 complete. Construction underway, approx. 80% completed. Anticipated completion WD2303 Future Well Installation 2,234,500 1,810,800 2,065,780 - 1,810,800 1,642,045 168,755 by June 2024. Project complete, awaiting final WD2304 Well #9 Improvements 319,000 146,700 132,641 - 146,700 29,654 117,046 invoices. Project underway, approximately WQ2304 Water Quality Improvements-West St Alley 346,500 415,800 32,082 - 415,800 32,082 383,718 60% complete WW2307 Lepore Road Sanitary Sewer Upgrade 317,000 317,000 - - 317,000 - 317,000 Project re-programmed TOTAL ARPA FUND $ 5,072,000 $ 3,368,300 $ 3,647,615 $ - $ 3,368,300 $ 1,967,351 $ 1,400,949 Page 277 210 7 of 12 3RD QTR FY24 CIP-PROJECT STATUS REPORT.xlsx

Item #15. PROJECT STATUS REPORT - WATER FUND 3rd Quarter FY24 - as of March 31, 2024 PAST, CURRENT & FUTURE BUDGETS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Latest Project Original Revised Fiscal Project Project Project To Date Fiscal Year Fiscal Year YTD Budget Code Item Budget Budget Expenses Budget Budget Charges Balance Status Water Engineering --- Trucks $ 48,000 $ 48,000 $ 41,322 $ 6,678 Veh #418 received Water --- Trucks 45,600 45,600 41,322 4,278 Veh #695; received WD2401 Portable Emergency Generator 78,000 46,900 1,900 45,000 Project reprogrammed WD2402 Wellhead Redevelopment Program 463,000 163,000 68,085 163,000 163,000 68,085 94,915 Project underway 60% complete WD2403 Carport for Mini Excavator 12,000 12,000 5,775