PC Minutes 10-17-22

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2022 The Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, October 17, 2022 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), Mrs. Denney, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Baldwin, Mrs. Welsh (virtual), Mrs. Malone (virtual) and Mrs. Maucher. Dr. Jones was absent. Staff members present were Mrs. Mary Ellen Gray, Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, and Mrs. Kristen Mullaney. Also present were Ms. Patricia Kelleher and Mr. Tolano Anderson. Speaking from the public was Mr. Terrance Nichols and Mr. Victor Giangrant. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mrs. Maucher stated that the Revised Site Development Master Plan S-22-12 DuPont Plaza at 747 N. DuPont Highway: Revised Master Plan will not be heard by the Planning Commission tonight due to incomplete public notice. The Application will be rescheduled for a future meeting. Mrs. Welsh moved to approve the Agenda as submitted, seconded by Mr. Baldwin and the motion was unanimously carried 8-0 with Dr. Jones absent. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 19, 2022 Mrs. Welsh moved to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 19, 2022, seconded by Mrs. Denney and the motion was unanimously carried 8-0 with Dr. Jones absent. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS Mrs. Gray provided an update on the regular City Council and various Committee meetings held on September 26 & 27, 2022 and October 10 & 11, 2022. Mrs. Gray read the Proclamation for National Community Planning Month. Proclamation Whereas, change is constant in every community and affects all of us, and community planning can help manage change in a way that provides better choices for how people work and live. Community planning provides an opportunity for all residents to be involved in making choice that determine the future of their community; and Whereas, the American Planning Association and its professional institute, the American Institute of Certified Planners, endorse National Community Planning Month as an opportunity to highlight the contributions sound planning, and plan implementation make to the quality of our communities and environment; and Whereas, community planning provides an opportunity for all residents to be meaningfully involved in making choices that determine the future of their community. The full benefit of 1

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2022 planning requires public officials and citizens who understand, support, and demand excellence in planning and plan implementation. Now therefore, I, Robin R. Christiansen, Mayor of the City of Dover, Delaware, do hereby proclaim the month of October 2022 as Community Planning Month In the City of Dover and encourage all citizens to join me in recognizing that participation and dedication of the staff of the City of Dover Department of Planning and Inspections, members of the City of Dover Planning Commission, the valuable contributions made by other community and regional planners and our partner agencies at the State and County levels. We extend our heartfelt thanks for the continued commitment to public service by these professional and private citizens. Mrs. Gray stated that she thinks that it’s awesome that the City recognizes Planning as an important aspect of our lives in the City of Dover and to recognize the Planning Commission as making a really invaluable contribution to our community. Thank you all for your contributions and your time, energy and effort. This isn’t an easy task and this is all volunteer. She really appreciates it. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the “Community Planning Month” is something that is held annually in the month of October; and, we continue to have City Council proclaim that and recognize the efforts by Staff as well as the members of the Planning Commission. Mrs. Malone stated that she wanted to thank all of the City Planners. Anyone who goes into that field for the City, County or the State, you are very much appreciated. She knows that you put up with a lot as she can remember from being on City Council. She just wants to thank every one of you for going into this field and protecting our areas and planning the best that you possibly can. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that in regards to the Architectural Review Oversight Subcommittee, we did get confirmation from Ms. Sarah Kiefer of her willingness to continue to serve on that Subcommittee. OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Mrs. Melson-Williams presented the audience information on policies and procedures for the In- Person Meeting and Virtual Meeting using the WebEx system. OLD BUSINESS 1) Requests for Extensions of Planning Commission Approval: None NEW APPLICATIONS SB-22-05 Lands of NCALL at 217, 225, 235 North Kirkwood Street: Minor Subdivision Plan – Public Hearing and Review of a Minor Subdivision Plan to subdivide three (3) existing 2

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2022 properties consisting overall of 44,326.66 SF +/- (1.0176 acres +/-) into four (4) new properties, with the remaining land area to be dedicated to the City of Dover for the purpose of expanding the Mary and Kirkwood Streets Park. From south to north, Lot 1 is to be 0.1665 acres+/-, Lot 2 is to be 0.1665 acres+/-, Lot 3 is to be 0.1791 acres+/-, Lot 4 is to be 0.1791 acres+/- and the remaining land area (0.1685 acres +/-) is to be dedicated to the City of Dover for the purpose of expanding the adjacent Mary and Kirkwood Streets Park. The Mary and Kirkwood Streets Park will then total 0.3255+/- acres in size. The parcels subject to this Minor Subdivision Application lay on the east side of North Kirkwood Street, south of Mary Street. The three (3) subject properties are zoned RG-1 (General Residence Zone) and are currently undeveloped. The owner of record for all three (3) subject properties is NCALL (National Council on Agriculture Life & Labor Research Fund Inc.). The owner of the adjacent Park to be expanded is the City of Dover. Property Addresses: 217, 225, 235 North Kirkwood Street. The parcel containing the Mary and Kirkwood Streets Park is unaddressed. Tax Parcel Numbers: ED-05-076.08-02-20.00-000, ED- 05-076.08-02-21.00-000, ED-05-076.08-02-22.00-000, ED-05-076.08-02-23.00-000. Council District 4. Representatives: Ms. Patricia Kelleher, Community Development Director at NCALL Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is Application SB-22-05 Lands of NCALL at 217, 225, 235 North Kirkwood Street and also an adjacent unaddressed parcel which happens to be the current location of the Kirkwood and Mary Streets Park. This is a Minor Subdivision Plan. With the three existing parcels plus the Park, we are looking at some rearranging of lot lines to create a series of four lots and then some residual area being added to the Park. The image on the screen shows the four lots to be created and then the northernmost (which is the one on the left-hand side) which is the existing City Park which will be expanded to the right. As she noted, there are three existing parcels of land that total just over an acre in size collectively. This plan subdivides those into a series of four new properties, all being about the same size, roughly 0.16 acres. The southernmost parcel is 217 North Kirkwood Street and they continue to the north. Currently, these existing lots are vacant. They previously did contain structures, but they have all been demolished. With this layout they are adjusting property lines and creating parcels that do meet the Bulk Standards of the RG-1 (General Residence Zone). The minimum lot width in that zone is fifty (50) feet so they are adjusting to kind of balance out a series of four lots that could be developed in the future for residential purposes. Once they do that with the four lots, what ends up happening is there is a little residual left. They have made a proposal to the City to donate that land to have it included in the Kirkwood and Mary Streets Park. With that additional space, it almost doubles the size of that Park that is right at the corner of North Kirkwood Street and Mary Street. That proposal for park expansion was presented to City Council first through their Parks, Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee back in July. Then in late July City Council voted to accept that donation of land allowing this Minor Subdivision Plan to be filed and to make that effort to do the donation. As noted, the plan appears to meet the standards of RG-1 (General Residence Zone) which is a residential zone. It does allow for single family detached houses which is probably what we anticipate here. Redevelopment of those lots will have to meet the City’s infill standards which includes the requirement for a public sidewalk along the frontage (which she believes that it already has in that area) and then some additional landscaping and a design requirement for the buildings itself. There are several of the lots that already have curb cuts with them and that will be managed with the Public Works Office if those 3

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2022 will suffice for the new lots being proposed or if any changes need to be made. The Planning Office, in their Report, noted some fixes to the Plan to clarify some of the data being presented. However, the Planning Staff notes that the Plan creates four lots out of the existing three parcels with the remainder being given over to the expansion of the adjacent Park and that the Plan generally appears to comply with the City’s Land Subdivision Regulations. The DAC members also provided comments. Most of them have no objection to this Minor Subdivision Plan. A few of them offered advisory comments should the properties redevelop in regards to service needs and things along the lines of addressing. Because they are ending up with more lots than they started with, the Planning Commission is looking at a Minor Subdivision Plan. Ms. Kelleher stated that she does not have a statement prepared but she would say that they believe building four single family homes on this corner of North Kirkwood Street and Mary Street will be an asset to Central Dover. Additionally, the Park being expanded and improved, will be another asset and they think it will really anchor this corner of Central Dover. Mr. Hartman questioned the status of the alley; is that alley just behind the two southernmost properties? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that there is an alley that is platted behind them; however, it is not improved meaning there is not pavement in that area. Planning Staff also identified a question about the extent of that alley as some of our records were showing it continuing beyond those first two lots to include behind the third lot. The applicant is not seeking to implement construction of that alley with this Plan nor are they seeking to abandon it. It’s considered what they call a paper alley. At this point and with single family development, it would not be required to be fully implemented. It does appear that it does not continue through the length of this block unlike some of the other alleys in the greater Downtown area. Mrs. Maucher opened the public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Mr. Cooper moved to approve SB-22-05 Lands of NCALL at 217, 225, 235 North Kirkwood Street: Minor Subdivision Plan, seconded by Mrs. Malone and the motion was carried 8-0 by roll call vote with Dr. Jones absent. Mr. Cooper voting yes; he thinks that NCALL does a fantastic service for our community, and he thinks that this will only help the City. Mr. Roach voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mrs. Denney voting yes; she thinks that this is a wonderful project that NCALL is working on to provide housing here for our residents. Mr. Hartman, all four lots appears to comply with the Bulk Standards of the RG-1 (General Residence Zone) and what they are talking about in the proposal is a better land use. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; it seems to comply with the RG-1 (General Residence Zone) Bulk Standards and we also provide some much needed housing. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; she thinks this change will greatly improve that area of neighborhood with well needed housing. Mrs. Malone voting yes; NCALL does a great job in rehabbing a lot of these areas and we are very fortunate that they do this. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; for reasons stated and she would like to commend NCALL for their dedication of the excess property to the City for expanding park space and open space for the community. Z-22-03 Lands of Silver Linings Holding Corporation at 630 W. Division Street – Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council for a rezoning application for a parcel 4

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2022 of land consisting of 1.0853 acres (47,275.3 SF +/-). The property is zoned C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The proposed zoning is C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The property is located on the south side of West Division Street and opposite the intersection with Ridgely Street. The owner of record is Silver Linings Holding Corporation c/o Tolano Anderson. Property Address: 630 W. Division Street. Tax Parcel: ED-05-076.08-01-40.01-000. Council District 4. Ordinance #2022-12. This property was the subject of Rezoning Application Z-20-03 that was unsuccessful in its rezoning request for IO (Institutional and Office Zone) with COZ-1 in November-December 2020. This property was also subject to Rezoning Application Z- 21-03 that was unsuccessful in its rezoning request for C-2A with COZ-1 in May 2021. Representatives: Mr. Tolano Anderson, part of the ownership group Silver Linings Holding Corp. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this a request for Rezoning. As mentioned, this is the property at 630 W. Division Street. It is on the south side of Division Street and is 1.0853 acres in size. Currently, the property is zoned C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) and the area is subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The Rezoning request is to go to C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) remaining subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). As noted, this property is found on the south side of Division Street basically opposite the intersection with Ridgely Street. The existing property does include a large multi-story professional office building and is improved with a parking lot area already. The request is for rezoning; and, we are just looking at the zoning of the property, not for any future development activity at the site. Our Planning Office report did note that this property has been the subject of several other Rezoning requests in the last few years that were unsuccessful. This evening, their request for C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). The first thing that we look at with any Rezoning application is the compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Looking to the 2019 Comprehensive Plan, the Land Development Plan Map gives this a Mixed-Use land use category. This land use category of Mixed-Use is what is predominantly found in the Downtown Dover area. The Mixed-Use land use category has a number of zoning classifications that would be compliant with that land use category and C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) is one of them. The C- 2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) from a use perspective, is outlined in the Zoning Ordinance in Article 3, Section 14. It is truly a mix of commercial uses as well as some opportunities for residential. With reference to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone), it is placed on several corridors including portions of Division Street. It is to focus on the design of improvements to properties along that corridor including opportunities for improvements in landscaping and design placement of things like the building and parking. It does not regulate use, but really how the property is developed. Planning Staff is providing a recommendation in regards to this Rezoning. They note that while its current zoning of C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) focuses more on offices and service-related uses and some limited industrial and manufacturing, the C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) does not allow for residential uses. The C- 2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) is a much broader mix of uses both in the commercial and residential sectors. With that, we find that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and it is along a major East/West roadway that is coming into the Downtown that includes a mix of commercial and residential type activities that you would expect to find in that area. There is a range of transportation modes available in this general area from vehicular traffic, sidewalks and 5

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2022 there is also a bicycle way along Division Street in that area too. We do recommend that it remain subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) because that classification strives to promote superior corridor development with its requirements for design and landscaping considerations. We do want to note that their Rezoning request does not grant approval of any specific use of the property. Any uses on the site would have to comply with the Zoning Ordinance for its zoning category as well as the procedures for any potential development or redevelopment of the site itself. The Planning Commission’s task this evening is to make a recommendation in regards to the Rezoning. The Zoning Ordinance actually calls out a series of factors for you to evaluate in regards to a Rezoning. Those factors are listed in the Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 Section 5.36. They are related to that the uses permitted by the proposed change would be compatible with the existing uses and zones in the area concerned. A separate factor is the adequacy of public services and infrastructure related to the area. The third factor is whether the proposed change is in accordance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The remaining comments from the Development Advisory Committee list no objections from those agencies in regards to the Rezoning. In some cases they have provided guidance regarding reminders about any future development and what that may entail related to their regulations or services. Mr. Anderson stated that he would obviously like to get approval for this application. We have been at this table before and have had some things to overcome; however, he would like to at least point out that they have enjoyed support of the professional Planning Staff as well as the DAC and the unanimous approval from this body on the previous applications. The only issues that we have actually had is at City Council. He believes that those issues have been resolved adequately and this application will be successful. He is an officer for the Silver Linings Holding Corporation and they know Dover. They own and manage 59 properties in Dover; so, they know the market and the needs of the community. Our fingerprints are in a lot of places and our fingers are also on the pulse of the community. This is good for Dover, this is good for our company, and this is good for the community. He would also like to point out one other thing; when they were here before, they were looking at how the community was developing. They never anticipated the housing shortages that we are looking at now and some of the other situations that the City is dealing with so it kind of makes this application a little more urgent from their perspective because they are trying to meet at need in the community as well as run a successful business. They have been successful at this point so they are excited at that. He doesn’t think that he needs to go into detail about the previous applications but he would like to emphasis once again that this property is compatible with the use in the area, there are adequate services and infrastructure, there is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and so there is absolutely nothing that would prohibit as far as he is concerned, this application being approved for a recommendation of rezoning to C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone). They are well within our means to meet all of the requirements of the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) and they are pretty excited. Mr. Hartman stated that he understands that this is about zoning and thank you for acknowledging that we have supported the last two brought before us. He plans on supporting this as well. Mentioning the compatibility with the existing uses and zones in the area concerned, it seems to him that that’s where you got hung up with City Council on the last vote with much concern from the neighbors. He would just like to understand what’s changed. Responding to 6

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2022 Mr. Hartman, Mr. Anderson stated that the main thing that changed from then until now is that during the City Council hearing that we presented, we actually prevailed as far as having the majority vote from City Council; however, there was a Petition that was filed that they got 17 minutes before the actual hearing. They weren’t able to decipher or understand what was going on; so, they requested that City Council table the application which was denied so it went forward. There was some political and maybe some other interests that were being served. So, unfortunately the vote at that time was set in terms of people being a little more conservative or maybe even a little apprehensive because of the Petition that was submitted. In retrospect, the Petition itself was actually inaccurate. We have at least four false statements in the Petition itself that were erroneous, specifically denying the three points that Mrs. Melson-Williams just pointed out. Stating that there was not adequate services or infrastructure and it actually stated that there was a potential client that was going to bring people into the community and so forth. It was not even under contract. There were a lot of questions and allegations about the use of the property and who was going to use the property and who was going to buy the property. They reserve the right as property owners in this country to buy, sell and use their property as they determine necessary to support our business which is supporting our families. The City Council, he thinks, got off track following that, meaning the Petition required a three-fourths vote and that’s where they did not prevail. He thinks that has been resolved at this point. The City Council approved 900-feet away from this property on the same street, unanimously, the Application for another property being used for this exact same purpose; the exact same zoning and everything. It was unanimously approved; so, they fully expect to get unanimous approval here. Lastly, the counselor that brought forth the application or the petition is actually in litigation right now concerning the City of Dover to make sure that the use of a property could not be considered in the City Council’s consideration. But during the actual hearing that they had with City Council, the argument was that you have to consider the use because we don’t want those people to potentially buy the property. It was very confusing and so now he is on the opposite side of the same subject. Mr. Hartman stated that the Fire Marshal had a comment about egress, could you address that? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Anderson stated that the area is sometime prone to flooding so what we did was installed a 7.5 inch curb around one of the entrances. So that if water did actually flow onto the property, by the time that it got up to 7.5 inches it would not go into the building itself as it has in the past, it would go into the parking lot and it would basically flood the whole parking lot but it would preserve us from getting the building flooded. It’s only about 6-7 feet from the main entrance door and the Fire Marshal, even though we have a ramp, if someone was coming out in case of a fire that it could potentially be a trip hazard. They simply agreed at the DAC meeting that we would just remove the curbing. They did it as a flood prevention measure not thinking about that pathway of egress because we have a ramp just maybe 20 feet away from it in that same area. It’s not a big deal to jack hammer it out and be done with it. Mrs. Denney stated that she had the same questions, most especially about the Fire Marshal comment regarding the ramp. Mrs. Malone stated that the applicant mentioned when speaking to another member of the Commission that you have the right to buy and sell your property on your own. Do you not 7

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2022 realize that there are regulations? Responding to Mrs. Malone, Mr. Anderson stated that as property managers, they are fully aware of the regulations and are in compliance with every regulation, law, policy or rule that is out there. But they also understand our rights in this Country; property owner rights in this Country and by the Delaware Code and this City’s ordinances. They fully understand exactly what the requirements are. We think that it got skewed at the public hearing and that’s what he was referring to. Mrs. Malone stated that you do realize that the City of Dover has their own restrictions, correct? Responding to Mrs. Malone, Mr. Anderson stated yes, he fully understands that. Mrs. Malone stated that you don’t have the right to buy and sell your properties within the City of Dover or make any changes to it unless the City of Dover approves that. Responding to Mrs. Malone, Mr. Anderson stated that he thinks basically he agrees with her from that standpoint. As long as they meet whatever legal requirements that there are, then they retain their rights as property owners. So he thinks that they are saying the same thing. He doesn’t want to split hairs but what he is very much adamant about is our rights as Americans. But he also understands rules and regulations as he spent 24 years in the United States Army; he knows regulations and rules. As a member of this community that has invested heavily and supported every aspect of it that he can imagine, they fully understand and agree with being in compliance with everything. But they also understand that they have rights and certainly intend to stand to them. Mrs. Malone stated that she was just a little taken back by your comment when you were speaking to another Commission member. She just wanted to clarify that the City of Dover does have regulations. As a property owner, when you buy property in the City of Dover, you need to know those before you even decide to change something or build there or whatever; you have to do your due diligence. Responding to Mrs. Malone, Mr. Anderson stated yes and as a follow up point, he thinks that they fully understand that. They have 59 units in Dover, so they understand all of the regulations and rules. He would also like to issue an apology for any sensitivity that he offended. He certainly didn’t mean to make a statement that was negative or condescending in any way. Mrs. Maucher opened a public hearing. Mr. Terrance Nichols – 2956 Andrews Lake Road Felton, DE 19943 Mr. Nichols stated that he is the owner of Bennie Smith Funeral Home located at 717 West Division Street in Dover. He is familiar with the property which is across the street from our funeral home and also the landowners are incredible people. He is in favor for affordable housing in the city. Mr. Victor Giangrant – 730 Oak Drive Dover, DE 19904 Mr. Giangrant stated that he owns and operates Westside Car Wash next to this property. They live in a tough neighborhood. Sometimes it is tough to do business and he can give several examples. Three mornings ago, he came to work and there was broken glass everywhere under his awning. Upon him reviewing his surveillance video, there were several homeless people camped out underneath his awning. This occurs quite often. He has had human feces in his parking lot. He has panhandlers. His concerns are about turning this property into a hotel. He just 8

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2022 doesn’t think that it fits at that particular piece of ground and he doesn’t think that it fits into his business. It would bring more people that he has to deal with that are panhandling his customers. This is what he is up against all day. Once you change the zoning, it is fair game so he would like to speak now. Not that it will do any good but he needs to be heard. He is against approving this application for several reasons. Mr. Hartman asked what support from Dover Police or the City have you received in the past for the problems that you have had on this site? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Giangrant stated that unless he thinks that they are dangerous or threatening, he won’t call the police. What they usually do is they come walking down the sidewalk, they will veer off of the sidewalk, catch somebody walking to their vehicle and ask them for money or a cigarette. There is nothing that he can do at night to stop it. Like he said, they have had them camped out quite often. Dover Police do respond when he calls them but unless they are violent, there is not much that he can do. They come off of the road so fast and do their thing and then leave. It is often. It’s not once every month; it’s weekly. He would say that this started about 8-10 years ago with an influx in homeless people like he has never seen before, and they are at the breaking point. He just can’t imagine getting any more. Mr. Hartman asked what your City Councilperson says about this problem? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Giangrant stated that he has never gone to them. They know about it because he has expressed himself. One of the Councilman said get cameras. He says that he has plenty of cameras but that doesn’t help. Recently, the last time that they called the Dover Police was last week when somebody was getting close to violent. The police knew him by name and took care of the problem. He fears for his business. Mr. Hartman stated that he knows that this is what City Council discussed the last several times that this issue came before them. We here in the Planning Commission are looking at the zoning laws. In his opinion, they are fairly obligated to approve this request. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Giangrant stated that he understands but he needs to be heard. He can’t let it go; he has to oppose it. He can’t just lay down and watch it happen. Mr. Hartman stated that he supports his voice and he thinks that he (Mr. Giangrant) should make it heard. He hopes that he will be at the City Council meeting; and he hopes that he will get up there and have and opportunity to speak. Ask them about solutions to this problem because this is affecting businesses, not just yours. You have been there a long time but it is affecting businesses citywide. He thinks that they need to hear it from people like you more often. He hopes that he is present at that meeting and makes his feelings known and ask for a discussion on it. Mrs. Malone stated that he thought that he said Buckson. Buckson is a Levy Court Commissioner who is now going to be a State Representative and this is not his area. The speaker might be confused as to who he needs to talk to as far as his Levy Court Commissioner. Responding to Mrs. Malone, Mr. Hartman stated that his suggestion was City Council and the Mayor. Mrs. Malone stated yes, City Council and the Mayor. 9

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2022 Mrs. Denney stated that he has cameras but are they cameras that include an alarm system and people will respond to the alarm. Responding to Mrs. Denney, Mr. Giangrant stated no, they are cameras that record all the time. So, if he sees something wrong like the other day when he came to work and there was glass all over the place, he is able to view the cameras to see two homeless people camping out. Mrs. Denney stated that essentially your cameras as not designed to alert you so that someone would respond. She is not criticizing; she is just asking. Responding to Mrs. Denney, Mr. Giangrant stated that they do but there is so much traffic on the road that they come on each time as a false trigger. Every time a car goes down Route 8, the lights trigger the motion on the cameras. If they come inside the building, it’s fine. Mrs. Denney asked if he has explored fencing or gating it in during the night hours? She realizes that there are costs to those things. Responding to Mrs. Denney, Mr. Giangrant stated that he is a car wash. He shouldn’t have to make his establishment like a prison. He shouldn’t have to put fencing up. How is he going to let his customers in or out? Would you be comfortable going to a place with barred wire around it? Or six-foot fencing around it? Mrs. Denney stated that the Comprehensive Plan and the Codes and Ordinances of the City are not a book of suggestions; they are the rules and at this point, what has been brought before us meets the criteria. Essentially, and she certainly agrees that your battle is probably better fought with the Mayor and Council in the public forum of a Council meeting. She is actually someone who uses your business and she certainly appreciates the business. They have always treated her well and done a good job. Especially on senior day is typically when she comes. She hasn’t run into any of that but she certainly believes him and understands what’s happening. But this is not the body that deals with that. What they are looking at is where this fits. Mrs. Maucher closed the public hearing. Mrs. Denney moved to recommend approval to City Council for Z-22-03 Lands of Silver Linings Holding Corporation at 630 W. Division Street as it fits within the ordinances and she doesn’t see where she has a right to deny this. We all know as we live within the City that they are having problems with homelessness and vagrancy and all types of issues with people who don’t respect the laws but the truth of the matter is that in her opinion this is fully within the City’s Ordinances, seconded by Mr. Hartman. He would like to include that the change would be compatible with existing uses and zones in the area of concern; and public services and infrastructure exist in the area; and the proposal is in accordance with the City’s current Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Melson-Williams asked for clarity that the motion is in support of Rezoning the property to C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) with it remaining subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). Responding to Mrs. Melson-Williams, Mrs. Denney stated that that was her full intention. The motion was carried 8-0 by roll call vote with Dr. Jones absent. Mrs. Denney voting yes; for the reasons stated in the motion. Mr. Hartman voting yes as previously stated. Mr. Baldwin 10

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2022 voting yes. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; for reasons stated in the motion. Mrs. Malone voting yes; but she is concerned about the applicant’s approach towards the City of Dover regarding his right to buy and sell the property as he pleases. She will give him this opportunity, but he needs to change his tone. Mr. Cooper voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mr. Roach voting yes; due to the fact that it meets the Comprehensive Plan and the proximity of zones in that area are already with a C-2A (Limited Central Commercial Zone) designation. He definitely understands the concerns from Westside Car Wash and he hopes that Mr. Giangrant takes the time to go to City Council and the Mayor to express those concerns. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; for reasons previously stated. NEW BUSINESS Meeting adjourned at 8:17 PM. Sincerely, Kristen Mullaney Secretary 11