CCW Packet REVISED

CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 6:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers, 15 Loockerman Plaza, Dover, Delaware THIS AGENDA HAS BEEN REVISED TO REMOVE ITEM #1 ANNUAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF GOVERNING POLICY FOR ENERGY COMMODITY RISK MANAGEMENT AGENDA Public comments are welcomed on any item and will be permitted at the appropriate time. When possible, please notify the City Clerk (302-736-7008 or email at cityclerk@dover.de.us) should you wish to be recognized. VIRTUAL MEETING NOTICE This meeting will be held in Council Chambers with electronic access via WebEx. Public participation information is as follows: Dial: 1-650-479-3208 Link: https://rb.gy/jkgpco Event number: 2537 825 5361 Event password: DOVER (if needed) If you are new to WebEx, get the app now at https://www.webex.com/ to be ready when the meeting starts. CALL COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING TO ORDER SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 1. Request for Waiver - Appendix A - Subdivisions, Article VI - Subdivision - General Requirements and Design Standards, Section A - Streets (Right-of-Way known as Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue) - Waiver of Requirements to Increase in Maximum Length of a Dead-End Street (Cul-de-Sac), and the Elimination of Sidewalk on One Side of a Public Street associated with a Site Development Plan for the improvements to the rights- of-way of Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue to allow for further development of the properties that these streets will give access. (Mary Ellen Gray, City Planner) (Applicant: Patel College Properties, LLC & Patel Excess College Road, LLC. Tax Parcel: Rights-of-way in the vicinity of parcels ED-05-067.00-02-53.00-000 and ED-05-067.00-02- 56.00-000. Planning Reference: S-22-04) 1

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING - November 15, 2022 PAGE 2 The Planning Commission recommended approval with Conditions of the Request to Reduce the Minimum Street Right-of-Way Width, Increase in Maximum Length of a Dead- End Street, and the Elimination of Sidewalk on One side of a Public Street. ADJOURNMENT OF THE SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS 1. Council President 2. First District 3. Second District 4. Third District 5. Fourth District 6. At- Large 7. Mayor Christiansen 8. Presentation - The City of Dover Parks and Recreation Project Update - (Robin Eaton, Director of Parks and Recreation) (Committee Action Not Required) 9. Silver Lake Dam – Annual Inspection Review (*) (Staff recommendation: to accept the Silver Lake Dam 2022 Dam Safety Inspection Report and the FY 2022 Silver Lake Dam Inspection and Update Memorandum.) ADJOURNMENT OF THE PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING 2

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING - November 15, 2022 PAGE 3 LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 1. Increased Purchase Cost of Electric Truck, by more than 15% (Paul Waddell, Electric Director) (Staff recommendation: approving the additional cost of $75,707.76 to purchase the Digger Truck Veh #775 utilizing the funds designated for the purchase of the 2013 F550 Veh #778 and pushing the purchase of Veh #778 to FY24) 2. Update from the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) on Membership Priorities (Kay Sass, President of AFSCME Union) (Committee Action Not Required) 3. Proposed Ordinance #2022-21 - Amending Article 3. District Regulations - Section 20A. - Industrial park manufacturing zone - Business and Technology Center (IPM2) (Staff recommendation: approve the Ordinance for the First Reading at the November 28, 2022, Regular City Council Meeting) 4. Proposed Ordinance #2022-22 Amending Chapter 102 Taxation (Tax Increment Financing) (David S. Hugg, III, City Manager) (Staff recommendation: approve Ordinance for the First Reading at the November 28, 2022, Regular City Council Meeting) 5. Proposed Ordinance #2022-23 - Amending Chapter 2. Administration - Article IV. Officers and Employees - Division 4. Controller/Treasurer (Staff recommendation: approve Ordinance for the First Reading at the November 28, 2022, Regular City Council Meeting) 6. Proposed Ordinance #2022-24 - Amending Chapter 2. Administration - Article IV. Officers and Employees - Division 5. City Clerk (Staff recommendation: approve Ordinance for the First Reading at the November 28, 2022, Regular City Council Meeting) ADJOURNMENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING ADJOURNMENT OF THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 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 3

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND INSPECTIONS ACTION FORM Updated MEETING Council Committee of the Whole: Safety MEETING DATE: November 15, 2022 TYPE: Advisory & Transportation Committee SUBJECT Subdivision Waiver Requests for Improvements to the Rights-of-Way of Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue AGENDA Request for Waiver – Appendix A – Subdivisions, Article VI – Subdivision – General DESCRIPTION: Requirements and Design Standards, Section A – Street (Right-of-Way known as Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue) – Waiver of Requirements to Increase the Maximum Length of a Dead-End Street (Cul-de-Sac) and the Elimination of Sidewalk on One Side of a Public Street associated with a Site Development Plan for the improvements to the rights-of-way of Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue to allow for further development of the properties that these streets will give access. PLAN TYPE Continued Consideration of Subdivision Waiver Requests for Site Development Plan ADDRESS: Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue, Dover DE LOCATION: North of College Road and east of the Lands of Delaware Railroad APPLICANTS/ Patel College Properties, LLC & Patel Excess College Road, LLC OWNERS: Public Right-of-Way Rights-of-way in the vicinity of parcels TAX PARCELS: ED-05-067.00-02-53.00-000 and ED-05- SITE AREA: 1.93 acres +/- 067.00-02-56.00-000 EXISTING USES: Unimproved Areas and Partially Improved Areas of Public Right-of-way PROPOSED USES: Paved streets with a 24 foot roadway Planning Commission Meeting of March 21, 2022 PROCEEDINGS: CCOW – Safety Advisory & Transportation Committee Meeting of April 26, 2022: Began Consideration, Action Postponed seeking information CCOW – Safety Advisory & Transportation Committee Meeting of June 28, 2022: Deferred upon Applicant’s Request CCOW – Safety Advisory & Transportation Committee Meeting of July 26, 2022; Consideration of and Action for Recommendations on the Waivers City Council Meeting of August 8, 2022 – Report of CCOW – Safety Advisory & Transportation Committee Meeting of July 26, 2022 adopted by Consent Agenda action 4

Item 1. RECOMMENDED Consideration and Recommendation of Approval of Subdivision Waiver Requests ACTION: for Site Plan S-22-04 Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue Street Improvements as follows: 1) Reduction of the Minimum Street Right-of-Way Width This Waiver Request was withdrawn by Applicant’s Letter of November 1, 2022. 2) Increase in Maximum Length of a Dead-end Street (Cul-de-Sac) 3) Eliminate of Sidewalk on One Side of a Public Street. Requests are shown on Exhibits and additional clarifying submissions. BACKGROUND ANALYSIS - UPDATED The Request for Subdivision Waivers associated with Site Plan S-22-04 Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue consists of the following: 1) Reduction of the Minimum Street Right-of-Way Width (Request Withdrawn); 2) Increase in Maximum Length of a Dead-end Street (Cul-de-Sac); and 3) Eliminate of Sidewalk on One Side of a Public Street. The Review and Public Hearing of Site Plan S-22-04 occurred at the Planning Commission Meeting of March 21, 2022. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Subdivision Waivers. See Consideration of Subdivision Waiver Request Recommendation Report and Attachments (as provided for the CCOW-SAT Meeting of April 26, 2022). These items are included in this meeting packet again. • Consideration of Subdivision Waiver Request Recommendation Report • Development Advisory Committee Comments: Comments from City of Dover Public Works Department, Department of Water & Wastewater, Electric Department, City Office of the Fire Marshal, DelDOT, and Kent Conservation District • Subdivision Waiver Request Narrative • Site Development Plan Sheets • Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 21, 2022 At the CCOW-Safety Advisory & Transportation Meeting of April 26, 2022, the Committee heard a presentation on the Requests and also public comments. The Committee by their motion recommended postponing the Request for Waivers until “City Council can review the rights-of-way related to Dr. Wilma Mishoe’s property.” See Excerpt of CCOW-SAT Meeting Minutes. A series of follow-up activities then occurred. The Planning Staff via the City Clerk’s Office obtained contact information for Dr. Wilma Mishoe and shared it with the project design team from Pennoni (the project’s engineering firm). Staff from Pennoni scheduled and met on-site with Dr. Wilma Mishoe and others on May 13, 2022 and also provided additional information to her via email. The results of the Meeting were reported to Planning Staff who recommended submission of documentation of these coordination activities. Planning Staff also recommended preparation of a series of clarifying exhibits regarding the Waiver Requests. See Summary Letter dated June 17, 2022 with attachments. • Letter dated June 17, 2022 from Pennoni to Planning Staff with attachments (Exhibits #1-5 and email correspondence) • Exhibit #1 – Minimum Right-of-Way Width Waiver • Exhibit #2 – Maximum Dead End Street Length Waiver • Exhibit #3 – Public Sidewalk Elimination Waiver 5

Item 1. • Exhibit #4 – Existing Conditions – Raymond Street & Railroad Avenue • Exhibit #5 – Site Access These Subdivision Waiver Requests were scheduled for continued review and action at the CCOW-SAT Committee Meeting of June 28, 2022. However, the Applicant requested deferral of Consideration of the Waiver Request and CCOW-SAT Committee deferred it by removing the item from the Meeting’s agenda. At the CCOW-Safety Advisory & Transportation Meeting of July 26, 2022, the Committee resumed consideration of the Requests by hearing a presentation on the Requests and also public comments. After questions and discussion, the Committee put forth a motion regarding the waiver requests. See CCOW- SAT Meeting Minutes – July 26, 2022. In response to this action, the Applicant submitted a Letter. • Letter of August 2, 2022 from Pennoni to City Council & Members of the Safety Advisory & Transportation Committee The City Council at their meeting of August 8, 2022 adopted the Consent Agenda which included the report on the CCOW-Safety Advisory & Transportation Committee’s consideration of the Waiver Request. See City Council Meeting Minutes – August 8, 2022. In response to this action and further consultation with Planning Staff, the Applicant has submitted a Letter. The Letter withdraws one of the Waiver Requests and outlines a summary and clarifying information on the other Waiver Requests. • Letter of November 1, 2022 from Pennoni to City Council & Members of the Safety Advisory & Transportation Committee These Subdivision Waiver Requests are now scheduled for clarifying review and action at the CCOW- SAT Committee Meeting of November 15, 2022. 6

Christiana Executive Campus Item 1. 121 Continental Drive, Suite 207 Newark, DE 19713 T: 302-655-4451 F: 302-654-2895 www.pennoni.com November 01, 2022 PAI Project #PLAWX-19001 Members of City Council & Members of Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee City of Dover c/o City Clerk via e-mail cityclerk@dover.de.us RE: Raymond Street & Railroad Avenue Street Improvements Design Waiver Requests – Planning Reference S-22-04 City of Dover, Kent County, Delaware Dear Members of City Council & Members of Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee: As you are aware, Pennoni Associates Inc. (Pennoni) represents Patel College Properties, LLC and Patel Excess College Road, LLC (the Developer) in support of the Raymond Street & Railroad Avenue Street Improvements – Design Waiver Requests Application (Planning Reference S-22-024). To date, the Developer has requested the following three (3) waivers: • Minimum Public Street Right-of-Way Width • Maximum Length of a Dead-End Street (Cul-de-Sac) • Sidewalks on Both Sides of a Public Street This application was presented to the Planning Commission on March 21, 2022 where a unanimous recommendation for approval was made. It was then presented to the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee at a July 26, 2022 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting, where neither a recommendation for approval nor denial was made. The application was subsequently scheduled for a September 27, 2022 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting so that the application could be re-presented but was pulled from the agenda on September 20, 2022. It is our understanding that this application is now scheduled for the November 15, 2022 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting. Based on discussions with the Department of Planning & Inspections and as provided on the record, a waiver from the minimum public street right-of-way width is not needed for the Developer; therefore, we are respectfully requesting that Waiver Request #1 (Minimum Public Street Right-of-Way Width) be withdrawn. As part of a future Site Plan Application, the Developer will be dedicating property to public use where his property abuts Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue to meet the City’s standard for a minimum sixty-foot (60’) right-of-way width. Where private property not owned by the Developer abuts public right-of- way and does not provide the minimum sixty-foot (60’) right-of-way width, it is considered an existing non- conformity and additional land can only be dedicated to public use by those respective private landowners. As coordinated with the Department of Planning & Inspections, the remaining two (2) waivers (Waiver Request #2 (Maximum Length of a Dead-End Street (Cul-de-Sac)) and Waiver Request #3 (Sidewalks on Both Sides of a Public Street)) are being sought to optimize future site design and to locate entrances adjacent to Railroad Avenue and not Raymond Street to minimize impacts to residents adjacent to Raymond Street. Please accept the following to summarize and clarify specifics regarding these two (2) waiver requests: 7

PAI Project #PLAWX-19001 November 01, 2022 Page 2 Raymond St./Railroad Ave. Street Improvements Design Waiver RequestsItem 1. WAIVER REQUEST #2 – MAXIMUM LENGTH OF A DEAD-END STREET (CUL-DE-SAC) (Please refer to “Exhibit #4 – Minimum Dead-End Street Length Waiver” and “Exhibit #5 – Alternative to Dead- End Street Waiver Request” below) • We are requesting a waiver from the maximum dead-end street length of four hundred feet (400’) – the width will be fully compliant • A dead-end street (cul-de-sac) approximately 738’ in length is being proposed so that multiple ingress/egress points adjacent to Railroad Avenue can be provided for fire safety and vehicular circulation purposes • The intent of this design is to locate the entrances for the subject property adjacent to Railroad Avenue and not Raymond Street to limit impacts to residents on Raymond Street • The right-of-way width of Railroad Avenue is proposed continuously at sixty feet (60’) and is Code compliant • The corridor width of the roadway within Railroad Avenue is proposed continuously at twenty-four feet (24’) and will be both compliant with the City Code and the Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations • If on-street parking is requested by the City as part of the Site Plan Application, it will fit within the proposed right-of-way and will be both compliant with the City Code and the Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations • The twenty-four-foot (24’) roadway width meets and exceeds the minimum primary fire lane width as stipulated by the Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations • If this waiver is not granted, then one entrance will be proposed via Railroad Avenue and one entrance will be proposed via Raymond Street (see bullet points related to alternative design below) – this alternative design is illustrated in Exhibit #5 below • The dead-end street length within Railroad Avenue can be limited to four hundred feet (400’) and a second site access via Grove Street to the north of Raymond Street can be provided (see blue and green hatch on Exhibit #5) • The existing right-of-way width of Grove Street is also thirty-five feet (35’); however, the Developer owns property to the west of Grove Street and the Developer can dedicate an additional twenty-five feet (25’) of land to public use • One site entrance/exit can be proposed adjacent to Railroad Avenue and one site entrance/exit can be proposed adjacent to Raymond Street (Grove Street) • This design results in a Code compliant plan without the requested waiver; however, this is not the best layout, as it would present more of an impact to residents adjacent to Raymond Street • The proposed waiver (with both entrances on Railroad Avenue) is the best design layout that limits impact on residents 8

PAI Project #PLAWX-19001 November 01, 2022 Page 3 Raymond St./Railroad Ave. Street Improvements Design Waiver RequestsItem 1. Exhibit #4 – Minimum Dead-End Street Length Waiver Exhibit #5 – Alternative to Dead-End Street Waiver Request 9

PAI Project #PLAWX-19001 November 01, 2022 Page 4 Raymond St./Railroad Ave. Street Improvements Design Waiver RequestsItem 1. WAIVER REQUEST #3 – SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES OF A PUBLIC STREET (Please refer to “Exhibit #6 – Public Sidewalk Waiver” below) • Please note that no existing sidewalks are being eliminated • City of Dover standards require sidewalks on both sides of a public street • The Developer is requesting a waiver to construct sidewalk on the east side of Railroad Avenue only, on the side where development will be proposed and not the side where there is an existing railroad (see green and red hatch on Exhibit #6) • The west side of Railroad Avenue lies directly adjacent to a railroad and would be a “sidewalk to nowhere” • It was suggested by the Department of Planning & Inspections to not install this sidewalk Exhibit #6 – Public Sidewalk Waiver CONCLUSION As detailed above, we are requesting design waivers that will optimize site access for future development on the subject property and will minimize impacts to residents adjacent to Raymond Street. However, the Developer can provide a Code-compliant plan without procurement of the requested waivers. The denial of Waiver #2 (Maximum Length of a Dead-End Street (Cul-de-Sac)) will result in one entrance adjacent to Railroad Avenue and one entrance adjacent to Raymond Street, and denial of Waiver #3 (Sidewalks on Both Sides of a Public Street) would simply result in the Developer installing sidewalk adjacent to railroad tracks that do not lead anywhere. As submitted, the Developer is seeking to implement the best site access design as discussed with the Department of Planning & Inspections and the Delaware Department of Transportation. 10

PAI Project #PLAWX-19001 November 01, 2022 Page 5 Raymond St./Railroad Ave. Street Improvements Design Waiver RequestsItem 1. On behalf of the Developer, thank you for your consideration of this application. If you have any questions/comments or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Respectfully submitted, PENNONI ASSOCIATES INC. Douglas D. Barry, PE Associate Vice President cc: Members of Planning Commission Mr. David Hugg – City Manager Ms. Mary Ellen Gray – Director, Department of Planning & Inspections Ms. Dawn Melson-Williams – Principal Planner, Department of Planning & Inspections Mr. Dominic Balascio – Patel College Properties, LLC Mr. Gregory Rishel – Pennoni Associates Inc. 11

Item 1. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING The Regular City Council Meeting was held on August 8, 2022, at 6:30 p.m. with Council President Sudler presiding. Council members present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Neil, Dr. Pillsbury (via WebEx), Ms. Arndt, Mr. Rocha, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Hare. Staff members present were Major Spicer, Ms. Peddicord, Mr. Hugg, Ms. Gray, Mr. Junge, and Ms. Bennett. Mayor Christiansen was present. OPEN FORUM The Open Forum was held at 6:15 p.m., prior to the commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Sudler declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council was not in official session and could not take formal action. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Elder Ellis B. Louden. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Andre Boggerty. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Ms. Arndt, 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 so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered a separate item. Mr. Hare moved for adoption of the consent agenda, seconded by Mr. Rocha, and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 26, 2022 The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of July 26, 2022, were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Hare, seconded by Mr. Rocha, and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen. COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE The Council Committee of the Whole met on July 26, 2022, at 6:00 p.m. with Council President Sudler presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson (arrived via WebEx at 7:45 P.M.), Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Neil, Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Rocha, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Hare. Ms. Arndt was absent. Mayor Christiansen was also present. Civilian members present for their committee meetings were Mr. Contant (via WebEx) and Mr. Shevock (via WebEx) (Legislative, Finance, and 12

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 2 Item 1. Administration), and Dr. Jackson and Mr. Hosfelt (Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee). Mr. McCutcheon and Mr. Shelton (Utility) were absent. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Boggerty, and unanimously carried. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met with Council President Sudler presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Hare moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Rocha, and unanimously carried. Discussion – Fiscal Year 2022 Audit Program (Lori Peddicord, Controller/Treasurer) Lori Peddicord, Controller/Treasurer, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Fiscal Year 2022 Audit Program. Staff recommended acceptance of the audit program. Mr. Hare moved to recommend acceptance of the audit program, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for acceptance of the Council recommendation, seconded by Mr. Rocha, and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Hare moved for adjournment of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting, seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:04 p.m. UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee met with Chairman Rocha presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Hare moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Neil, and unanimously carried. 13

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 3 Item 1. Evaluation of Proposals – Silver Lake Production Well (Jason Lyon, Director of Water Wastewater) Mr. Jason Lyon, Director of Water & Wastewater, and Kate Mills, Water Production Manager, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Evaluation of Proposals for Silver Lake Production Well. Staff recommended to award the contract to Davis Bowen & Friedel, Inc. for the design /build services of the Silver Lake Production Well, RFP #22-0033WW, for $2,942,000. Mr. Hare moved to recommend awarding the contract to Davis Bowen & Friedel, Inc. for the design/build services of the Silver Lake Production Well, RFP #22- 0033WW, for $2,942,000, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Mills stated that the department had completed the test well process that was approved by the state. Ms. Mills explained that they needed to obtain a permit to drill a test well at that location. Ms. Mills stated that the state is aware of the project and that they have taken all the proper steps thus far. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Ms. Mills stated that the city has not run out of water in another well. Ms. Mills explained this well will be for redundancy, and that they are constructing and replacing the pipe on North State Street that is near the well. Ms. Mills further explained that they are upgrading the size of the water main to handle the well’s production, and creating redundancy for the water system, so if another well does go down, the new well will help support it. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Ms. Mills stated that this project started four to five years prior and that the well was simulated in a water model that an engineering group looked at. Ms. Mills explained that this is what led to the decision to upgrade North State Street. Ms. Mills noted that they are using all the material needed to make it a viable location. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Lyon stated that the vendor would have every opportunity to use minority subcontractors, but that they are not mandated to do so. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Lyon explained that when the project went out for bid, they worked with the procurement team. Mr. Lyon noted that his department gave them a bidder list about a month before the mandatory pre-bid meeting, so minority contractors were solicited. Mr. Lyon explained that when they pull the list, they go to the state website and choose companies that can do the work. Mr. Lyon further explained that they solicited them, that there is a bid out for this project, and a date of the pre-bid meeting. Mr. Lyon noted that unfortunately, they did not get any takers. 14

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 4 Item 1. Mr. Taylor stated that he has had his fill of one company being selected. Mr. Taylor explained that there are minority businesses everywhere and that they do not feel as though they are getting their proper opportunity. Mr. Taylor believes that they are not because they do not know when these bids are coming out and what is happening. Mr. Taylor clarified that he did not believe Mr. Lyon, or his department was doing anything wrong but that the city needs to step up its measures to make sure that they get the information out to more people. Mr. Taylor believes that they must do a better job of recruiting minority businesses for these accounts. He explained that one of the reasons why he has insisted on a mandatory pre-bid meeting is to get everyone in the room, so those smaller companies that will not get the contract can subcontract with the larger company. Mr. Taylor stated that they cannot keep coming with just one bid or he will start saying no and solicit his colleagues to say no. Mr. Taylor explained that this is something that must be at the forefront of our minds when they start putting these contracts out, and not something that comes up right at the end, of a council meeting. Mr. Taylor noted that Ms. Mills and Mr. Lyon are doing a great job, but this process must be altered. Responding to Mr. Lyon, Mr. Taylor clarified that by mandatory, he means everyone who will bid, everyone who will subcontract and wants to be a part of the project must attend the mandatory pre-bid meeting. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Lyon stated that historically when the city had mandatory pre-bid meetings the issue was that they were receiving a small pool of candidates because companies from outside the area were not coming down. After all, they did not want to make the trip. Mr. Lyon explained that if they did not attend the meeting, the contractors were not able to bid on the project. Mr. Lyon further explained that the city had made pre-bid meetings not mandatory to increase the number of bids they receive. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Lyon stated that regarding the Evaluation of Proposals – Silver Lake Production Well, they did solicit from disadvantaged minority, women-owned businesses from the State of Delaware website. Mr. Lyon assured the council that if there was another avenue to solicit from, he would be happy to work together. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Mills stated that once the well is built, residents may notice slightly better pressure. Ms. Mills explained that they will be replacing the cast iron main during the upgrade. Ms. Mills further explained that the portion of Dover and the other parts connected to it should see less brown water. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Lyon stated that the City of Dover Purchasing Policy currently does not include a provision that a percentage of work is to be performed by a minority contractor. 15

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 5 Item 1. Mr. Sudler requested the Water & Wastewater and Procurement Departments work together to create a workshop to include what is the criteria for a sole vendor and what parameters are set in place in regards to trying to achieve a mandate that a percentage of work must be completed by a minority contractor. Mr. Sudler stated that Mr. Lyon and his team are doing a good job, thanked him for the transparency in the procurement process, and for explaining exactly how they solicited bids. Mr. Sudler agreed with Mr. Taylor and explained that if the city mandated pre-bid meetings, the city will not be perceived as always using the same vendor and if the other contractors do not show up then it will be on them. Mr. Boggerty stated that he would be willing to provide staff with someone who will help them navigate and mirror what the federal government is doing and how they drill down on contractors. Mr. Hare moved to recommend awarding the contract to Davis Bowen & Friedel, Inc. for the design /build services of the Silver Lake Production Well, RFP #22-0033WW, for $2,942,000, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for acceptance of the Council recommendation, seconded by Mr. Rocha, and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Neil moved for adjournment of the Utility Committee meeting, seconded by Mr. Boggerty, and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:24 p.m. SAFETY, ADVISORY, AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE The Safety, Advisory, and Transportation Committee met with Chairman Taylor presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury, and unanimously carried. Status Update - Loockerman Street Fire of March 16, 2022 - Dangerous Building (Jason Osika, Fire Marshal, and Eddie Kopp, Code Enforcement Supervisor) Mr. Jason Osika, Fire Marshal, stated that the fire occurred on March 16, 2022, and that there is still an open investigation, so his comments will be limited. Mr. Osika stated that they immediately did a structural engineer’s report on the day of the fire. Mr. Osika said that this report was done to make sure the building did not need to be demoed on the spot. Mr. Osika explained that the report showed that there is no danger of the building falling into the street or causing any further damage. 16

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 6 Item 1. Mr. Osika explained that the process of handling a fire such as the Loockerman St. Fire is to condemn the building as unfit for habitation, enter a case, and turn it over to Code Enforcement. Mr. Osika further explained that Code Enforcement then follows up with repairs, tear down and any permits needed. Mr. Osika stated that Code Enforcement will send letters and work with the homeowner and insurance companies with obtaining permits to make sure the proper work is done. Eddie Kopp, Chief Code Enforcement Officer, stated that the Code Enforcement Office sent the first notice on March 17th, 2022, with the violations that needed to be corrected and the obvious condemnation. Mr. Kopp explained that the owner was allotted 60 days and that there was no response from the property owner. Mr. Kopp stated that a second notice was sent on June 15th, 2022, which is the normal process. Mr. Kopp stated that after receiving no feedback from the property owner, they sent a letter of intent, on July 1st, 2022, to the property owner and the attorney representing the property owner. Mr. Kopp explained that the letter of intent is a notice stating that they have 30 days to correct the property, or else Code Enforcement will present it before council to be declared dangerous and set a demolition date. Mr. Kopp further explained that he contacted the attorney representing the property owner on July 26, 2022, and he said that there is no update. Mr. Kopp stated that the lawyer cannot provide any information other than what they are aware of, so they receive our letters. Mr. Kopp stated that as far as he knew, in speaking with the attorney, the owner of the property is out of the country, with no return date set, so the attorney is representing the property and has been included on all notifications. Mr. Kopp stated that he has sent proper notices to all the addresses on file, of which there are three. Mr. Kopp stated that the follow-up date for the letter of intent is August 4th, 2022, which, after that, if no response is received, Code Enforcement will arrange a meeting with the City Clerk’s office for a council meeting. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Kopp confirmed that the owner of the property on file is SAG Holdings, LLC and that the next follow-up date is August 4, 2022, which will result in a notice of a Council Hearing. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Kopp confirmed from his conversation with the attorney, that the property is uninsured. Mr. Kopp also noted the building is a standalone building with a very small gap between the damaged building and the adjacent building. Mr. Boggerty asked if the city could require tenants or building owners, to show proof of insurance. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Hare stated that the businesses are more than likely insured. However, it would be different to mandate a property owner who has paid off a building, be required to have insurance. 17

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 7 Item 1. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Hugg stated that if the city were to declare a building dangerous, they would take on the responsibility for tearing it down. Mr. Hugg explained the city would take ownership of the building and that the only way to recoup the demolition money it to sell it or develop the lot. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Kopp stated that Code Enforcement has recommended making changes to the Dangerous Building Ordinance. Mr. Kopp explained that the way the Ordinance currently is written is a drawn-out process that will take six months to a year to demolish a building. Mr. Kopp insured Council that the Dangerous Building Ordinance would be on an upcoming agenda for Council because Code Enforcement is aware that it is an issue and is taking steps to address it. Mr. Rocha noted that he was concerned from a safety perspective that if someone entered the building unlawfully and was injured. Mr. Rocha asked if it would be a liability to the city. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Kopp explained that there is a provision in the code that would shorten the time and that is only if the building is in imminent danger to the public. Mr. Kopp further explained the Structural Engineer’s Report stated that the building was structurally sound and had been boarded up to prevent unlawful entry. Mr. Kopp stated that if they called the building an imminent danger would only remove the letter of intent and lessen the time frame by 30 days. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Hare stated that if the process goes as it has in the past 5, 10, and 15 years, Code Enforcement will bring it to council, the owner is going to show up and council is going to say, "Oh, well, okay, you get another 60 days to get it done," then they are not going to do anything, and then come back to council. Mr. Hare explained what council needs to do is, state that the owner has had all the opportunities to tear it down and give the owner 15 days to fix it. Mr. Hare explained that if the property was not fixed, then it will need to be torn down. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend the Safety, Advisory, and Transportation Committee waive the letter of intent and send the building straight to City Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha. Mr. Hare stated that he did not disagree with Mr. Sudler’s thought process however, council cannot change the rules and must follow the Dover Code of Ordinances. Mr. Hare suggested getting a legal opinion from Mr. Rodriguez, City Solicitor. Mr. Neil agreed with Mr. Hare. Mr. Neil stated that council should check for legal sufficiency to make sure that they have dotted all their I’s and crossed all their T’s legally. Mr. Neil stated that as soon as a legal opinion has been rendered, then they need to bring it before council as quickly as possible. Mr. Neil noted that he is looking forward to changing the ordinance to speed up the process. 18

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 8 Item 1. Mr. Sudler stated that after hearing the consensus of council he would like to rescind the motion and make another motion. Mr. Rocha agreed to rescind his second to the motion. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend based on the City Solicitor’s opinion that if it is permissible that Council waives the 30-day Notice, Letter of Intent, and the matter go straight to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for acceptance of the Council recommendation, seconded by Mr. Rocha, and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Sudler recused himself and left Council Chambers at 6:47 p.m. Mayor Christiansen stated that the discussions on revising the Dangerous Building Ordinance of procedures and building code appeals had begun. Mayor Christiansen noted that he met with the Planning Director and hopefully, council will have those revisions brought to them by the early part of September for council action. Mayor Christiansen stated that he has spoken with a party that is interested in the property located on Loockerman Street which may help the city recoup their money once those expenses are in. Mayor Christiansen stated that he would be willing to issue an Executive Order to have the building on Loockerman Street torn down. Mayor Christiansen explained that the building needed to be taken down, that he was there the night of the fire, and that every day he drives by it he believes it looks worse and worse. Request for Waiver - Appendix A - Subdivisions, Article VI - Subdivision - General Requirements and Design Standards, Section A - Streets (Right-of-Way known as Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue) - Waiver of Requirements for the Reduction of the Minimum Street Right-of-Way Width, Increase in Maximum Length of a Dead-End Street (Cul-de-Sac), and the Elimination of Sidewalk on One Side of a Public Street associated with a Site Development Plan for the improvements to the rights-of-way of Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue to allow for further development of the properties that these streets will give access. (Dawn Melson- Williams, Principal Planner) Mr. Taylor introduced Attachment #1- Petition Against the Request for Waiver submitted by adjacent property owners. Ms. Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Request for Waiver for Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue regarding planning reference: S-22-04. The Planning Commission recommended approval with Conditions of the Request to Reduce the Minimum Street Right-of-Way Width, Increase in Maximum Length 19

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 9 Item 1. of a Dead-End Street, and the Elimination of Sidewalk on One side of a Public Street. Mr. Neil noted that he had sent his question to the Planning Commission in preparation for this meeting. Mr. Neil stated there was a key to opening the property for development and that was through the waivers. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the zoning around Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue is a collection of different residential zoning districts. The lands that are owned by the Patel properties, Patel College Road Properties, are zoned RG-5, which is a general residence zone for mid-rise apartments. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the apartments are permitted use. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the RG5 zone also allows for the uses that are allowed in the one-family resident zone. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that it means that one- family detached houses could go there as well. There are also several, non- residential uses that could happen through a conditional use process, which is a specialized review process. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that these include properties where schools, places of worship, and daycare centers for children and adults are located. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that public utilities and wireless communication facilities could go into this area. Ms. Melson-Williams explained that under the current zoning of that land area, you have a series of residential, and then some non-residential uses. Ms. Melson-Williams noted that under its current zoning, it would not allow for what you think it would with normal commercial businesses, such as retail components, manufacturing, or industrial use. Ms. Melson-Williams explained that there are properties in this area that have some of the City’s other residential zones, both RM-2 and R-8. Several properties are zoned IO, which is institutional, and office, which have other uses. Ms. Melson- Williams stated that it is predominantly a road network, if you will, on the east side of the railroad tracks that are flanked by properties that are residentially zoned. Ms. Melson-Williams further explained that several properties are not within the corporate limits of the City of Dover and fall under Kent County's jurisdiction. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) currently has a study underway. Ms. Melson-Williams explained that several years ago, they did a study focused on the rail network throughout Kent County and that they were looking at properties adjacent to the railroad that have a zoning classification that would be amenable to rail-side usage by a developer. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that most recently they have been revisiting that study and looking more specifically at land that is adjacent to the railroad, that remains undeveloped and could have potential. Ms. Melson- Williams noted that the area near Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue is certainly an area that has land that is not developed. However, the current zoning of this large tract of land that is adjacent to the railroad is for residential use. Ms. Melson- Williams further explained that for the property to be used for some type of manufacturing or industrial zoning, it would require a rezoning application. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that most likely in the case of some of these properties, an 20

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 10 Item 1. amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan would be required. Ms. Melson- Williams also stated that there is a process, but that this is not what is before council this evening, and that this request is for subdivision waivers related to the street network. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that if the Request for Waivers were not approved, the applicant then would be able to proceed in building the apartment complex. Ms. Melson-Williams noted that there may be limitations in the number of units. She explained that in the case of the sidewalk, they would have to build the sidewalk on both sides of the street, and they would follow the Dover Code of Ordinances. Ms. Melson-Williams further stated that in regards to the question about the right-of-way width, the applicant is technically providing the right-of-way where they can and where they have ownership of the land that is directly adjacent to it. She noted that it would not be unusual for a property to dedicate additional right-of-way, for the area that is in front of their parcel. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the city cannot force the applicant to dedicate the right- of-way in front of somebody else's property. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the biggest question would be the length of the cul-de-sac. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that there are probably ways to work around that by creating a larger street network in that specific area so that you can eliminate the length of the dead end that exists, but that this area is also encumbered by some significant environmental concerns. She then explained that there is a brownfield area, floodplain, and wetland on the subject site that limit development. Ms. Melson-Williams noted that the choices for redesigning the site and the road network are also somewhat limited. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that an alternative way to reach this property, which included outreach efforts, did not happen. Ms. Melson- Williams stated that she would most likely not see an at-grade crossing of the railroad at a different location in her lifetime. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that typically, new railroad crossings and at-grade crossings are not being created. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that if you want to create a new one, you’d have to close one that already exists and that crossing that railroad from the west to get to this area is probably not an option. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that looking at other locations, such as crossing a tract of land owned by Delaware State University, that has an Athletic Annex Building just immediately after where the railroad crosses College Road, it would be on the left if you are heading towards DuPont Highway. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that any improvements to that existing entrance, or creation of a new road in that area would be subject to Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) review because College Road is a state-maintained road, and that she did not believe that DelDOT would even consider something that close to the railroad crossing. Ms. Melson-Williams further explained that if it puts cars basically sitting on a railroad track to make a left, that is not something they are going to approve from a traffic transportation-design standpoint. 21

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 11 Item 1. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that other options for reaching the site were not considered because it is adjacent to a public street right-of-way that already exists. She noted that there were early conversations with the applicant and DelDOT that were related to, how you would get to the site. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that it involves making use of the existing road network at Mishoe Street. Ms. Melson- Williams explained that Mishoe Street has a dedicated left-turn lane and wider- width street standards. Ms. Melson-Williams further explained that the city and the county were also involved in some of those early conversations because they had to go through an annexation process to ensure that the street right-of-way area was located within the corporate limits of the City of Dover. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that last year the city went through an annexation process to clarify that these rights-of-way were intended to be part of the city and would be mapped as such. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Melson-Williams confirmed that even if the waivers are denied, that the property will still be developed. She explained that with apartment buildings, the owner can reach a certain number of units and then will need to have two access points to a public street network. Ms. Melson-Williams noted that there could be two access points on Railroad Avenue but with the waiver, design-wise, it would be much easier to achieve. Ms. Melson-Williams referred to the map on page 23 in the packet and explained that this area of land is adjacent to the property and that several properties are owned by Mishoe Cove Apartments. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that this is the area where the additional right-of-way is not being proposed because this applicant does not have control of the adjacent land areas. Ms. Melson-Williams noted that the existing 35-foot right-of-way is what is in that area and that for about half of that area we already maintain it as a city street. Ms. Melson-Williams referred to the map on page 24 of the packet, which shows where the existing road of Mishoe Street and Raymond Street is marked in green. She explained that the actual right-of-way property of the road is shown in the red- hatched area. Ms. Melson-Williams explained that what is out there today does not match up with where the right-of-way technically is and any improvements to Raymond Street would be done where the right-of-way exists for that road. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that Railroad Avenue is currently unimproved meaning it exists on paper, but there is no pavement, gravel, et cetera, out there at this present time. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that Raymond Street dead ends on the map on page 24 of the packet, shown in green, and ends on the property owned by Mishoe Cove. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams referred to the map on page 24 of the packet and stated where the proposed street would be is not owned by Mishoe Cove, it is shown in red hatch marks. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that this area is property of the street, the right-of-way. Ms. Melson-further explained that 22

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 12 Item 1. Raymond Street is part city dedication and part a public right-of-way that is yet to be improved, so if their activities are happening in the right-of-way that exists, then no agreement would need to be made with the adjacent property owner. Responding to Mr. Hosfelt, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the right-of-way would be 60 feet. Ms. Melson-Williams explained that the paved section of the road is required to be a minimum of 24 feet in width from curb to curb. Ms. Melson- Williams noted that there is no parking. Ms. Melson-Williams explained that if the applicant would want to have parking on that street, then the width of the paved part would need to be increased. Responding to Mr. Hosfelt, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the Dover Code of Ordinances outlines provisions for what the width of that street section must be to have on-street parking. Ms. Melson-Williams noted that if a street has a paved width of 24 feet, then that means no parking. She explained that if there is to be on- street parking on one side of the street or both then you would have to get into that increased paved width, which is in code. Ms. Melson-Williams noted that it is a code requirement as to what that width would need to be. Responding to Mr. Hosfelt, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that there would be potentially two access points to the property, but that is not what Council is here to discuss, because they do not have a design for what that complex looks like. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that if the applicant is looking to have more than a certain number of units then they need two access points, and design would dictate where those access points can happen. Ms. Melson-Williams noted that the plans would also be reviewed by the City’s Department of Public Works since it would be a city street that they are taking access from. Responding to Mr. Hosfelt, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the paved width or the right-of-way width for 60 feet has been in the City of Dover land subdivision regulations for some time. Ms. Melson-Williams noted that there has not been any recent change in the last 20 years, that there were some changes related to on-street parking such as what those qualifications would need to be but that the right-of- way width has not changed for a street such as this. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Melson-Williams referred to the map on page 23 of the packet and stated that the request for a waiver of eliminating a sidewalk is in an area that is not improved with sidewalks presently. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that Railroad Avenue is unimproved, which means that there is nothing out there on the landscape. Ms. Melson-Williams explained that they are seeking to eliminate the sidewalk where it would be adjacent to the railroad tracks. Ms. Melson- Williams further explained that they are going to provide sidewalks on the other side of the road, which would be adjacent to where the potential development would happen. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that there are existing sidewalks along College Road, Mishoe, and that there is a little bit, along parts of Raymond Street that do exist already. Ms. Melson-Williams noted that with this project, they are proposing sidewalks along the frontage of Railroad Avenue and building the 23

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 13 Item 1. sidewalk network that does not yet exist along Raymond Street for a portion of Raymond Street on both sides. Ms. Melson-Williams noted that this would also be done along the south side of Raymond Street, which is the side that is closer to College Road. Ms. Melson-Williams noted that should this property develop, there would be a sidewalk network that a resident of that property could walk on down Railroad Avenue, Raymond Street, and then down Mishoe Street to get to College Road, where there is an existing sidewalk system. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Melson-Williams confirmed that the applicant is seeking to eliminate the requirement to build a sidewalk on one of the sides of Railroad Avenue. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that if the waiver was not approved, then it would require having a sidewalk on both sides of Railroad Avenue, as well as a little corner where a sidewalk would then have to be constructed also as Raymond Street intersects with Railroad Avenue. Ms. Melson- Williams noted that if the right-of-way does not accommodate that, then they are not going to add a sidewalk that impacts an adjacent property. Ms. Melson- Williams noted that there is going to be a leftover piece of Raymond Street that does not have a sufficient right-of-way that needs to get the paved width of a street and a sidewalk on both sides implemented. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the code states when you build a public street, you have sidewalks on both sides and that in this situation, they're asking for relief because the road that they hope to build is right next to the railroad tracks. Ms. Melson-Williams further explained that this is probably not where they would want people walking anyway and that they probably would not walk in that area. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that they certainly do not want them trying to cross the tracks to get to whatever is on the other side, because there is not a pedestrian crossing of the tracks in that area either. Mr. Hare stated that he did not have a problem not having a sidewalk running alongside the railroad track. Mr. Hare noted that the Police Station and the new Post Office in downtown Dover do not have sidewalks on the other side of the street, by the courthouse along the railroad tracks. Mr. Hare stated that he agreed with Mr. Hosfelt and that the streets should not be like Mayfair where the streets are narrow and have on-street parking on both sides. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mayor Christiansen stated that it would be difficult to get a fire apparatus down a 35-foot street in an emergency with vehicles parked. Mayor Christiansen explained that the wider the street, the easier it is for fire apparatus, police vehicles, EMS, and Paramedics. Mayor Christiansen stated that the bulk of traffic is on College Road and adding a street that feeds into it would be a nightmare. Mayor Christiansen asked who would be putting a light on Mishoe Street. 24

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 14 Item 1. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that Council could certainly act on each waiver individually, however, the reduction in the minimum street right-of-way is for the right of way, which is the property of the street. Ms. Melson- Williams noted that it does not impact the paved width requirement. Ms. Melson- Williams stated that they would be subject to what the code says for paved width, depending on if it has no parking or parking on one or both sides. Ms. Melson- Williams noted that the code dictates what the minimum paved width of the street needs to be. Mr. Neil stated that Council has brought up a concern in terms of an emergency basis, and it would depend upon the developer’s willingness to make sure whatever has to happen and to make sure that they have an additional width on that property to ensure that emergency vehicles will be able to get through for the protection of the residents who will be living in the apartments. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams referred to the map on page 22 of the packet and stated that 400 feet is the measurement of the length of the cul-de- sac and that the measurement begins at Raymond Street. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that she does not know the measurement of the distance between the railroad tracks and the street. Mr. James Paige, 355 Rita Wilma Road, stated that from what he has heard so far, it is opening Pandora's box as far as he is concerned. Mr. Paige explained that once that box is opened and things are in place, Patel's can do what they want to because it is done. Mr. Paige asked how many people are satisfied with where they live, and how many have been there for 10 years or more. Mr. Paige also asked if you have lived there for 10 years and love their neighborhood. Mr. Paige asked how you would like for him to come into your neighborhood, take up your sidewalks and do this to your land. Mr. Paige stated that he could say he is going to do whatever and that it seems as though he cannot be stopped. Mr. Paige stated that the only people that can stop it are Council. Mr. Paige said that they are going to put in 150 apartments and if they do not get all these waivers done, then they will only be able to have 125 apartments. Mr. Paige suggested that the Patel Group build 125 apartments and then all parties would be satisfied. Mr. Paige asked, do you know how much traffic that is going to bring through our neighborhood, with no stop lights? Mr. Paige stated that the neighborhood does not want that. Dr. Wilma Mishoe stated that she had been to Council three times and is tired. Dr. Mishoe stated that part of Raymond Street that has been discussed is not even in the City of Dover, it is in Kent County. Dr. Mishoe stated that she has the maps, pays taxes on the property, and owns the land that is being discussed. Dr. Mishoe explained that when Raymond Street stops being a paved curve, that is where the 25

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 15 Item 1. City's portion of it ends. Dr. Mishoe stated that if they do not believe her to ask Mr. Raymond, who is here. The street was named after him, Raymond Fisher. Greg Rishell, Engineer, Pennoni Associates Inc., representing Patel Properties, thanked everyone tonight and stated that they hopefully they got their questions answered as best they could. Mr. Rishell thanked Ms. Melson-Williams, who did a fantastic job answering pretty much all of the questions. Mr. Rishell stated that he wanted to clarify one item that came up in the conversation about emergency vehicle access. Mr. Rishell clarified that the road that is being proposed is not being narrowed, it will be 24 feet on Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue. Mr. Rishell stated that the only thing that is technically getting narrower is where the applicant is proposing and dedicating a full 60-foot right-of-way where it narrows down to a 35-foot right-of-way or as what Ms. Melson-Williams referred to as the property of the road. Mr. Rishell stated that this is the only thing that is narrowing, which is an imaginary line. Mr. Rishell stated in regards to emergency vehicle access, the 24-foot width is a minimum standard set by the City of Dover, which is also consistent with the minimum width of a fire lane that is required by the Office of the State Fire Marshal and that is a fire lane width in front of a building. Mr. Rishell explained that for actual access to a property, the Office of State Fire Marshal says for two-way access it only needs to be 20-feet wide and 16-feet wide for one way, which is the state regulations. Mr. Rishell noted that even if someone was illegally parked on the side of the road, a fire truck could still get by. Mr. Rishell confirmed that no parking is being proposed. Mr. Rishell stated that this would be part of a site plan application, and that there have been no decisions made yet on the development of the property as far as that. Mr. Rishell stated that there was no discussion or desire to have any on-street parking as part of the applicant’s part. Mr. Rishell noted that the streets could be always signed as No Parking, so, if someone is parking illegally, they cannot control that. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Rishell stated that to his knowledge a title search and boundary survey have been done and that the work that is being proposed in the right-of-way is public land. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams referred to the map on page 24 in the packet and stated that the red hatched area shows the public right-of-way, and the property of the road where development activity would happen. Ms. Melson- Williams noted that what does exist out there on the land, does show that the paved areas currently are located on private property. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that however, with this development project, they would be limited to working within the right-of-way, which is the red hatched area. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that there is a portion of Raymond Street that is already accepted for city maintenance and that ends about halfway, probably right around 26

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 16 Item 1. the second entrance to the Mishoe Towers, and is already in the City's maintenance. Ms. Melson-Williams explained that with this area being plotted in the 1890s, it is not surprising that ownership questions arise. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the property of the road went through an annexation process to clarify that those land areas are now within the City of Dover and that typically, when the property is annexed any adjacent right away is brought in and made part of the City. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that once the property is annexed the right-of-way is owned by the public and the City of Dover acts on behalf of the public in ownership. Ms. Melson-Williams explained that they do not call dedication for maintenance until that formal process happens after the street has been built to the City’s standards. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams explained that the red hatched lines are showing on the deed research and that the survey shows where the property of the road and the right-of-way exist today. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Rishell stated that they have not considered Mr. Paige’s proposal of 125 apartments because they have not fully explored the full development options of the property, other than just looking at developing the property by right. Mr. Rishell explained that as far as density requirements go, they must explore their development options. Mr. Rishell noted that he did not believe there was any consideration given to the reduction in density, as it relates to this application. Mr. Rishell stated that they are primarily focused on accessing the property using public lands in trying to meet city standards and requirements as much as possible. Mr. Rishell also discussed improving a scenario in a situation that is much better than exists today. Mr. Rishell explained that as you can see the road, as it exists today, it is half on private property and that asking for a few waivers that are due to existing conditions that are out of anyone's control, such as the way the properties were plotted. Reverend Raymond Fisher, a property owner on Raymond Street stated that years ago that the City named the street after him because he lived there for so long. Mr. Fisher stated that he was concerned about traffic and agreed with Dr. Mishoe and her brother, Mr. Paige. Mr. Fisher stated that for over 60 years, that is where he raised his children, his oldest son is 60 years old, and they have not had traffic problems. Mr. Fisher stated that as Brother Paige said, if you open the door, you'll never get it closed. Mr. Fisher stated that he knew they would not want it, nor anybody else running through their street at all times of night with all kinds of noise and everything. Mr. Fisher noted that he did not think his heart could stand it; he is too old now to try to go through that kind of process. 27

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 17 Item 1. Mr. Fisher stated that his objection is to get rid of those apartments or limit the number of units. Mr. Fisher stated that the gentleman would want him to come into his territory and that he sees it is going to be a problem. Mr. Fisher stated that he thinks they need quietness as a community, just like everybody else, and that they are not asking for any favors. Mr. Fisher noted that they are asking for what is right for them, just as what is right for you, your family and your community. Ms. Bennett read Mr. Anderson’s comment on WebEx that stated “I am troubled by the number of exceptions and waivers sought. It shows me that the infrastructure is inadequate for the density of the project. The safety concerns are inescapable to me. I want to support growth. I believe in property rights. I also believe in common sense safety rules. I would like to see a couple of single-family homes. If this is to be developed, the safety and infrastructure concerns and environmental sensitivity of the land mitigate against high-density development.” Mr. Neil moved for the recommendation of the approval of the Planning Commission’s recommendation to accept the Request for Waivers to include the elimination of the sidewalk and extension of the cul-de-sac and denying the Request for Waiver for the Reduction of the Minimum Street Right-of-Way Width, Increase in Maximum Length of a Dead-End Street (Cul-de-Sac). The motion was seconded by Mr. Boggerty and the motion failed by a roll call vote of 1-6. (Mr. Neil voted yes) (Mr. Anderson and Ms. Arndt were absent, and Mr. Sudler recused himself prior to this Agenda item) By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Rocha, and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Taylor moved for adjournment of the Safety, Advisory, and Transportation Committee meeting; hearing no objection, the meeting adjourned at 8:04 p.m. Mr. Sudler reentered the meeting at 8:04 p.m. Mr. Sudler moved for adjournment of the Council Committee of the Whole meeting; hearing no objection, the meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for acceptance of the Council Committee of the Whole Report, seconded by Mr. Rocha, and unanimously carried. MONTHLY REPORTS – JUNE 2022 By motion of Mr. Hare, seconded by Mr. Rocha, the following monthly reports were accepted by consent agenda: City Assessor’s Report City Council’s Community Enhancement Fund Report City Manager’s Report 28

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 18 Item 1. City Planner’s Report Controller/Treasurer’s Budget Report Fire Chief’s Report Police Chief’s Report REAPPOINTMENTS RECOMMENDED BY MAYOR CHRISTIANSEN - DOVER FOURTH OF JULY CELEBRATION COMMITTEE - ONE-YEAR TERM TO EXPIRE MAY 2023 Mayor Christiansen recommended the following reappointments to the Dover Fourth of July Celebration Committee for one (1) year terms to expire in May 2023. Bret Scott Andrea Maucher Lori Peddicord Carolyn Courtney Justin Strickland By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the reappointments to the Dover Fourth of July Celebration Committee, as recommended by Mayor Christiansen, seconded by Mr. Rocha, and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. REAPPOINTMENTS RECOMMENDED BY MAYOR CHRISTIANSEN - HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION- THREE-YEAR TERMS TO EXPIRE JULY 2025 Mayor Christiansen recommended the following reappointments to the Historic District Commission for three (3) year terms to expire in July 2025. Jonathan Street Eric Czerwinski By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the reappointments to the Historic District Commission, as recommended by Mayor Christiansen, seconded by Mr. Rocha, and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. REAPPOINTMENT RECOMMENDED BY MAYOR CHRISTIANSEN - PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE DOVER/KENT COUNTY MPO- TWO-YEAR TERM TO EXPIRE JULY 2024 Mayor Christiansen recommended the following reappointment to the Public Advisory Committee of the Dover/Kent MPO for a two (2) year term to expire in July 2024. Dr. Shanita Powell By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the reappointments to the Public Advisory Committee of the Dover/Kent County MPO, as recommended by Mayor Christiansen, seconded by Mr. Rocha, and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. 29

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 19 Item 1. REAPPOINTMENT RECOMMENDED BY MAYOR CHRISTIANSEN - SILVER LAKE COMMISSION- TWO-YEAR TERM TO EXPIRE JULY 2025 Mayor Christiansen recommended the following reappointment to the Silver Lake Commission for a two (2) year term to expire in July 2024. John DeMarie By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the reappointments to the Silver Lake Commission, as recommended by Mayor Christiansen, seconded by Mr. Rocha, and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. CITY MANAGER'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. David Hugg, III, City Manager, reminded everyone of the City of Dover employee cookout on Thursday, August 18, 2022, and urged members of Council to attend, if possible. Mr. Hugg explained that what makes this event particularly relevant and important are two things. The first is the title, Together We Succeed, which is the title that was picked by the DE&I committee, the sponsors of the event. Mr. Hugg further explained that the idea is to bring as many employees as possible together to get to know each other and exchange thoughts, ideas, and goals, and interact with the members of the Council. COUNCIL MEMBERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Taylor announced that on Wednesday, August 10, 2022, at 6:30 p.m. at Dover Police Department they will be reviewing the proposed loitering ordinance. He encouraged everyone to come out and hear the way it is constructed and the way it is presented. He explained that at some point real soon, hopefully on the September agenda, there will be enough feedback from the constituents to move forward with this ordinance. Mr. Taylor asked for everyone to come out and attend on Wednesday at 6:30 p.m. at the Dover Police Station. Councilman Rocha announced that on Saturday, September 10th, 2022, Dover Christian Church, which is located at 1738 Forest Avenue, is holding the inaugural Providing Dream Achievement Community Resource Expo. This will be done in partnership with the United Way of Delaware, Comcast, Tracy Palmer Ministries, the Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance (IMA), and the Capital School District. They are going to take over the parking lot, have a bunch of activities for children and they are going to have resources for adults. They are going to set up tables for job placement and they are going to be inviting certain companies here that are looking for workers. They will be doing COVID testing and vaccines at the same time. They are going to have information for behavioral health and health and human services. There will be a plethora of resources where residents can come out and gain knowledge including energy tips. They are going to be using the parking lot at Dover High School to park the cars, and then everyone can come over. They will have food, activities and at the end of the expo, there will be a concert. Interested participants in the concert that evening, it's $35 per car and all monies that are generated will go towards activities like this. The expo will be from 12 p.m. to 4 p.m. on Saturday, September 10th. The concert will start that evening at 7 p.m. 30

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 20 Item 1. Mr. Neil asked if these events are being linked to the city website and stated that both events are worthwhile. Mr. Neil noted that we need to make sure that we have maximum publicity for these events. Mr. Rocha stated that he failed to mention that Comcast is coming out and providing school supplies. Mr. Rocha noted that they don't even have to pay for the school supplies. They are sponsoring it, they are bagging it up, and then they are going to be handing them out at the event. The intent is, to answer your questions and then get them on the City's website. Also, they have asked the city to even have a table set up to be present out there. I know that they had requested but I must check with the Dover Library to see if they can bring the bookmobile there or some form of literacy that they would like to have out there. Mr. Rocha explained that they are still working on those things within the next week or so. Mr. Rocha stated that once Comcast confirms the date and time with us, the flyers will be sent over. I'll get with Kay and make sure that she has them so they can go in the newsletter on the website. Mr. Anderson announced that the Concert at the Park Series on Thursday will have a great musician, Michelle Danette & Friends, and please feel free to drop by. Mr. Anderson stated that it is going to be a great time and that hopefully, the weather will cooperate this year. Mr. Anderson stated that it did not cooperate last year with her, so she's due. Mr. Anderson stated that it is coming up on the 15th at 6 PM. Madame Clerk has that been confirmed? Council President Sudler thanked everyone for their announcements and wished a happy belated birthday to Councilman Ralph Taylor and Councilman David Anderson. Mr. Sudler also wished Mayor Robin R. Christiansen a happy birthday, too. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Sudler moved for adjournment of the Regular Council meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 8:04 p.m. ANDRIA BENNETT CITY CLERK All ordinances, resolutions, motions, and orders adopted by City Council during their Regular Meeting of August 8, 2022, are hereby approved. ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN MAYOR /AB 31

Christiana Executive Campus Item 1. 121 Continental Drive, Suite 207 Newark, DE 19713 T: 302-655-4451 F: 302-654-2895 www.pennoni.com August 02, 2022 PAI Project #PLAWX-19001 Members of City Council & Members of Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee City of Dover c/o City Clerk via e-mail cityclerk@dover.de.us RE: Raymond Street & Railroad Avenue Street Improvements Design Waiver Requests – Planning Reference S-22-04 City of Dover, Kent County, Delaware Dear Members of City Council & Members of Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee: Pennoni Associates Inc. (Pennoni) represents Patel College Properties, LLC and Patel Excess College Road, LLC (the Developer) in support of the Raymond Street & Railroad Avenue Street Improvements – Design Waiver Requests Application (Planning Reference S-22-024). The Developer is requesting the following three (3) waivers: • Minimum Public Street Right-of-Way Width • Maximum Length of a Dead-End Street (Cul-de-Sac) • Sidewalks on Both Sides of a Public Street This application was presented to the Planning Commission on March 21, 2022 where a unanimous recommendation for approval was made. In addition, it was last presented to the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee on July 26, 2022, where neither a recommendation for approval nor denial was made. At the request of the Developer, we are providing the following to summarize the existing conditions and the three (3) waiver requests to further clarify the specifics of this application. EXISTING CONDITIONS (Please refer to “Exhibit #1 – Vicinity Map” and “Exhibit #2 – Public Right-of-Way Access” below”) • The Developer owns property on the north side of College Road in the City of Dover (see magenta shade on Exhibit #1) • The property is surrounded by a railroad to the west, property owned by the State of Delaware to the north, property owned by Delaware State University to the east, and private properties and existing public right-of-way (e.g., Raymond Street) to the south • The railroad to the west, lack of public access to the north and east, as well as environmental constraints (100-year floodplain and wetlands associated with Fork Branch) require that access to the subject property be from the south via Raymond Street • A meeting was conducted with the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) and the City of Dover several months ago to discuss site access • DelDOT is requiring that access to the subject property from College Road be via Mishoe Street, which has significant right-of-way and roadway corridor width, already has a dedicated left-turn lane in College Road, and has adequate distance from the existing railroad crossing in College Road to allow safe left-turn movements • From College Road, access to the subject property is proposed to the north via Mishoe Street, to the west via Raymond Street and then to the north via Railroad Avenue (see green shade on Exhibit #1) 32

PAI Project #PLAWX-19001 August 02, 2022 Page 2 Raymond St./Railroad Ave. Street Improvements Design Waiver RequestsItem 1. • The public right-of-way of Mishoe Street, Raymond Street, Grove Street and Railroad Avenue was originally documented in an 1899 subdivision plat of “the College Settlement Company” • Portions of this right-of-way are occupied by public streets maintained by the City of Dover or are unimproved, meaning that they are only “paper streets” • Over the years, many properties in the vicinity were annexed into the City of Dover but it was unclear if the right-of-way was included • At the direction of the Developer, Pennoni conducted an extensive property boundary and topographic survey of the street network, subject property and properties abutting the public right- of-way • The Developer filed an Annexation Application to ensure that the right-of-way of Mishoe Street, Raymond Street, Grove Street and Railroad Avenue were all within the City of Dover (see green shade on Exhibit #1 and red hatch pattern on Exhibit #2) • The public right-of-way associated with these streets (see red hatch pattern on Exhibit #2) is owned by the City of Dover and no private citizen(s) • The application went to Planning Commission in November 2021 and was referred to City Council on December 13, 2021, where Ordinance #2021-23 was adopted for the annexation clarification of the right-of-way of Raymond Street, Grove Street and Railroad Avenue • There is an area of existing street improvements within Raymond Street that lie outside the limits of public right-of-way and are on private property (Mishoe Cove Apartments) – see green shade on Exhibit #2 Exhibit #1 – Vicinity Map 33

PAI Project #PLAWX-19001 August 02, 2022 Page 3 Raymond St./Railroad Ave. Street Improvements Design Waiver RequestsItem 1. Exhibit #2 – Public Right-of-Way Access PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT • The property is zoned RG-5 (General Residence Zone for Mid-Rise Apartments) • While the Developer has not yet filed a Site Plan Application for the subject property, the intent is to propose something that is by-right within the RG-5 zoning district • As coordinated with the Department of Planning & Inspections, there are waivers to be sought to optimize site access by locating entrances to the subject property adjacent to Railroad Avenue and not Raymond Street (to minimize impacts to residents adjacent to Raymond Street) • In addition, waivers are being requested to document existing non-conformities within public right- of-way on adjacent properties not owned by the Developer WAIVER REQUEST #1 – MINIMUM PUBLIC STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH (Please refer to “Exhibit #3 – Right-of-Way Width Waiver” below) • The existing right-of-way width of Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue is thirty-five feet (35’) • This right-of-way is owned by the City of Dover and no private citizen(s) • Where streets have been constructed and accepted by the City of Dover, the City of Dover maintains those streets • This right-of-way was part of the Annexation Application filed by the Developer • City of Dover standards require that public streets be within a minimum sixty-foot (60’) wide right-of- way • An additional twenty-five feet (25’) of right-of-way would be required to meet these standards 34

PAI Project #PLAWX-19001 August 02, 2022 Page 4 Raymond St./Railroad Ave. Street Improvements Design Waiver RequestsItem 1. • Where the Developer owns property adjacent to Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue, the Developer will dedicate an additional twenty-five feet (25’) of property to be dedicated to public use (e.g., the Developer will comply with City standards for minimum public street right-of-way where the Developer owns the property to do so (see blue shade on Exhibit #3) • The Developer is dedicating the additional twenty-five feet (25’) of right-of-way for a compliant plan (see blue shade on Exhibit #3) • An additional twenty-five feet (25’) of right-of-way for Raymond Street where it lies adjacent to properties not owned by the Developer (e.g., Mishoe Cove Apartments Property) cannot be provided unless dedicated by that respective private landowner (see red shade on Exhibit #3) • It is our understanding that a waiver to maintain the thirty-five feet (35’) wide right-of-way for Raymond Street adjacent to private property owned by others is not required to be procured by the Developer, but is being requested by the Developer out of caution as it is an existing non-conformity (on adjacent property not owned by the Developer) • The City is not requiring that the adjacent property owners dedicate property to right-of-way since their pre-existing conditions prevent them from doing so • This waiver request was included at the direction of the Department of Planning & Inspections Exhibit #3 – Right-of-Way Width Waiver WAIVER REQUEST #2 – MAXIMUM LENGTH OF A DEAD-END STREET (CUL-DE-SAC) (Please refer to “Exhibit #4 – Minimum Dead-End Street Length Waiver” and “Exhibit #5 – Alternative to Dead- End Street Waiver Request” below) • We are requesting a waiver from the maximum dead-end street length of four hundred feet (400’) – the width will be fully compliant • A dead-end street (cul-de-sac) approximately 738’ in length is being proposed so that multiple ingress/egress points adjacent to Railroad Avenue can be provided for fire safety and vehicular circulation purposes 35

PAI Project #PLAWX-19001 August 02, 2022 Page 5 Raymond St./Railroad Ave. Street Improvements Design Waiver RequestsItem 1. • The intent of this design is to locate the entrances for the subject property adjacent to Railroad Avenue and not Raymond Street to limit impacts to residents on Raymond Street • If this waiver is not granted, then one entrance will be proposed via Railroad Avenue and one entrance will be proposed via Raymond Street (see bullet points related to alternative design below) • The right-of-way width of Railroad Avenue is proposed continuously at sixty feet (60’) and is Code compliant • The corridor width of the roadway within Railroad Avenue is proposed continuously at twenty-four feet (24’) and will be both compliant with the City Code and the Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations • If on-street parking is requested by the City as part of the Site Plan Application, it will fit within the proposed right-of-way and will be both compliant with the City Code and the Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations • The twenty-four-foot (24’) roadway width meets and exceeds the minimum primary fire lane width as stipulated by the Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations • An alternative to this design is illustrated in Exhibit #5 below • The dead-end street length within Railroad Avenue can be limited to four hundred feet (400’) and a second site access via Grove Street to the north of Raymond Street can be provided (see blue and green hatch on Exhibit #5) • The existing right-of-way width of Grove Street is also thirty-five feet (35’); however, the Developer owns property to the west of Grove Street and the Developer can dedicate an additional twenty-five feet (25’) of land to public use • One site entrance/exit can be proposed adjacent to Railroad Avenue and one site entrance/exit can be proposed adjacent to Raymond Street (Grove Street) • This design results in a Code compliant plan without the requested waiver; however, this is not the best layout, as it would present more of an impact to residents adjacent to Raymond Street • The proposed waiver (with both entrances on Railroad Avenue) is the best design layout that limits impact on residents • The Developer did not pursue this alternative to alleviate traffic flow on the west side of the Mishoe Cove Apartments Property, but can be pursued without the need for the requested waiver 36

PAI Project #PLAWX-19001 August 02, 2022 Page 6 Raymond St./Railroad Ave. Street Improvements Design Waiver RequestsItem 1. Exhibit #4 – Minimum Dead-End Street Length Waiver Exhibit #5 – Alternative to Dead-End Street Waiver Request 37

PAI Project #PLAWX-19001 August 02, 2022 Page 7 Raymond St./Railroad Ave. Street Improvements Design Waiver RequestsItem 1. WAIVER REQUEST #3 – SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES OF A PUBLIC STREET (Please refer to “Exhibit #6 – Public Sidewalk Waiver” below) • Please note that no existing sidewalks are being eliminated • City of Dover standards require sidewalks on both sides of a public street • The Developer is requesting a waiver to construct sidewalk on the east side of Railroad Avenue only, on the side where development will be proposed and not the side where there is an existing railroad (see green and red hatch on Exhibit #6) • The west side of Railroad Avenue lies directly adjacent to a railroad and would be a “sidewalk to nowhere” • It was suggested by the Department of Planning & Inspections to not install this sidewalk Exhibit #6 – Public Sidewalk Waiver CONCLUSION As detailed above, we are requesting design waivers that will optimize site access for future development on the subject property and will minimize impacts to residents adjacent to Raymond Street. In addition, property will be dedicated to public use by the Developer so that Code compliant right-of-way widths may be provided where the Developer owns land adjacent to subject roadways. However, the Developer can provide a Code compliant plan without procurement of the requested waivers. Waiver #1 (Minimum Public Street Right-of- Way Width) is not needed for the Developer but for the benefit of adjacent property owners. The denial of Waiver #2 (Maximum Length of a Dead-End Street (Cul-de-Sac)) will result in one entrance adjacent to Railroad Avenue and one entrance adjacent to Raymond Street, and denial of Waiver #3 (Sidewalks on Both Sides of a Public Street) would simply result in the Developer installing sidewalk adjacent to railroad tracks that do not lead anywhere. As submitted, the Developer is seeking to implement the best site access design as discussed with the Department of Planning & Inspections and the Delaware Department of Transportation. 38

PAI Project #PLAWX-19001 August 02, 2022 Page 8 Raymond St./Railroad Ave. Street Improvements Design Waiver RequestsItem 1. On behalf of the Developer, thank you for your consideration of this application. If you have any questions/comments or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Respectfully submitted, PENNONI ASSOCIATES INC. Douglas D. Barry, PE Associate Vice President cc: Members of Planning Commission Mr. David Hugg – City Manager Ms. Dawn Melson-Williams – Principal Planner, Department of Planning & Inspections Mr. Dominic Balascio – Patel College Properties, LLC Mr. Gregory Rishel – Pennoni Associates Inc. 39

Item 1. COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE The Council Committee of the Whole met on July 26, 2022, at 6:00 p.m. with Council President Sudler presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson (arrived via WebEx at 7:45 P.M.), Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Neil, Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Rocha, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Hare. Ms. Arndt was absent. Mayor Christiansen was also present. Civilian members present for their committee meetings were Mr. Contant (via WebEx) and Mr. Shevock (via WebEx) (Legislative, Finance, and Administration), and Dr. Jackson and Mr. Hosfelt (Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee). Mr. McCutcheon and Mr. Shelton Utility) were absent. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Boggerty, and unanimously carried. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance and Administration Committee met with Council President Sudler presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Hare moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Rocha, and unanimously carried. Discussion – Fiscal Year 2022 Audit Program (Lori Peddicord, Controller/Treasurer) Lori Peddicord, Controller/Treasurer, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Fiscal Year 2022 Audit Program. Staff recommended acceptance of the audit program. Mr. Hare moved to recommend acceptance of the audit program, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Mr. Hare moved for adjournment of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting, seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:04 p.m. UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee met with Chairman Rocha presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Hare moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Neil, and unanimously carried. Evaluation of Proposals – Silver Lake Production Well (Jason Lyon, Director of Water Wastewater) 40

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JULY 26, 2022 PAGE 2 Item 1. Mr. Jason Lyon, Director of Water Wastewater, and Kate Mills, Water Production Manager, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Evaluation of Proposals for Silver Lake Production Well. Staff recommended to award the contract to Davis Bowen & Friedel, Inc. for the design /build services of the Silver Lake Production Well, RFP #22-0033WW, for $2,942,000. Mr. Hare moved to recommend awarding the contract to Davis Bowen & Friedel, Inc. for the design/build services of the Silver Lake Production Well, RFP #22-0033WW, for $2,942,000, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Mills stated the department had completed the test well process that was approved by the state. Ms. Mills explained they needed to obtain a permit to drill a test well at that location. Ms. Mills stated the state is aware of the project and that they have taken all the proper steps thus far. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Ms. Mills stated the city has not run out of water in another well. Ms. Mills explained this well will be for redundancy, and they are constructing and replacing the pipe on North State Street that is near the well. Ms. Mills further explained they are upgrading the size of the water main to handle the well’s production, and creating redundancy for the water system, so if another well does go down, the new well will help support it. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Ms. Mills stated this project started four to five years prior and the well was simulated in a water model that an engineering group looked at. Ms. Mills explained this is what led to the decision to upgrade North State Street. Ms. Mills noted they are using all the material needed to make the location a viable location. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Lyon stated the vendor would have every opportunity to use minority subcontractors, but they are not mandated to do so. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Lyon explained when the project went out for bid, they worked with the procurement team. Mr. Lyon noted his department gave them a bidder list about a month before the mandatory pre-bid meeting, so minority contractors were solicited. Mr. Lyon explained when they pull the list, they go to the state website and chose companies that can do the work. Mr. Lyon further explained they solicited them and said there is a bid out for this project and the date of the pre-bid meeting. Mr. Lyon noted unfortunately they did not get any takers. Mr. Taylor stated he has had his fill of one company being selected. Mr. Taylor explained that there are minority businesses everywhere, and they do not feel as though they're getting their proper opportunity. Mr. Taylor believed they are not because they do not know when these bids are coming out and what is happening. Mr. Taylor clarified he did not believe Mr. Lyon, or his department was doing anything wrong but, the city needs to step up its measures and make sure that they get the information out to more people. Mr. Taylor believes they must do a better job with recruiting minority businesses for these accounts. He explained one of the reasons why he has insisted on a mandatory pre-bid meeting is to get everyone in the room, so those smaller companies that will not get the contract, can subcontract with the larger company. 41

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JULY 26, 2022 PAGE 3 Item 1. Mr. Taylor stated they cannot keep coming with just one bid or he will start saying no and solicit his colleagues to say no. Mr. Taylor explained that this is something that must be at the forefront of our minds when they start putting these contracts out, and not something that comes up right at the end, of a council meeting. Mr. Taylor noted that Ms. Mills and Mr. Lyon are doing a great job, but this process must be altered. Responding to Mr. Lyon, Mr. Taylor clarified by mandatory he means everyone who will bid and everyone who will subcontract and wants to be a part of the project must attend the mandatory pre- bid meeting Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Lyon stated historically when the city had mandatory pre-bid meetings the issue was that they were receiving a small pool of candidates because companies from outside the area were not coming down. After all, they did not want to make the trip. Mr. Lyon explained if they did not attend the meeting then the contractors were not able to bid on the project. Mr. Lyon further explained the city made pre-bid meetings not mandatory to increase the number of bids they receive. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Lyon stated regarding the Evaluation of Proposals – Silver Lake Production Well they did solicit from disadvantaged minority, women-owned businesses from the State of Delaware website. Mr. Lyon assured the council if there was another avenue to solicit from, he would be happy to work together. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Mills stated once the well is built residents may notice slightly better pressure. Ms. Mills explained that they will be replacing the cast iron main during the upgrade. Ms. Mills further explained the that portion of Dover and the other parts connected to it should see less brown water. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Lyon stated the City of Dover Purchasing Policy currently does not include a provision that a percentage of work is to be performed by a minority contractor. Mr. Sudler requested the Water Wastewater and Procurement Departments work together to create a workshop to include what is the criteria for a sole vendor and what parameters are set in place regarding trying to achieve a mandate that a percentage of work be completed by a minority contractor. Mr. Sudler stated Mr. Lyon and his team are doing a good job and thanked him for the transparency in the procurement process, and for explaining exactly how they solicited bids. Mr. Sudler agreed with Mr. Taylor and explained if the city mandated pre-bid meetings the city will not be perceived as always using the same vendor and if the other contractors do not show up then it will be on them. Mr. Boggerty stated he would be willing to provide staff with someone who will help them navigate and merry what the federal government is doing and how they drill down on contractors. 42

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JULY 26, 2022 PAGE 4 Item 1. Mr. Hare moved to recommend awarding the contract to Davis Bowen & Friedel, Inc. for the design /build services of the Silver Lake Production Well, RFP #22-0033WW, for $2,942,000, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Mr. Neil moved for adjournment of the Utility Committee meeting, seconded by Mr. Boggerty, and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:24 p.m. SAFETY, ADVISORY, AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE The Safety, Advisory, and Transportation Committee met with Chairman Taylor presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury, and unanimously carried. Status Update - Loockerman Street Fire of March 16, 2022 - Dangerous Building (Jason Osika, Fire Marshal, and Eddie Kopp, Code Enforcement Supervisor) Mr. Jason Osika, Fire Marshal, stated the fire occurred on March 16, 2022, and there is still an open investigation, so his comments will be limited. Mr. Osika stated they did a structural engineer’s report immediately, on the day of the fire. Mr. Osika said this report was done to make sure the building did not need to be demoed on the spot. Mr. Osika explained the report showed that there is no danger of the building falling into the street or causing any further damage. Mr. Osika explained the process of handling a fire such as the Loockerman St. Fire is to condemn the building as unfit for habitation, enter a case, and turn it over to Code Enforcement. Mr. Osika further explained Code Enforcement then follows up with repair or tear down and any permits needed. Mr. Osika stated that Code Enforcement will send letters and work with the homeowner and insurance companies in obtaining permits to make sure the proper work is done. Eddie Kopp, Chief Code Enforcement Officer, stated that Code Enforcement Office sent the first notice on March 17th, 2022, with the violations to correct the obvious condemnation. Mr. Kopp explained the owner was allotted 60 days and there was no response from the property owner. Mr. Kopp stated a second notice was sent on June 15th, 2022, which is the normal process. After receiving no feedback from the property owner, they sent a letter of intent, on July 1st, 2022, to the owner and the attorney representing the property owner. Mr. Kopp explained the letter of intent is a notice they have 30 days to correct the property, or else Code Enforcement will present it before council to be declared dangerous and set a demolition date. Mr. Kopp further explained that he contacted the attorney of the property on July 26, 2022, and he said there is no update. Mr. Kopp stated the lawyer cannot provide anything other than they are aware of the situation so, they receive our letters. Mr. Kopp stated as far as he knew, in speaking with the attorney, the owner of the property is out of the country, with no return date set, so the attorney is representing the property and has been included on all notifications. Mr. Kopp stated he has sent proper notices to all the addresses on file, of which there are three. Mr. Kopp stated the follow-up date for the letter of intent is August 43

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JULY 26, 2022 PAGE 5 Item 1. 4th, 2022, which, after that, if no response is received, Code Enforcement will arrange a meeting with the City Clerk’s office for a council meeting. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Kopp confirmed the owner of the property on file is SAG Holdings, LLC and the next follow-up date is August 4, 2022, which will result in a notice of a Council Hearing. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Kopp confirmed from his conversation with the attorney, that the property is uninsured. Mr. Kopp also noted the building is a standalone building with a very small gap between the damaged building and the adjacent building. Mr. Boggerty asked if the city could require tenants or building owners, to show proof of insurance. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Hare stated the businesses are more than likely insured. However, it would be different to mandate a property owner who has paid off a building, be required to have insurance. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Hugg stated if the city were to declare a business dangerous, they would take on the responsibility for tearing it down. Mr. Hugg explained the city would take ownership of the building and that the only way to recoup the demolition money it to sell it or develop the lot. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Kopp stated Code Enforcement has recommended making changes to the Dangerous Building Ordinance. Mr. Kopp explained the way the Ordinance is currently written it is a drawn-out process that will take six months to a year to demolish a building. Mr. Kopp insured Council the Dangerous Building Ordinance would be on an upcoming agenda for Council because Code Enforcement is aware that it is an issue and is taking steps to address it. Mr. Rocha noted he was concerned from a safety perspective that if someone entered the building unlawfully and was injured would it not be a liability to the city? Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Kopp explained there is a provision in the code that would shorten the time and that is if the building is in imminent danger to the public. Mr. Kopp further explained the Structural Engineer’s Report stated the building was structurally sound and has been boarded up to prevent unlawful entry. Mr. Kopp noted by calling the building an imminent danger would only remove the letter of intent and lessen the time frame by 30 days. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Hare stated if the process goes as it has in the past 5, 10, and 15 years, Code Enforcement will bring it to council, the owner is going to show up and council is going to say, "Oh, well, okay, you got another 60 days to get it," they are not going to do anything, and then come back to council. Mr. Hare explained what council needs to do is, state the owner has had all the opportunities and tear it down and give the owner 15 days to fix it. Mr. Hare explained if the property was not fixed then to tear it down. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend the Safety, Advisory, and Transportation Committee waive the letter of intent and send the building straight to City Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha. 44

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JULY 26, 2022 PAGE 6 Item 1. Mr. Hare stated he did not disagree with Mr. Sudler’s thought process however, council cannot change the rules and must follow the Dover Code of Ordinances. Mr. Hare suggested getting a legal opinion from Mr. Rodriguez, City Solicitor. Mr. Neil agreed with Mr. Hare, Mr. Neil stated council should check for legal sufficiency to make sure that they have dotted all their I’s and crossed all their T’s legally. Mr. Neil stated as soon as a legal opinion has been rendered, they could bring it before council as quickly as possible. Mr. Neil noted he is looking forward to changing the ordinance to speed up the process. Mr. Sudler stated after hearing the consensus of council he would like to rescind the motion and make another motion. Mr. Rocha agreed to rescind his second to the motion. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend based on the City Solicitor’s opinion that if it is permissible that council waives the 30-day Notice, Letter of Intent, and the matter go straight to council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried. Mr. Sudler recused himself and left Council Chambers at 6:47 p.m. Mayor Christiansen stated the discussions on revising the Dangerous Building Ordinance of procedures and building code appeals had begun. Mayor Christiansen noted he met with the Planning Director and hopefully, council will have those revisions brought to them by the early part of September for council action. Mayor Christiansen stated he has spoken with a party that is interested in the property located on Loockerman Street which may help the city recoup their money once those expenses are in. Mayor Christiansen stated he would be willing to issue an Executive Order to have the building on Loockerman Street torn down. Mayor Christiansen explained the building needed to be taken down, that he was there the night of the fire, and every day he drives by it he believes it looks worse and worse. Request for Waiver - Appendix A - Subdivisions, Article VI - Subdivision - General Requirements and Design Standards, Section A - Streets (Right-of-Way known as Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue) - Waiver of Requirements for the Reduction of the Minimum Street Right-of-Way Width, Increase in Maximum Length of a Dead-End Street (Cul-de-Sac), and the Elimination of Sidewalk on One Side of a Public Street associated with a Site Development Plan for the improvements to the rights-of-way of Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue to allow for further development of the properties that these streets will give access. (Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner) Mr. Taylor introduced Attachment #1- Petition Against the Request for Waiver submitted by adjacent property owners. Ms. Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Request for Waiver for Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue regarding planning reference: S-22-04. 45

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JULY 26, 2022 PAGE 7 Item 1. The Planning Commission recommended approval with Conditions of the Request to Reduce the Minimum Street Right-of-Way Width, Increase in Maximum Length of a Dead-End Street, and the Elimination of Sidewalk on One side of a Public Street. Mr. Neil noted that he had sent his question to the Planning Commission in preparation for this meeting. Mr. Neil stated there was a key to opening the property for development and that was through the waivers. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Melson- Williams stated zoning around Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue is a collection of different residential zoning districts. The lands that are owned by the Patel properties, Patel College Road Properties, are zoned RG-5, which is a general residence zone for mid-rise apartments. So, apartments are permitted use. That RG5 zone also allows for the uses that are allowed in the one-family resident zone. So, that means things like one-family detached houses could go there. There are also several, non-residential uses that could happen through a conditional use process, which is a specialized review process. These include things like schools and places of worship and daycare centers for children and adults. Things like public utilities could go in the area and wireless communication facilities. Ms. Melson-Williams explained under the current zoning of that land area, you have got a series of residential, and then some non-residential uses. Ms. Melson- Williams noted it would not allow for what you would think of as normal commercial businesses, like a retail component, or even manufacturing or industrial use under its current zoning. Ms. Melson-Williams explained there are other properties in this area that have some of our other residential zones, both RM-2 and R-8. There are several properties that are zoned IO, which is institutional, and office, which has other uses. So, it's predominantly a road network, if you will, on the east side of the railroad tracks that are flanked by properties that are residentially zoned. Ms. Melson- Williams further explained there are several properties that are not within the corporate limits of the City of Dover and fall under Kent County's jurisdiction. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Melson-Williams stated the fact that the Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has a current study underway. She explained several years ago, they did a study focused on the rail network throughout Kent County and were looking at properties that were adjacent to the railroad that carried with them a zoning classification that would be amenable to rail-side usage by a developer. They most recently have been revisiting that study and looking more specifically at what land mass adjacent to the railroad remains undeveloped and have potential. Ms. Melson-Williams noted the area near Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue is certainly an area that has land that is not developed. However, the current zoning of this large tract of land that's adjacent to the railroad is for residential use. Ms. Melson Williams further explained for the property to be used for some type of manufacturing or industrial zoning, it would take a rezoning application. And likely, in the case of some of these properties, an amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Melson-Williams stated there is a process, but that is not what is before council this evening with this request for subdivision waivers related to the street network. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Melson-Williams stated if the Request for Waivers were not approved the applicant would be able to proceed in building the apartment complex. Ms. Melson-Williams noted they may be limited in the number of units. She explained in the case of the sidewalk, they would have to build the sidewalk on both sides of the street, and they would follow the Dover 46

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JULY 26, 2022 PAGE 8 Item 1. Code of Ordinances. Ms. Melson-Williams further explained the question of right-of-way width, the applicant is technically providing that right-of-way where they can and where they have ownership of the land that is directly adjacent to it. She noted that would not be unusual, for a property to dedicate additional right-of-way for the area that is in front of their parcel. Ms. Melson- Williams stated the city cannot force the applicant to dedicate right-of-way in front of somebody else's property. Ms. Melson-Williams stated the biggest question would be the length of the cul-de-sac. There are probably ways to work around that by creating a larger street network in that area so that you eliminate the length of the dead end that exists, but this area is also encumbered by some significant environmental concerns. She explained there is a brownfield area, floodplain, and wetland on the subject site that limit development. Ms. Melson-Williams noted the choices for redesigning the site and the road network are somewhat limited. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Melson-Williams stated alternative ways to reach this property, those outreach efforts, did not happen. Ms. Melson-Williams stated from experience that an at-grade crossing of the railroad at a different location, she probably would not see in my lifetime. Typically, new railroad crossings and at-grade crossings are not being created. And if you want to create a new one, it means closing one that already exists. So, crossing that railroad from the west to get to this area is probably not an option. Ms. Melson Williams stated that looking at other locations, such as crossing a tract of land owned by Delaware State University that has an Athletic Annex Building just immediately after where the railroad crosses College Road, it would be on the left if you are heading towards DuPont Highway. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that any improvements to that existing entrance, or creation of a new road in that area would be subject to Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) review because College Road is a state-maintained road, and she did not believe that DelDOT would even consider something that close to the railroad crossing. She further explained if it puts cars basically sitting on a railroad track to make a left, that is not something they are going to approve from a traffic transportation-design standpoint. Ms. Melson-Williams stated other options for reaching the site really were not considered because it is adjacent to a public street right-of-way that exists. She noted there were early conversations with the applicant and DelDOT related to, how do you get to the site? And that involves making use of the existing road network there at Mishoe Street. Ms. Melson-Williams explained Mishoe Street has a dedicated left-turn lane and wider-width street standards. Ms. Melson-Williams further explained that the city and the county were also involved in some of those early conversations because they had to move through an annexation process to ensure that the street right-of-way area was located within the corporate limits of the City of Dover. Ms. Melson Williams stated last year the city went through a clarifying annexation process to clarify that these rights-of-way were in fact intended to be part of the city and would be mapped as such. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Melson-Williams confirmed that even if the waivers are denied that the property will still be developed. She explained with apartment buildings the owner can reach a certain number of units and then will need to have two access points to a public street network. Ms. Melson-Williams noted there could be two access points on Railroad Avenue but with the waiver, design-wise, it would be much easier to achieve. 47

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JULY 26, 2022 PAGE 9 Item 1. Ms. Melson-Williams referred to the map on page 23 in the packet and explained the area of land that is adjacent to the property, several properties owned by Mishoe Cove Apartments. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that is the area where the additional right-of-way is not being proposed because this applicant does not have control of those adjacent land areas. The existing 35-foot right-of-way is what it is in that area. Part of it we already maintain as a city street for about half of that area. Ms. Melson-Williams referred to the map on page 24 of the packet that shows where the existing road of Mishoe Street and Raymond Street is shown in green. She explained that where the actual right-of-way property of the road is shown in the red-hatched area. Ms. Melson-Williams explained that what is out there today does not totally match up with where the right-of-way technically is and any improvements to Raymond Street would be done where the right-of-way exists for that road. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams stated Railroad Avenue is currently unimproved meaning it exits on paper, but there is no pavement, gravel, et cetera, out there at this present time. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that Raymond Street dead ends on the map on page 24 of the packet, shown in green, and ends on the property owned by Mishoe Cove. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams referred to the map on page 24 of the packet and stated where the proposed street would be is not owned by Mishoe Cove, it is shown in red hatch marks. Ms. Melson-Williams stated this area is property of the street, the right-of-way. She further explained that Raymond Street is part city dedication and part a public right-of-way that is yet to be improved, so if their activities are happening in the right-of-way that exists, then there is no agreement that would need to be made with the adjacent property owner. Responding to Mr. Hosfelt, Ms. Melson-Williams stated the right-of-way of it would be 60 feet. She explained that the paved section of the road is required to be a minimum of 24 feet in width from curb to curb. Ms. Melson-Williams noted that is with no parking. Ms. Melson-Williams explained if the applicant would want to have parking on that street, then the width increases, of the paved part of it. Responding to Mr. Hosfelt, Ms. Melson-Williams stated the Dover Code of Ordinances outlines provisions for what the width of that street section must be to have on-street parking. So, with a paved width of 24 feet, that means no parking. She explained if there is to be on-street parking on one side of the street or both then you get into that increased paved width which is in code. It is a code requirement as to what that width would need to be. Responding to Mr. Hosfelt, Ms. Melson-Williams stated there would be potentially two access points to the property, but that is not what Council is here to discuss, because they do not have a design for what that complex looks like. If the applicant is looking to have more than a certain number of units then they need two access points, and design will dictate where those access points can happen. Ms. Melson-Williams noted the plans are also reviewed through the Department of Public Works for the city since it would be a city street that they're taking access from. Responding to Mr. Hosfelt, Ms. Melson-Williams stated the paved width or the right-of-way width for 60 feet has been in the City of Dover land subdivision regulations for some time. She noted 48

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JULY 26, 2022 PAGE 10 Item 1. there has not been any recent change in the last 20 years, there were some changes related to on- street parking and what those qualifications would need to be. But the right-of-way width has not changed for a street such as this. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Melson-Williams referred to the map on page 23 of the packet and stated the request for a waiver of eliminating a sidewalk is in an area that is not improved with sidewalks presently. Railroad Avenue is unimproved meaning there is nothing out there on the landscape. Ms. Melson-Williams explained they are seeking to eliminate the sidewalk where it would be adjacent to the railroad tracks. She further explained they are going to provide it on the other side of the road, which would be adjacent to where potential development happens. There are existing sidewalks along College Road, along Mishoe, and there is a little bit, along parts of Raymond Street that do exist. With this project, they are proposing sidewalks along the frontage of Railroad Avenue and building the sidewalk network that does not exist along Raymond Street for a portion of Raymond Street on both sides. And then along, the south side of Raymond Street, which is the side that is closer to College Road. Ms. Melson-Williams noted should this property develop, there would be a sidewalk network that a resident of that property could walk on down Railroad Avenue, down Raymond Street, and down Mishoe Street to get to College Road, where there is an existing sidewalk system. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Melson-Williams confirmed the applicant is seeking to eliminate the requirement to build a sidewalk on one of the sides of Railroad Avenue. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Melson-Williams stated if the waiver was not approved then it would require having a sidewalk on both sides of Railroad Avenue as well as a little corner where a sidewalk would then have to be constructed also as Raymond Street intersects with Railroad Avenue. Ms. Melson-Williams noted that if the right-of-way does not accommodate that, they are not going to add a sidewalk that impacts an adjacent property. So, there is going to be a leftover piece of Raymond Street that does not have a sufficient right-of-way to get the paved width of a street and a sidewalk on both sides implemented. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Melson-Williams stated the code states when you build a public street, you have sidewalks on both sides. In this situation, they're asking for relief because the road that they hope to build is right next to the railroad tracks. Ms. Melson-Williams further explained this is probably not where they would want people walking anyway, or they probably would not walk in that area. Ms. Melson-Williams stated they certainly do not want them trying to cross the tracks to get to whatever is on the other side, because there is not a pedestrian crossing of the tracks in that area either. Mr. Hare stated he did not have a problem not having a sidewalk running alongside the railroad track. Mr. Hare noted the police station and new post office in downtown Dover do not have sidewalks on the other side of the street by the courthouse along the railroad tracks. Mr. Hare stated he agreed with Mr. Hosfelt and the streets should not be like Mayfair where the streets are narrow and have on-street parking on both sides. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mayor Christiansen stated it would be difficult to get a fire apparatus down a 35-foot street in an emergency with vehicles parked. Mayor Christiansen explained the wider the street the easier it is for fire apparatus, police vehicles, EMS, and paramedics. 49

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JULY 26, 2022 PAGE 11 Item 1. Mayor Christiansen stated the bulk of traffic that is on College Road and adding a street that feeds into it will be a nightmare. Mayor Christiansen asked who would be putting a light on Mishoe Street. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Melson-Williams stated Council could certainly act on each waiver individually. However, the reduction in the minimum street right of way is for the right of way, which is the property of the street. It does not impact the paved width requirement. They would be subject to what the code says for paved width, depending on if it has no parking or parking on one or both sides. That dictates what the minimum paved width of the street needs to be. Mr. Neil stated Council has brought up a concern in terms of an emergency basis, and it would depend upon the developer’s willingness to make whatever has to happen, to make sure that they have an additional width on that property to ensure that emergency vehicles will be able to get through for the protection of those people who will be living in that apartment. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams referred to the map on page 22 of the packet and stated that 400 feet is the measurement of the length of the cul-de-sac and the measurement begins at Raymond Street. Ms. Melson-Williams stated she did not know the measurement of the distance between the railroad tracks and the street. Mr. James Paige, 355 Rita Wilma Road, stated from what he has heard so far, it is opening Pandora's box as far as he is concerned. He explained that once that box is opened and things are in place, Patel's can do what they want to because it is done. Mr. Paige asked how many people are satisfied with where they live, and how many have been there for 10 years or more. Mr. Paige also asked if you have been living where you live for 10 years and love their neighborhood. Mr. Paige asked how you would like for him to come into your neighborhood, some will take up your sidewalks, I'm going to do this to your land. I'm going to do this and this. And it seems as though I cannot be stopped. And the only people that can stop it are Council. Mr. Paige said they are going to put in 150 apartments and if they do not get all these waivers done, they will only be able to have 125 apartments. Mr. Paige suggested the Patel Group build 125 apartments and all parties would be satisfied. Mr. Paige asked do you know how much traffic that going to bring in our neighborhood, with no stop lights? Mr. Paige stated the neighborhood does not want that Dr. Wilma Mishoe stated she had been to Council three times and is really tired. Dr. Mishoe stated part of this Raymond Street that has been discussed is not even in the City of Dover, it is in Kent County. Dr. Mishoe stated she has the maps, pays taxes on the property, and owns the land that is being discussed. Dr. Mishoe explained when Raymond Street stops being a paved curve, that is where the City's portion of it ends. Don't believe her, ask Mr. Raymond, who is here. The street was named after him. Raymond Fisher. Greg Rishell, Engineer, Pennoni Associates Inc., representing Patel Properties, thanked everyone tonight and hopefully, they got their questions answered as best they could. Mr. Rishell thanked Ms. Melson-Williams, who did a fantastic job answering pretty much all those questions. 50

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JULY 26, 2022 PAGE 12 Item 1. Mr. Rishell stated he wanted to clarify one item that came up in the conversation about emergency vehicle access. Mr. Rishell clarified the road that's being proposed is not being narrowed, it will be 24 feet on Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue. Mr. Rishell stated the only thing that's technically getting narrower is where the applicant is proposing and dedicating a full 60-foot right of way where it narrows down to a 35-foot right of way or as what Ms. Melson-Williams referred to as the property of the road. Mr. Rishell stated that is the only thing that is narrowing, which is really an imaginary line. Mr. Rishell stated regarding emergency vehicle access, the 24-foot width is a minimum standard set by the City of Dover which is also consistent with the minimum width of a fire lane that is required by the Office of the State Fire Marshal, that is a fire lane width in front of a building. Mr. Rishell explained for actual access to a property, the state regulations, the Office of State Fire Marshal says for two-way access it only needs to be 20 feet wide and 16 feet wide for one way. So even if someone was illegally parked on the side of the road, a fire truck could still get by. Mr. Rishell confirmed that no parking is being proposed. This would be part of a site plan application, and there have been no decisions made yet on the development of the property, really, as far as that. But there was no discussion or desire to have any on-street parking as part of the applicant’s part. Mr. Rishell noted that streets could be always signed as No Parking, so, if someone's parking illegally, they cannot control that. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Rishell stated to his knowledge a title search and boundary survey have been done and the work that is being proposed in the right-of-way is public land. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams referred to the map on page 24 in the packet and stated shows in the red hatched area the public right of way, property of the road where development activity would happen. What exists out there on the land shows that paved areas currently are located on private property. However, with this development project, they would be limited to working within the right of way, which is the red hatched area. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that there is a portion of Raymond Street that is already accepted for city maintenance and that ends about halfway, probably right around the second entrance to the Mishoe Towers, kind of the bump that's there, that's already in the city's maintenance. Ms. Melson- Williams explained that with this area being plotted in the 1890s, it is not surprising that ownership questions arise. The property of the road went through an annexation process to clarify that those land areas are now within the City of Dover. Typically, when the property is annexed any adjacent right away is brought in and made part of the City. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that once the property is annexed the right- of-way is owned by the public and the City of Dover acts on behalf of the public in ownership. She explained they do not call dedication for maintenance until that formal process happens after the street has been built to the City’s standards. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams explained the red hatched lines are showing through deed research and survey shows where the property of the road, the right-of-way exists today. 51

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JULY 26, 2022 PAGE 13 Item 1. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Rishell stated they have not considered Mr. Paige’s proposal of 125 apartments because they have not really explored full development options of the property, other than just looking at developing the property by right. Mr. Rishell explained that as far as density goes and requirements as far as that, they must explore their development options. Mr. Rishell noted that he did not believe there was any consideration given to the reduction in density, as it relates to this application. Mr. Rishell stated they are primarily focused on accessing the property using public lands in trying to meet city standards and requirements as much as possible and improving a scenario in a situation that is much better than exists today. Mr. Rishell explained that as you can see the road, as it exists today is half on private property and asking for a few waivers that are due to basically existing conditions that are out of anyone's control just because of the way the properties were plotted. Reverend Raymond Fisher a property owner on Raymond Street stated years ago, that the City named the street after him because he lived there so long. Mr. Fisher stated he was concerned about traffic and agreed with Dr. Mishoe and her brother, Mr. Paige. Mr. Fisher stated for over 60 years, that is where he raised his children, his oldest son is 60 years old, and they have not had traffic problems. Mr. Fisher stated as Brother Paige said, if you open the door, you'll never get it closed. Mr. Fisher stated he knew they would not want it or anybody else running through their street at all times of night, with all kinds of noise and everything. Mr. Fisher noted he did not think my heart could stand it; he is too old now to try to go through that kind of process. Mr. Fisher stated his objection is to get rid of those apartments or limit the number. Mr. Fisher stated the gentleman would want him to come into his territory and he sees it is going to be a problem. Mr. Fisher stated he thinks they need quietness as a community, just like everybody else, and are not asking for any favors. They are just asking for what is right for them as what is right for you and your family and your community. Ms. Bennett read Mr. Anderson’s comment on WebEx that stated “I am troubled by the number of exceptions and waivers sought. It shows me that the infrastructure is inadequate for the density of the project. The safety concerns are inescapable to me. I want to support growth. I believe in property rights. I also believe in common sense safety rules. I would like to see a couple of single- family homes. If this is to be developed, the safety and infrastructure concerns and environmental sensitivity of the land mitigate against high-density development.” Mr. Neil moved for the recommendation the approval of the Planning Commission’s recommendation to accept the Request for Waivers to include the elimination of the sidewalk and extension of the cul-de-sac and denying the Request for Waiver for the Reduction of the Minimum Street Right-of-Way Width, Increase in Maximum Length of a Dead-End Street (Cul-de-Sac). The motion was seconded by Mr. Boggerty and the motion failed by a roll call vote of 1-6. (Mr. Neil voted yes) (Mr. Anderson and Ms. Arndt were absent, and Mr. Sudler recused himself prior to this Agenda item) Mr. Taylor moved for adjournment of the Safety, Advisory, and Transportation Committee meeting; hearing no objection, the meeting adjourned at 8:04 p.m. 52

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JULY 26, 2022 PAGE 14 Item 1. Mr. Sudler reentered the meeting at 8:04 p.m. Mr. Sudler moved for adjournment of the Council Committee of the Whole meeting; hearing no objection, the meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Roy Sudler, Jr. Council President RS/re Attachment #1 - Petition Against the Request for Waiver submitted by adjacent property owners. 53

Item 1. WE THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND RESIDENTS WHO RESIDE ON MISHOE STREET, RAYMOND STREET, AND CONWELL RD. WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY OF RAILROAD AVENUE ARE AGAINST! 1. The Planning Commission's recommendation for approval with Conditions of the Request to Reduce the Minimum Street Right-of-Way Width, Increase in Maximum Length of a Dead-End Street, and the Elimination of Sidewalk on One side of a Public Street. 2. Applicant: Patel College Properties, LLC & Patel Excess College Road, LLC. Tax Parcel: Rights-of-way in the vicinity of parcels ED-05-067.00-02- 53.00-000 and ED-05-067.00-02- 56.00-000. Planning Reference: S-22-04) 54

55 ~\[ " 'lCbl.:), '--' ?';j v t Item 1.

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND INSPECTIONS ACTION FORM MEETING Council Committee of the Whole: Safety MEETING DATE: July 26, 2022 TYPE: Advisory & Transportation Committee SUBJECT Subdivision Waiver Requests for Improvements to the Rights-of-Way of Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue AGENDA Request for Waiver – Appendix A – Subdivisions, Article VI – Subdivision – General DESCRIPTION: Requirements and Design Standards, Section A – Street (Right-of-Way known as Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue) – Waiver of Requirements for the Reduction of the Minimum Street Right-of-Way Width, Increase in Maximum Length of a Dead-End Street (Cul-de-Sac), and the Elimination of Sidewalk on One Side of a Public Street associated with a Site Development Plan for the improvements to the rights-of-way of Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue to allow for further development of the properties that these streets will give access. PLAN TYPE Consideration of Subdivision Waiver Request for Site Development Plan ADDRESS: Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue, Dover DE LOCATION: North of College Road and east of the Lands of Delaware Railroad APPLICANTS/ Patel College Properties, LLC & Patel Excess College Road, LLC OWNERS: Public Right-of-Way Rights-of-way in the vicinity of parcels TAX PARCELS: ED-05-067.00-02-53.00-000 and ED-05- SITE AREA: 1.93 acres +/- 067.00-02-56.00-000 EXISTING USES: Unimproved Areas and Partially Improved Areas of Public Right-of-way PROPOSED USES: Paved streets with a 24 foot roadway PROCEEDINGS: Planning Commission Meeting of March 21, 2022 CCOW – Safety Advisory & Transportation Committee Meeting of April 26, 2022: Began Consideration, Action Postponed seeking information CCOW – Safety Advisory & Transportation Committee Meeting of June 28, 2022: Deferred upon Applicant’s Request RECOMMENDED Consideration and Recommendation of Approval of Subdivision Waiver Requests ACTION: for Site Plan S-22-04 Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue Street Improvements as follows: 1) Reduction of the Minimum Street Right-of-Way Width; 2) Increase in Maximum Length of a Dead-end Street (Cul-de-Sac); and 3) Eliminate of Sidewalk on One Side of a Public Street. Requests are shown on Exhibit #1, Exhibit #2, and Exhibit #3. 56

Item 1. BACKGROUND ANALYSIS The Request for Subdivision Waivers associated with Site Plan S-22-04 Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue consists of the following: 1) Reduction of the Minimum Street Right-of-Way Width; 2) Increase in Maximum Length of a Dead-end Street (Cul-de-Sac); and 3) Eliminate of Sidewalk on One Side of a Public Street. The Review and Public Hearing of Site Plan S-22-04 occurred at the Planning Commission Meeting of March 21, 2022. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Subdivision Waivers. See Consideration of Subdivision Waiver Request Recommendation Report and Attachments (as provided for the CCOW-SAT Meeting of April 26, 2022). These items are included in this meeting packet again. • Consideration of Subdivision Waiver Request Recommendation Report • Development Advisory Committee Comments: Comments from City of Dover Public Works Department, Department of Water & Wastewater, Electric Department, City Office of the Fire Marshal, DelDOT, and Kent Conservation District • Subdivision Waiver Request Narrative • Site Development Plan Sheets • Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 21, 2022 At the CCOW-Safety Advisory & Transportation Meeting of April 26, 2022, the Committee heard a presentation on the Requests and also public comments. The Committee by their motion recommended postponing the Request for Waivers until “City Council can review the rights-of-way related to Dr. Wilma Mishoe’s property.” See Excerpt of CCOW-SAT Meeting Minutes. A series of follow-up activities then occurred. The Planning Staff via the City Clerk’s Office obtained contact information for Dr. Wilma Mishoe and shared it with the project design team from Pennoni (the project’s engineering firm). Staff from Pennoni scheduled and met on-site with Dr. Wilma Mishoe and others on May 13, 2022 and also provided additional information to her via email. The results of the Meeting were reported to Planning Staff who recommended submission of documentation of these coordination activities. Planning Staff also recommended preparation of a series of clarifying exhibits regarding the Waiver Requests. See Summary Letter dated June 17, 2022 with attachments. • Letter dated June 17, 2022 from Pennoni to Planning Staff with attachments (Exhibits #1-5 and email correspondence) • Exhibit #1 – Minimum Right-of-Way Width Waiver • Exhibit #2 – Maximum Dead End Street Length Waiver • Exhibit #3 – Public Sidewalk Elimination Waiver • Exhibit #4 – Existing Conditions – Raymond Street & Railroad Avenue • Exhibit #5 – Site Access These Subdivision Waiver Requests were scheduled for continued review and action at the CCOW-SAT Committee Meeting of June 28, 2022. However, the Applicant requested deferral of Consideration of the Waiver Request and CCOW-SAT Committee deferred it by removing the item from the Meeting’s agenda. These Subdivision Waiver Requests are now scheduled for continued review and action at the CCOW- SAT Committee Meeting of July 26, 2022. 57

Christiana Executive Campus 121 Continental Drive, Suite 207 Item 1. Newark, DE 19713 T: 302-655-4451 F: 302-654-2895 www.pennoni.com June 17, 2022 PLAWX19001 Ms. Dawn Melson-Williams, AICP Interim Planning Director City of Dover Planning Dept. 15 Loockerman Plaza Dover, DE 19901 RE: RAYMOND STREET & RAILROAD AVE STREET IMPROVEMENTS DESGIN WAIVER REQUESTS – SUPPORTING EXHIBITS AND SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL COORDINATION FILE NO. S-22-04 Dear Ms. Melson: On behalf of the applicants, Patel College Properties, LLC and Patel Excess College Road, LLC, we are respectfully submitting the following items in support of the application for design waivers for the Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue Improvements: • Exhibit #1 – Minimum Right of Way Width Waiver • Exhibit #2 – Maximum Dead End Street Length Waiver • Exhibit #3 – Public Sidewalk Elimination Waiver • Exhibit #4 – Existing Conditions – Raymond Street & Railroad Avenue • Exhibit #5 – Site Access • Email correspondence between Pennoni Associates and Dr. Wilma Mishoe In addition to the attached exhibits, we are also providing the following summary of coordination with Dr. Wilma Mishoe who is an adjacent property owner to the subject project area. Dr. Mishoe had presented an objection to the application at the prior City of Dover Council Committee of the Whole: Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee at their regularly scheduled meeting on April 26, 2022. The Committee tabled the application to allow time for some Committee members to visit the site to better understand the application. During this time, the applicant and the applicant’s engineer, Pennoni Associates, communicated with Dr. Mishoe in an attempt to resolve her concerns. A site meeting was held on Friday, May 13th, 2022 between Dr. Mishoe and her representatives along with the applicant’s representative, Mr. Dominic Balascio and Pennoni Associates representatives Mr. Doug Barry, PE and Mr. Greg Rishel, PLA. The purpose of the meeting was to meet with Dr. Mishoe to review the existing site conditions, discuss concerns and answer questions. At the meeting Dr. Mishoe stated she was unaware of the existence of the paper street extension of Raymond Street along her property frontage and believed that the land contained within the unimproved right of way belonged to her. Dr. Mishoe and her representatives also voiced concerns about the future access to the applicant’s property being taken from Raymond Street. They suggested alternatives be explored that included taking access from the existing College Park Drive Industrial Park on the west side of the existing railroad corridor, or from College Road adjacent to the railroad corridor across the lands currently owned by Delaware State University (DSU). It 58

PLAWX19001 June 17, 2022, Page 2 City of Dover Planning Raymond St & Railroad Ave Street Improvements Item 1. was explained to Dr. Mishoe that neither option would be feasible. A new proposed site access across the existing railroad corridor would not be granted by the railroad company. Access taken from College Road adjacent to the existing railroad crossing would be unsafe and DelDOT has previously stated that a new intersection so close to the existing railroad crossing would not be approved. Access at this location also assumes that DSU would be willing to allow a public thoroughfare through their property. The DSU site is currently developed with an athletic facility building and associated parking which would be impacted by a new road and associated public right-of-way if proposed here. Following the site meeting a graphic Site Access Exhibit (Exhibit #5) was prepared and provided electronically to Dr. Mishoe. The purpose of the exhibit was to show the limitations of access to the applicant’s property as well as to clarify the location of the existing rights-of-way and surrounding tax parcels. Dr. Mishoe responded to the correspondence in continued opposition to the proposed street waiver application and noted again that access to the applicant’s property should be taken from College Park Drive on the opposite side of the existing railroad corridor. See attached email correspondence. We are hopeful this information is useful for the application and respectfully request that it be included in the presentation materials for the next regularly scheduled Council Committee of the Whole: Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meeting to be held on June 28, 2022, and the subsequent City Council public hearing on July 11, 2022. Please feel free to reach out to me with any questions or additional items you may need. I am available by email at grishel@pennoni.com or by phone at 302-351-5259. Respectfully submitted, PENNONI ASSOCIATES INC. Gregory R. Rishel, PLA Senior Landscape Architect Attachments cc: Dominic Balascio Shane Hillam Doug Barry, PE 59

Item 1. Gregory Rishel Subject: FW: Mishoe/Conwell/Raymond Streets Attachments: EXHIBIT.pdf From: Douglas Barry Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2022 12:16 PM To: wilmamishoe9549@gmail.com Subject: Mishoe/Conwell/Raymond Streets Good afternoon, Dr. Mishoe. We appreciate the time we had to talk with you and others at our site meeting on 5/13 regarding access to the applicant’s property. As promised, we have compiled the attached exhibit which illustrates the existing public right-of-way (both improved and unimproved), the applicant’s property (Patel College Properties LLC), properties owned by you, railroad right-of-way, and other abutting right-of-way limits/ownership. As demonstrated in this exhibit, the only reasonably feasible access to the applicant’s assemblage is via Raymond Street. In addition, we previously had a meeting with DelDOT to review and discuss access to the properties from College Road. DelDOT has indicated that Raymond Street would need to be accessed from College Road via Mishoe Street due to existing constraints and safety concerns due to the proximity of the railroad crossing. I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Have a great holiday! Respectfully, Douglas Barry, PE Associate Vice President Pennoni 121 Continental Drive, Suite 207 | Newark, DE 19713 Direct: +1 (302) 351-5302 | Mobile: +1 (302) 353-7587 www.pennoni.com | dbarry@Pennoni.com Designing for Resiliency 1 60

Item 1. Gregory Rishel Subject: FW: Mishoe/Conwell/Raymond Streets From: WILMA MISHOE <wmishoe1@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 12:11 PM To: Douglas Barry <dbarry@Pennoni.com> Subject: Mishoe/Conwell/Raymond Streets You don't often get email from wmishoe1@comcast.net. Learn why this is important Good morning, Mr. Barry! I apologize for this delayed response, but my accounts were recently hacked, and it took me a while to get things back in order. Having reviewed your information, this is to inform you that my position has not changed on the matter, and I am still deeply opposed to your request. As you have highlighted in green on your map, the greater access to Patel's property can be seen off College Road onto College Park Drive, without having to go through the residential area. Thanks, -Wilma Mishoe 1 61

Item 1. EXHIBIT #1 MINIMUM RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH WAIVER RAYMOND STREET & RAILROAD AVENUE PURPOSE NOTE: RTH NO A WAIVER IS REQUIRED TO PERMIT RIGHT-OF-WAY LESS THAN THE REQUIRED 60' WIDTH. EXISTING RAYMOND STREET 60' PROPOSED TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY IS 35'. ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY RIGHT-OF-WAY IS PROPOSED ALONG THE APPLICANTS PROPERTY FRONTAGE 35' EXISTING (SHOWN IN BLUE). AREA SHOWN IN RED ON RIGHT-OF-WAY LAND OWNED BY OTHERS WILL BE 25' RIGHT-OF-WAY TO NON-COMPLIANT. BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF DOVER LANDS N/F PATEL COLLEGE PROPERTIES RAILROAD AVENUE GROVE STREET LANDS N/F MISHOE COVE U:\ACCOUNTS\PLAWX\PLAWX19001 - DSU STUDENT HOUSING\DESIGN\_EXHIBITS\CAD\SK-1102.DWG APARTMENTS ADDITIONAL 25' OF RIGHT-OF-WAY EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY NOT PROVIDED ON PRIVATE ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF LANDS OWNED BY MISHOE COVE PLOTTED:6/16/2022 6:03:39 , PMBY: GREGORY RISHELPLOTSTYLE:PENNONI NCS.STB , PROJECT STATUS: ---- WAY TO BE DEDICATE APARTMENTS RIGHT OF WAY NOT PROVIDED RAYMOND STREET RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY 0 100' 200' CONWELL STREET MISHOE STREET 62

Item 1. EXHIBIT #2 MAXIMUM DEAD END STREET LENGTH WAIVER RAYMOND STREET & RAILROAD AVENUE PURPOSE NOTE: RTH A WAIVER IS REQUIRED TO ALLOW A DEAD NO END STREET LENGTH LONGER THAN THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED LENGTH OF 400 FEET. A STREET LENGTH OF 738 FEET IS PROPOSED TO PROVIDE TWO ENTRANCES TO ALLOW VIABLE DEVELOPMENT ACCESS INTO THE SITE. LANDS N/F PATEL COLLEGE PROPERTIES 738' RAILROAD AVENUE LANDS N/F MISHOE COVE U:\ACCOUNTS\PLAWX\PLAWX19001 - DSU STUDENT HOUSING\DESIGN\_EXHIBITS\CAD\SK-1104.DWG APARTMENTS 400' PLOTTED:6/16/2022 5:48:40 , PMBY: GREGORY RISHELPLOTSTYLE:PENNONI NCS.STB , PROJECT STATUS: ---- MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DEAD END STREET LENGTH PROPOSED STREET RAYMOND STREET EXCEEDING ALLOWABLE LENGTH 0 100' 200' CONWELL STREET MISHOE STREET 63

Item 1. EXHIBIT #3 - PUBLIC SIDEWALK EXHIBITELIMINATION #3 - PUBLIC SIDEWALK WAIVER VARIANCE RAYMOND STREET & RAILROAD AVENUE RAYMOND STREET AND RAILROAD AVENUE PURPOSE NOTE: TH A WAIVER IS REQUIRED TO ALLOW SIDEWALK N R O ON ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE PROPOSED STREETS. SIDE WALK CANNOT BE PROVIDED ALONG BOTH SIDES OF PORTIONS OF RAYMOND STREET DUE TO LACK OF EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH. SIDEWALK IS ALSO NOT BEING PROVIDED ALONG RAILROAD AVENUE ADJACENT TO THE RAILROAD CORRIDOR. THE RAILROAD CORRIDOR PREVENTS ANY FURTHER DEVELOPMENT TO THE WEST THAT WOULD NEED A PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION. LANDS N/F PATEL COLLEGE RAILROAD AVENUE PROPERTIES SIDEWALK NOT PROVIDED ADJACENT TO TO RAILROAD PROPOSED 5' WIDE SIDEWALK LANDS N/F MISHOE COVE U:\ACCOUNTS\PLAWX\PLAWX19001 - DSU STUDENT HOUSING\DESIGN\_EXHIBITS\CAD\SK-1103.DWG GROVE STREET APARTMENTS PROPOSED 60' SIDEWALK NOT PROVIDED RIGHT-OF-WAY ACROSS LANDS OF MISHOE PROPOSED COVE APARTMENTS SIDEWALK EXISTING SIDEWALK SIDEWALK PLOTTED:6/16/2022 8:40:26 , AMBY:ANDREW SHIELDSPLOTSTYLE:PENNONI NCS.STB , PROJECT STATUS: ---- NOT PROVIDED EXISTING SIDEWALK RAYMOND STREET RAILWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED EXISTING 35' 0 100' 200' CROSSWALK CONWELL STREET MISHOE STREET RIGHT OF WAY 64

Item 1. EXHIBIT #4 -EXISTING CONDITIONS LANDS N/F PATEL COLLEGE RAYMOND STREET & RAILROAD AVENUE PROPERTIES RAILROAD AVENUE GROVE STREET LANDS N/F MISHOE COVE APARTMENTS AREA OF EXISTING STREET IMPROVEMENTS FALLS OUTSIDE OF EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY ON PRIVATE LAND 35' EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY RAYMOND STREET MISHOE STREET U:\ACCOUNTS\PLAWX\PLAWX19001 - DSU STUDENT HOUSING\DESIGN\_EXHIBITS\CAD\SK-1106.DWG CONWELL STREET RITA WILMA ROAD EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING PAVEMENT PLOTTED:6/16/2022 8:51:59 , AMBY:ANDREW SHIELDSPLOTSTYLE:PENNONI NCS.STB , PROJECT STATUS: ---- 0 60' 120' 65

Item 1. 66

Item 1. 67

Item 1. 68

Item 1. 69

Item 1. City of Dover CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION WAIVER REQUEST Review by Council Committee of the Whole: Safety Advisory & Transportation Committee Recommendation from Planning Commission Meeting of March 21, 2022 with Staff and Development Advisory Committee Review Plan Title: Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue Street Improvements, S-22-04 Plan Type: Site Development Plan Associated Plans: Annexation of Raymond Street, Grove Street, and Railroad Avenue, AX- 21-04 Applicant/Owner: Patel College Properties, LLC & Patel Excess College Road, LLC Public Right-of-Way Property Location: North of College Road and east of the Lands of Delaware Railroad Tax Parcel: Rights-of-way in the vicinity of parcels ED-05-067.00-02-53.00-000 and ED-05- 067.00-02-56.00-000 Site Area: 1.93 acres +/- Proposed Use: Paved streets with a 24 ft. roadway Zoning: N/A Sewer & Water: City of Dover Subdivision Waiver Reduction of the Minimum Street Right-of-Way Width Requests Recommended: Increase in Maximum Length of a Dead-end Street (Cul-de-Sac) Elimination of Sidewalk on One Side of a Public Street Planning Commission Recommendation: The Site Development Plan Application S-22-04 was represented by the applicant’s engineering firm Pennoni Associates Inc. A Public Hearing was conducted on March 21, 2022 where no members of the public spoke. The Planning Commission moved by vote of 8-0 to recommend in favor of the proposed Site Development Plan and including approval of the Subdivision Waivers allowing for the reduction in the minimum street right-of-way width, an increase in the maximum length of a dead-end street, and the elimination of sidewalk on one side of a public street. (Draft Meeting Minutes attached.) This Subdivision Waiver Requests are forwarded to the Council Committee of the Whole: Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee and City Council who has the final authority to grant the requests. The following is the Development Advisory Committee Report prepared for S-22-04 including the application review narrative and Department/Agency Review comments. P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 70 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

Item 1. City of Dover CITY OF DOVER Planning Office DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D.A.C. MEETING DATE: March 9, 2022 APPLICATION: Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue Street Improvements FILE #: S-22-04 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Planning CONTACT PERSON: Samantha Bulkilvish, AICP PHONE: 302-736-7196 I. PLAN SUMMARY This application is for review of a Site Development Plan Application to permit the construction of street improvements in the Rights-of-Way of Railroad Avenue and Raymond Street. These improvements include paved roadways, curbing, sidewalks, and utility infrastructure (water, sewer, and stormwater drainage). Raymond Street is proposed to be extended west as a 24 ft. paved width roadway to intersect with Railroad Avenue. Railroad Avenue is proposed to be constructed as a 24 ft. paved width roadway extending to the north and ending in a cul-de-sac. Portions of the surrounding properties totaling 0.61 acres and owned by Patel College Properties, LLC and Patel Excess College Road, LLC are being dedicated to the City of Dover for the expansion of Right-of-Way. The right of way and property to be dedicated as right-of-way is located north College Road and directly east of the Lands of Delaware Railroad. The property is in the vicinity of Tax Parcels ED-05-067.00-02-53.00-000 and ED-05-067.00-02-56.00-000. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property is located north of College Road and east of the Lands of the Delaware Railroad. The applicant has proposed street improvements for the extension of Raymond Street and the construction of Railroad Avenue in this area. The applicant hopes to be able to provide street access to the parcels they own to the north of Raymond Street and the east of Railroad Avenue for future development. The Plan proposes the realignment and continuation of Raymond Street for a distance of approximately 525 feet and the construction of Railroad Avenue for a distance of approximately 700 feet ending in a cul-de-sac. The plan also proposes the dedication of right-of-way of a width of 25 ft. along the entire frontage of the properties along the north side of Raymond Street to the west of Mishoe Towers Apartments and to the east of the Railroad Avenue right-of-way. This will bring the total right-of-way along these portions of Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue to 60 feet in width. III. PREVIOUS APPLICATION – Annexation The subject property was recently annexed into the City of Dover. The Annexation application was meant to clarify if the Rights-of-Way of Raymond Street (aka Jason Street), Grove Street, and Railroad Avenue were in the City Limits of the City of Dover. The right-of-way was originally documented in a subdivision plat of “The College Settlement Company” of 1899. Over the years many properties in the vicinity were annexed into the City, but it was unclear if the 71

Item 1. S-22-04 Site Development Plan for Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue Street Improvements Planning Commission Recommendation Report of March 21, 2022, and DAC Report of March 9, 2022 Page 2 Rights-of-Way were included. The Application went to Planning Commission in November 2021 and was referred to City Council on December 13, 2021, where Ordinance #2021-23 was adopted for the annexation clarification of the Rights-Of-Way of Raymond Street, Grove Street, and Railroad Avenue totaling 1.6791 acres +/-. IV. SITE CONSIDERATIONS The plat of this area (The College Settlement Company) of 1899, depicted the street rights-of- way at a width of 35 feet. The development in the area has shaped the space for development of the right-of way. The area does not accommodate the space required under the Street Design guidelines of todays Subdivision Regulations. Therefore, a series of waivers have been requested made possible under Article VII. Special Provisions, Section A. Variance and waivers. Any subdivision waivers are recommended to City Council’s Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee who make a recommendation to City Council for a final decision. Streets and Sidewalks The proposed plans show a 24-foot paved width roadway with upright curbing on both sides. There will be no on street parking permitted in this area. Request for Waiver: Reduction of Street Right-of-Way Width The Street right-of-way is required to be a minimum of 60 feet (Land Subdivision Regulations, Article VI §A13.1). The Plan shows the dedication of land for the purpose of increasing the right-of-way width to 60 feet where possible by the applicant. The applicant is seeking relief from this right-of-way width requirement in areas along Raymond Street where they do not own the land on either side of the right-of-way. The applicant has submitted a waiver request for the reduction of street right-of-way from 60 feet to 35 feet. Requests for Waiver: Length of Dead-end Street The Plan shows the proposed construction of Railroad Avenue, a 24 ft. wide roadway, for a length of approximately 700 feet ending in a cul-de-sac. The applicant has proposed the extension to this length so that they can reach their properties and allow for two interconnections into their future development. They have decided to not extend it to the property line to the north as the property to the north is owned by the State of Delaware and is not currently in the City limits. The maximum length of a dead-end (cul-de-sac) street is 400 feet. (Land Subdivision Regulations, Article VI §A15). The applicant has submitted a waiver request for street length for consideration; see attached request. Requests for Waiver: Elimination of Sidewalk on One Side of a Public Street Land Subdivision Regulations, Article VI §B states that sidewalks should extend from the building line to the curbline and be a width of 5 feet. Zoning Ordinance, Article 18 also discusses ‘pathway’ sidewalk installation requirements along public street frontages. On Streets where the distance from the building line to the curbline is more than ten feet, the outside edge of the sidewalk shall be located three feet from the curbline. It is assumed that this is for each side of the street since a street has a curbline on both sides. The Plan shows sidewalk on the east side of Railroad Avenue. On the west side of Railroad Avenue, the Right-of-Way is adjacent to the railroad corridor which prevents any further development along the west side of the Railroad Avenue Right-of-Way. There is also sidewalk proposed on the north side of Raymond Street from Railroad Avenue to the property line of Lands of Apartments at Mishoe Cove, LLC. On the 72

Item 1. S-22-04 Site Development Plan for Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue Street Improvements Planning Commission Recommendation Report of March 21, 2022, and DAC Report of March 9, 2022 Page 3 south side of Raymond Street the sidewalk is proposed from the corner of Mishoe Street west to the intersection of Railroad Avenue and Raymond Street where a crosswalk is proposed to cross Raymond Street to continue north on the sidewalk on Railroad Avenue. The applicant has submitted a waiver request for the elimination of sidewalk on the west side of Railroad Avenue. Utilities Utilities are roughly shown on the plan. Currently the existing watermain falls outside of the right- of-way on the property of the Lands of Apartments at Mishoe Cove, LLC. A 15’ utility easement is shown so that the watermain can be accessed and extended into the right-of-way and continued westerly along the right-of-way of Raymond Street and then northerly along the right-of-way of Railroad Avenue. The Sewer and stormwater catchment system follows a similar route although they are all contained within the right-of-way. It is unclear how and where the stormwater will be managed. Lighting In addition to the street and sidewalk guidelines in the Land Subdivision Regulations, street lighting is also required. The Plan does not currently show the location of existing or proposed lighting. Shade Trees The Land subdivision Regulations references street trees but does not list specific spacing requirements. Shade trees are required to be located so as not to interfere with utilities or sidewalks and shall be of the type recommended by the city tree commission. The Plan shows that some shade trees are to be removed by the realignment of Raymond Street. There are no proposed trees shown on the plans. Pedestrian Crossings Key board style crosswalks are shown on the plans near street intersections. This is important for the safety of pedestrians in this area. V. CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: The subject proposal has been reviewed for code compliance, plan conformity, and completeness in accordance with the agency’s authority and area of expertise. The following items have been identified as elements which need to be addressed by the applicant: 1) Recommendations on Subdivision Waivers: a) Waiver from the Minimum Right-of-Way Width: Staff notes that the applicant is proposing to make the Right-of-Way 60 feet along the length of Railroad Avenue and Raymond Street that are adjacent to their properties by dedicating additional right-of-way to the City of Dover. There is a portion of Raymond Street that they are proposing improvements to that will remain at the 35 feet width at which it was platted. The right- of-way of Raymond Street cannot be expanded without dedication of right-of-way from additional property owners. b) Waiver from Maximum Dead-end Street Length: Staff notes that the length of the cul- de-sac street requested is almost double the maximum length allowed by the Land Subdivision Regulations. This length of Railroad Avenue is showing two potential site access points to a future development project on the properties owned by the applicant. 73

Item 1. S-22-04 Site Development Plan for Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue Street Improvements Planning Commission Recommendation Report of March 21, 2022, and DAC Report of March 9, 2022 Page 4 There is no way to connect this road to an existing network to the north as the property to the north is heavily wooded and owned by the State of Delaware. The property to the north is also outside of the City of Dover city limits. To the west the street is bounded by the Railroad Corridor where opportunity for an additional crossing is unlikely. The applicant has proposed a cul-de-sac at the terminus. c) Waiver for the Elimination of Sidewalk on One side of a Public Street: Staff notes that the applicant is proposing the elimination of sidewalk on the west side of Railroad Avenue and for a short distance on the north side of Raymond Street where they do not own the property to dedicate enough right of way to construct a sidewalk. Staff is in support of this waiver as the Right-of-Way for Railroad Avenue is directly adjacent to the Railroad Corridor and therefore would prevent any further development to the west needing a pedestrian connection. They are providing sidewalk on the east side of Railroad Avenue where they plan to develop the land in the future. 2) Cover Sheet SK-1001: a) General Notes: i) Include the current impervious coverage and proposed impervious coverage. ii) Include the total area of right-of-way before dedication of 0.61 acres. b) On the drawing: i) Revise the site location on both Location inset maps. ii) Revise the location of the crosswalk near the corner of Railroad Avenue and Raymond Street. The stop bar should be before the crosswalk in the direction the traffic is traveling. iii) Identify if there will be an ADA ramp at the southwest corner of Mishoe Street and Raymond Street. iv) Show the zoning of all adjacent properties. v) Adjust property labels for the two properties at the bottom left corner of the plans to make them completely legible. vi) Show the location of possible streetlights. vii) Show location of “No On Street Parking” signs. c) Include a planting plan showing the location of proposed street trees and types with counts. 3) Provide a details sheet to show details of proposed stop signs, no parking signs, crosswalks, etc. VI. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: In accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 §2.2, the Planning Commission in considering and acting upon Site Development Plans may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards so that the public health, safety, and welfare, the comfort and convenience of the public in general, and the residents of the immediate neighborhood in particular shall be taken into consideration. These safeguards may to the maximum extent possible further the expressed intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the accomplishment of several objectives in particular listed in subsections 2.21 to 2.28. 1) Stormwater Management: Continued work should be done to communicate with the Kent Conservation District and the City of Dover Public Works Department to identify how storm 74

Item 1. S-22-04 Site Development Plan for Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue Street Improvements Planning Commission Recommendation Report of March 21, 2022, and DAC Report of March 9, 2022 Page 5 water flow will be managed from the construction of these Street Rights-of-Way and any future development. VII. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1) The Planning Commission should act upon the request for waivers as part of any motion regarding this project application, or as a separate motion as necessary. Note: All waivers are at the discretion of the Planning Commission. The Commission may recommend approval or denial of the waiver requests. The waivers will then be reviewed by the Safety Advisory and Traffic Committee of the Council Committee of the Whole and they will make a recommendation to City Council who will ultimately decide if the waivers are to be approved or denied. 2) In the event, that major changes and revisions to the Site Development Plan occur in the finalization of the Site Plan contact the Department of Planning and Inspections. Examples include relocation of site components like paving, curbing, and sidewalks. These changes may require resubmittal for review by the Development Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, or other agencies and commissions making recommendations in regard to the Plan. 3) Following Planning Commission approval of the Site Development Plan and Record Plan, the Plan must be revised to meet all conditions of approval from the Development Advisory Committee or as otherwise noted. A Check Print must be submitted for review by Planning Office Staff and the other commenting agencies. Upon determination that the Plan is complete and all agency approvals have been received, copies of the Plan may be submitted for final endorsement (Final Plan Approval). The Record Plan must be recorded at the Kent County Recorder of Deeds and a copy returned to the Planning Office prior to Final Site Plan approval. 4) Other agencies and departments which participate in the Development Advisory Committee may provide additional comments related to their areas of expertise and code requirements. 5) The applicant shall be aware that Site Development Plan approval does not represent a Building Permit and associated construction activity permits. A separate application process is required for issuance of a Building Permit from the City of Dover. 6) In the event that there are changes to the street design layout contact the Planning Office. These changes may require review by the Planning Commission. 7) The applicant/developer shall be aware that prior to any ground disturbing activities on the site the appropriate Site Plan approvals, Pre-Construction meetings, site inspections and permits are required. Findings and Recommendations of the Dover Planning Commission At the Hybrid Planning Commission Meeting on March 21, 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Waiver Requests as part of its review of the Site Development Plan for the Street Improvements proposed to Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue. The Application (S-22- 04) was represented by Gregory Rishel of the application’s engineering firm Pennoni Associates, 75

Item 1. S-22-04 Site Development Plan for Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue Street Improvements Planning Commission Recommendation Report of March 21, 2022, and DAC Report of March 9, 2022 Page 6 inc. During the Public Hearing, no members of the public spoke on the application. Following a Public Hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Site Development Plan and approval of the requested Subdivision Waivers to allow for the reduction in the minimum street right-of-way width, an increase in the maximum length of a dead-end street, and the elimination of sidewalk on one side of a public street. The motion passed 8-0 with one member absent. See also the included excerpt of the DRAFT Meeting Minutes of the March 21, 2022 Planning Commission meeting. Attachments: • Development Advisory Committee Comments: Comments from City of Dover Public Works Department, Department of Water & Wastewater, Electric Department, City Office of the Fire Marshal, DelDOT, and Kent Conservation District • Subdivision Waiver Request Narrative • Site Development Plan Sheets • Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 21, 2022 76

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: MARCH 2, 2022 APPLICATION: Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue Street Improvements FILE #: S-22-04 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 PHONE #: 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 1. None. STORMWATER 1. Final site plan approval will not be granted until a copy of the approved Stormwater/Erosion and Sediment Control Plan from Kent Conservation District submitted to our office. 2. The size, length, slope, type and flow directions must be shown on all existing and proposed storm sewer lines. Rim and invert elevations must be labeled on all stormwater structures. Required material of stormwater pipe shall be reinforced concrete pipe (RCP). 3. Submerged pipe inlets to ponds may only be permitted if they are so designed that the permanent pool elevation of the storm water management area doesn’t surcharge back into the City of Dover’s storm drain structures and system. 4. The City of Dover Department of Public Works specifications require all culverts to be designed for the 25-year storm frequency and all storm sewers to be designed for the 10-year storm frequency. The Manning’s equation shall be utilized in design as applicable. Storm sewers are required to provide a minimum full flow velocity of 2 fps. Provide the calculations for each proposed pipe segment that, at a minimum, include: upstream and downstream inverts, upstream and downstream ground elevations, and ground cover provided; pipe slope, length, material, n value, and diameter; design flow, depth and velocity; and full flow and velocity. 5. The City of Dover Department of Public Works specifications require that all inlets (catch basins) be designed for the 10-year storm frequency (25-year storm frequency for sump conditions) and that the spread of water shall not exceed eight feet (8’) from the flow line of the curb. The design must also meet the requirement that the hydraulic grade line may be no higher than one foot (1’) below the top of the inlet. Provide the calculations for each proposed catch basin utilizing flows determined by each catch basin’s contributory drainage area, for the appropriate storm frequency. Spread, depth of flow and hydraulic grade line data for each inlet must also be included. Any carryover should also be noted and included at appropriate downstream catch basins as applicable. 77

Item 1. Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue Street Improvements File #: S-22-04 March 2, 2022 Page 2 of 5 6. Provide all stormwater management calculations and erosion and sedimentation control plan as required by Article 5, Section 11.2 and 11.2 of the City of Dover Zoning Ordinance. Ensure that individual lot grading, house locations with finished floor elevations, and driveway locations and grades are provided on the plans in order to verify the adequacy of the design. The provided information should also show adequate conveyance of runoff from each lot. 7. Please provide documentation that the downstream stormwater system has the capacity to receive the additional flow. STREETS 1. Final site plan approval will not be granted until a copy of the approved entrance plan, signed by DelDOT is submitted to our office. 2. The current City of Dover standard street section provides for a 3’ grass strip between the curb and sidewalk. This standard was administratively revised to meet ADA and FHA compliance with cross slope requirements and to prevent cars from scrapping at driveways. The revised standard utilizes a five feet (5’) wide public sidewalk with a five feet (5’) wide grass strip behind the curb. 3. It shall be unlawful for any person to alter the curb of any street so as to create a curb depression for the purpose of permitting vehicles to enter onto or exit from the city streets, without a permit issued by the city manager. 4. When determined to be necessary, dead-end streets, designated to be so permanently, shall not be longer than 400 feet and shall be provided at the closed end cul-de-sac with a turnaround having an outside roadway diameter of 80 feet and a street right-of-way diameter of 100 feet. In no instance shall more than 20 percent of the lots in a proposed development front on the turnaround section of a cul-de-sac. 5. Streets shall be laid out so as to intersect as nearly as possible at right angles. The inner right-of-way line of a street intersecting another street at an angle of less than 90 degrees shall be tangent to and follow a curve with a minimum radius of 150 feet centered on the nearest right-of-way line and shall be parallel to said inner right-of-way line. 6. Street right-of-way lines deflecting from each other at any point shall be connected with a curve, the radius of which, for the centerline of the right-of-way, shall not be less than 500 feet on arterial streets, 300 feet on collector streets and 150 feet on minor streets. The outer and inner right-of-way line shall be parallel to said center right-of-way line. 7. Street rights-of-way lines at intersections shall be connected with a curve, the radius of which shall be at least 25 feet. The required radius may be increased by the city engineer if the increased radius is necessary for public safety. 8. Street grades shall not exceed five percent. 9. Street grades shall not be less than one-half percent wherever feasible. 10. Please locate the stop bar prior to the crosswalk. 11. Street profiles must be provided with the construction plans. 12. All streets to be dedicated to the City must meet the City of Dover Department of Public Works specifications. a. Pavement sections must be designed based upon poor soil conditions unless soil boring data is provided showing otherwise. Structural number calculations must be submitted for review and a pavement cross section detail must be included within the plan set. b. All curbing within the right-of-way shall be DelDOT Type III curb and gutter. All curb radii must be labeled on the plan. In particular, a minimum radius of twenty-five feet (25’) must be provided at all street intersections. A construction detail of the Type III curb and gutter must be provided on the plan. c. Sidewalk proposed within the right-of-way shall be constructed as per the City of Dover Standards and Specifications. All sidewalks must be poured by hand; curb machine slip formed sidewalks will not be permitted. The sidewalk must be scored in five feet (5’) squares using hand tooled joints. All tool marks shall be removed as tool finished edges are not permitted. Expansion joints shall be installed at a spacing of twenty feet (20’) and shall be precut, one-half inch (½ “) thick, four-inch (4”) wide, cork sheets. All sidewalk proposed within the right-of-way shall consist of Class B concrete, without reinforcing material, in order to prevent future interference with utility locating. The proposed five feet (5’) wide public sidewalk shall be installed 5 feet from the back of curb. The sidewalk cross slope shall not exceed 2% including across the driveways to ensure ADA and FHA compliance. A sidewalk construction detail containing the above information must be provided on the plan. 78

Item 1. Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue Street Improvements File #: S-22-04 March 2, 2022 Page 3 of 5 d. All barrier free access ramps and driveway aprons constructed with the site improvements shall be in accordance with the most current ADA and DelDOT requirements and standards at the time of construction. To meet cross slope requirements a five feet (5’) wide grass strip must be provided between a five feet (5’) sidewalk and the curb. e. Signage and markings must be included with the site plan in accordance the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Signage proposed for streets to be dedicated to the City of Dover must be included on the plan (no parking signs, speed limit signs, street blades, stops signs, watch children, etc.) All signs must be installed on two-inch (2”) square break away sign posts. WATER 1. All water utility components must meet the requirements of the Water Wastewater Handbook, effective date March 22, 2010. Please contact our office for more information. 2. The following notes must be added to the plans: a. Hydrant connections by the contractor are prohibited. This method may not be utilized during any phase of the project. b. Any existing water lines not to be utilized by the proposed facility must be properly abandoned at the mains in accordance with the City of Dover Department of Public Works specifications and requirements. c. The site contractor shall contact the City of Dover Public Works Construction Manager at (302) 736-7025 prior to the start of construction. A representative from the City of Dover Department of Public Works must observe and approve all City owned water and sanitary sewer interconnections and testing. All water taps must be performed by a City of Dover approved contractor. The proposed location for the water connection may need to be adjusted in the field due to conditions of the existing main. Possible conditions that would require tapping relocation include proximity to pipe joints, other taps, concrete encasements, conflict with other utilities, and the like. Test holes must be performed by the contractor to determine the best tapping location. The City of Dover will not be held responsible for field conditions requiring adjustment of the tapping location or for any work required by the contractor to make an appropriate and lawful connection. 3. All water mains within the proposed subdivision must be looped. No dead end mains are permitted. The utility plan must incorporate the appropriate termination valves on the water system between construction phases. 4. The size, type, and location of all proposed and existing water lines and valves must be shown on the plan. All water mains shall be cement lined Class 52 cement lined ductile iron pipe, if construction occurs after May 1, 2022, DR 18 PVC pipe may be used as a material for water mains. Division valves must be provided every 800 feet. 5. Water service lines shall be shown for each residential lot meeting the following requirements: The water services shall be one- inch (1”) diameter Type K copper tubing, or SDR 9 if constructed after May 1, 2022, and installed five feet (5’) to the right of the sewer lateral as viewed from the center line of the street. Curb stops shall be installed one foot (1’) outside of the right-of-way for each lot. A water meter and meter pit must be installed on the domestic water service, in a non-traffic bearing location just downstream of the curb stop. 6. Fire hydrants shall be spaced no greater than 600 feet as measured along the curb. Fire hydrants shall be placed between the curb and sidewalk at intersections or centered on lot lines. Fifteen feet (15’) separation must be provided between all hydrants and hydrant valves. WASTEWATER 1. All wastewater utility components must meet the requirements of the Water Wastewater Handbook, effective date March 22, 2010. Please contact our office for more information. 2. The following notes must be added to the plans: a. Any existing sanitary sewer lines not to be utilized by the proposed facility must be properly abandoned at the mains in accordance with the City of Dover Department of Public Works specifications and requirements. b. Part II, Chapter 180, Article III, Section 180-10 of the Code of Kent County requires that “no person shall discharge or cause to be discharged any stormwater, surface water, uncontaminated groundwater, roof runoff, subsurface drainage, 79

Item 1. Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue Street Improvements File #: S-22-04 March 2, 2022 Page 4 of 5 uncontaminated noncontact cooling water or unpolluted industrial process waters to any sanitary sewer”, this shall include condensate. Sec. 110-231 of the City of Dover Code defines storm sewer as “…any system used for conveying rain water, surface water, condensate, cooling water or similar liquid wastes, exclusive of sewage.” The contractor, developer, owner and designers shall ensure during construction that no illegal discharges to the sanitary sewer system are created with the site improvements. 3. All sanitary sewer mains shall terminate at manholes between construction phases. This may require sewer lines to extend beyond the proposed phase lines to the next manhole. 4. Minimum slope criteria shall meet Ten States Standards. Provide flow calculations to justify sizing of the sewer mains, showing that velocity requirements are met. Waiver requests must be approved by the Department of Public Works. 5. The desired location for sewer mains is under the centerline of the street. One-tenth of a foot (0.1’) drop must be provided across all manholes. The minimum slope for eight-inch (8”) sanitary sewer pipe is 0.004 feet/feet. Minimum cover is 3.0 feet. 6. Sanitary sewer manholes shall be spaced no more than 400 feet apart. 7. The minimum size of all sanitary sewer laterals shall be six-inch (6”). 8. The size, length, slope, type and flow directions must be shown on all existing and proposed sanitary sewer lines. Rim and invert elevations must be labeled on all sanitary structures. 9. Sanitary sewer laterals shall be shown for each residential lot meeting the following requirements: The sewer laterals shall be six-inch (6”) diameter schedule 35 PVC and, where practicable, installed to the center of each lot. Sewer laterals shall be connected directly to the main, not manholes, unless impracticable. Sewer laterals are to be installed one foot (1’) beyond the right-of-way line at a typical depth of three feet (3’), preferably not exceeding five feet (5’). Cleanouts shall be installed one foot (1’) outside of the right-of-way for each lot. GENERAL 1. All existing utilities shall be adjusted to final grade in accordance with current City of Dover requirements and practices. This must be included as a note on the plan. 2. No trees may be planted within ten feet (10’) of utility infrastructure. 3. No structure may be installed within ten feet (10’) of utility infrastructure, please depict all underground utilities and structures on the utility plan sheet to confirm compliance. 4. The final site plan must be submitted in the following compatible digital formats: a. AutoCAD 2018 (.dwg format). b. Adobe Reader (.pdf format). RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES SANITATION / STORMWATER / STREETS / WATER / WASTEWATER / GENERAL 1. None. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT WATER 1. The City of Dover water system is available to this site. The developer is responsible for all costs associated with extending and providing service to the proposed development. 2. Prior to plan approval, the water system plans must be submitted to the Division of Public Health, Office of Drinking Water for review and approval. The owner/developer will be responsible for providing all completed forms and plan sets to the City of Dover as required for submission to the Office of Drinking Water. Plans will not be submitted to the Office of Drinking Water until review has been completed by our office. 80

Item 1. Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue Street Improvements File #: S-22-04 March 2, 2022 Page 5 of 5 3. Hydrant flow testing is currently only performed during the spring and fall. The applicant must call the Department of Water & Wastewater directly to schedule these tests. This applies to both existing hydrants as well as those proposed for the site. WASTEWATER 1. The City of Dover sanitary sewer system is available to this site. The developer is responsible for all costs associated with extending and providing service and capacity to the proposed development. 2. Prior to plan approval, it may be required to submit the sanitary sewer system plans to the DNREC, Division of Water Resources, Surface Water Discharges Section for review and approval. The owner/developer is responsible for providing all application fees, completed forms and plan sets directly to DNREC. GENERAL 1. The applicant is advised that depending upon the size of the existing water service and sanitary sewer lateral to be abandoned, flowable fill may be required. 2. Construction plans will not be reviewed by our office unless all previous comments have been clearly addressed within the plan set and accordingly identified within an itemized response letter and with the Water/Wastewater Initial Plan Submission Checklist, which can be obtained from the following website: https://imageserv9.team- logic.com/mediaLibrary/198/WaterWastewaterHandbookFinal_1.pdf, page 88. 3. Dedication of this infrastructure will not take place until the future development (apartment building) is completed. The final wearing course of this road shall not be installed until it is ready for dedication. SANITATION / STORMWATER / STREETS 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 . 81

C F S-22-04 I IItem 1. T R CITY OF DOVER Y E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE O M F A APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY R D.A.C. MEETING DATE: 03/02/22 D S O H V A E L APPLICATION: Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue Street Improvements R FILE #: S-22-04 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover, Office of the Fire Marshal CONTACT PERSON: Jason Osika, Fire Marshal PHONE #: (302) 736-4457 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 site development plan application for the proposed construction of street improvements in the Rights of Way of Raymond St and Railroad Avenue. 2. Emergency access to rear building areas compliant with City of Dover Code (Appendix B-Zoning, Article 5- Supplementary Regulations, Section 17); all four stories and greater buildings require 24ft fire lane at the rear. All two to three story apartment structures require an 18ft Secondary Fire Lane at the rear. All townhouses (3-8 units with no fire protection) require a 16ft alley or 18ft secondary fire lane at the rear. 3. Multiple Access Roads shall be provided when a fire department access road (fire lane) is determined by the Fire Marshal to be impaired by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions, or other factors that could limit access such as placement of fire hose from fire equipment. 4. Street width shall be in accordance with City of Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix A, Article VII, Section A. 13, Residential areas 24 feet wide with no parking, 30 feet wide with parking on one side, or 36 feet wide with parking on both sides Commercial areas 26 feet wide with no parking, 32 feet wide with parking on one side, or 38 feet wide with parking on both sides 82

Item 1. Alley 12 feet wide 5. Any dead-end road more than 300 feet in length shall be provided with a turnaround or cul-de-sac as outlined in the 2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 705, chapter 5, 2.3. 6. Speed Reduction Devices must be approved, please see City of Dover Ordinance Chapter 98-10 in reference to this process. 7. Gated Areas: Fire Department access shall be provided to the property through the use of a system or device approved by the Fire Marshal. The system or device required shall be located in an area accessible to the fire department and approved by the Fire Marshal. All gates shall be either automatic or manual. An automated system shall consist of one manual and one automated means to open the gate. The owner or their representative shall meet with the Fire Marshal prior to submission to agree on the system. A letter of agreement shall be created and signed by both parties. The letter shall include a detailed description of both the manual and automated means. A manual gate shall consist of one manual means to open the gate. The owner or their representative shall meet with the Fire Marshal prior to submission to agree on the means to open. A letter of agreement shall be created and signed by both parties. The letter shall include a detailed description of the manual means to open. To be considered accessible for fire department apparatus the actual clear openings shall be not less than 14 feet, the paved surface through the gate shall be not less than 12 feet, and the gate shall be setback from the perpendicular street by at least 50 feet. Please contact this office to discuss options available to comply with this requirement. (2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 705, Chapter 5, 2.6) 8. All fire hydrants shall be marked as prescribed within the appropriate section of this regulation and as illustrated by the appropriate figures of this regulation. All fire hydrants shall have minimum of four-inch (4") solid yellow demarcation lines to define specific areas, where fire hydrants are located along a curb line with permitted parking, the area between the fire hydrant and the street or fire lane shall be stenciled with four inch (4") demarcation lines and the words "NO PARKING", demarcation lines shall be measured from the center line of the fire hydrant and extend for a distance 15 feet on both sides. Where fire hydrants are located in parking lots or other areas susceptible to blockage by parked vehicles they shall be treated as follows: fire hydrants shall be protected in all directions for a distance of seven feet (7') with barriers or curbing, Minimum four-inch (4") diameter steel bollards filled with concrete and marked yellow shall be installed at the outermost corners of the fire hydrant demarcation area. The minimum height of the bollard shall be 36 inches above the finished grade of the adjacent surface, and the steamer connection of all fire hydrants shall be positioned so as to be facing the edge of the street, or traffic lane. (2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, 705, Chapter 6, 2) The owner is responsible if the hydrant is private. 9. Hydrant barrels shall be provided with reflective material, such as paint, durable for highway/roadway markings or a reflective tape of a minimum of 2” in width around the barrel under the top flange, hydrant bonnets shall be color coded based on the following criteria: class AA 1500 83

Item 1. GPM - painted light blue, class A 1,000 GPM -1499 GPM - painted green, class B 500 - 999 GPM - painted orange, class C 250 - 499 GPM - painted red, class D under 250 GPM - painted black. (2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 703, Chapter 3. 4) The owner is responsible if the hydrant is private. 10. 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. 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) 11. Project to be completed per approved Site Plan. ADDITIONAL / SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN APPROVAL: 1. Confirm that the Cul-de-sac is in compliance with the 2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 2. Street width doesn’t allow parking (24’), and 35’ allows parking on one side proper marking will be required 3. A discussion regarding hydrant placement/spacing needs to take place 84

Item 1. 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. 85

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: MARCH 2, 2022 APPLICATION: Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue Street Improvements FILE #: S-22-04 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 1. The roadway and curbing must be in. 2. The right-of-way must be within 6" of final grade. 3. The property corners must be staked. 4. Owner is responsible for locating all existing underground electric, communications and water facilities. 5. Owner is responsible for installing all conduits and equipment pads per the City of Dover Engineering Department specifications. 6. Owner is responsible for site and/or street lighting. 7. Meter locations will be determined by City of Dover Engineering Department. 8. Load sheets and AutoCAD compatible DXF or DWG diskettes of site plans, including driveways, are required prior to receiving approved electrical construction drawings. 9. Any relocation of existing electrical equipment will be engineered by the City of Dover Electric Department. Developer may be required to perform a quantity of the relocation. Any work performed by the City of Dover will be at the owner’s expense. 10. Prior to construction, owner is responsible for granting an easement to the City of Dover Electric Department. Easement forms will be furnished and prepared by the City of Dover Electric Engineering Department. 11. Fees will be assessed upon final site plans. The owner will be responsible for fees assessed prior to construction. Owner is required to sign off plans prepared by the Electric Department. 12. Must maintain 10' clearance around all electrical equipment, unless pre-approved by the City of Dover Electric Engineering Department. 86

Item 1. Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue Street Improvements File #: S-22-04 March 2, 2022 Page 2 of 2 13. Prior to the completion of any/all designs and estimates, the owner is responsible for providing the Electric Engineering Department with a physical address of the property. 14. All Engineering and design for Dover Electric will be engineered upon final approved plans. All Engineering work will be furnished by the City’s Electric Engineering Department. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES ELECTRIC 1. Owner must give the City of Dover Electric Department three (3) months’ notice prior to construction. Owner is responsible for following the requirements outlined in the City of Dover’s Electric Service Handbook. The handbook is now available on the website at the following link: https://evogov.s3.amazonaws.com/media/27/media/13108.pdf. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT ELECTRIC 1. Provide load sheets as soon as possible for proper sizing of transformers and creation of primary fee estimates. Current load sheets can be found at the following link: https://www.cityofdover.com/media/Electric%20Department/COD%20Electric%20Load%20Sheet.pdf. 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 . 87

KENT CONSERVATION DISTRICT Item 1. 1679 SOUTH DUPONT HIGHWAY • DOVER, DELAWARE 19901• (302) 608-5370 • WWW.KENTCD.ORG CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY MARCH 2022 APPLICATION: Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue Street Improvements FILE #: S-22-04 REVIEWING AGENCY: Kent Conservation District CONTACT PERSON: Kate Owens PHONE: (302) 608 – 5370 EMAIL: stormwater@kentcd.org 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: Source: 2019 Delaware Sediment and Stormwater Regulations CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. A Stormwater Assessment Study (SAS) and pre-application meeting are required. 2. As the disturbance for this site will exceed 5,000 square feet, a detailed sediment and stormwater management plan must be reviewed and approved by the District prior to any land disturbing activity (i.e. clearing, grubbing, filling, grading, etc.) taking place. The review fee and a completed Application for a Detailed Plan are due at the time of plan submittal to the District’s office. 3. The following notes must appear on the record plan: a. The Kent Conservation District reserves the right to enter private property for purposes of periodic site inspection. b. The Kent Conservation District reserves the right to add, modify, of delete any erosion or sediment control measure, as it deems necessary. c. A clear statement of defined maintenance responsibility for stormwater management facilities must be provided on the Record Plan. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1. A soils investigation in the proposed Stormwater facility areas is required to determine impacts of the seasonal high groundwater level and soils for any Best Management Practice (BMP) design. 2. The preferred methods of Stormwater management are those practices that maximize the use of the natural features of a site, promote recharge and minimize the reliance on structural components. 3. It is recommended that the stormwater management areas be incorporated into the overall landscape plan to enhance water quality and to make the stormwater facility an attractive community amenity. 4. A letter of no objection to recordation will be provided once the detailed Sediment and Stormwater Management Plan has been approved. 88

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue Street Improvements FILE#: S-22-04 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Ryan Schroder PHONE#: (302) 760-2674 =============================================================== 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. DelDOT has no comments regarding improvements to city-maintained streets. 89

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER Dover/Kent DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE County Metropolitan APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY Planning D.A.C. MEETING DATE: Organization APPLICATION: Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue Street Improvements FILE #: S-22-04 REVIEWING AGENCY: Dover/Kent County MPO CONTACT PERSON: James Galvin, AICP PHONE #: (302) 387-6030 The Dover/Kent County MPO has participated in the State’s Preliminary Land Use Services (PLUS) process for several months. The MPO requested the opportunity to bring the recommendations on issues of our concern to the City as well. The MPO will limit comments to projects to development proposals and applications that may lead to new development. 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 3/22/2022 Project Review S-22-04 Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue Street Improvements This site is adjacent to the DELMARVA Secondary railway. The Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) completed a study in 2018 identifying site adjacent to the railway that may be preserved for industrial or heavy commercial, rail-dependent uses. Based upon guidance from the project sponsor, the MPO considered only parcels that were at least 6 acres or larger. The MPO has again been asked to catalogue sites along the railway but without limitation of size or zoning so that all sites with rail access may be considered for a rail-dependent use. There appears to be sufficient area in the general location of the application to fit a rail spur and locate such a use on this site. The study is in process now and scheduled to be completed on or about July 1. Any questions on the study may be directed to Jim Galvin of the MPO at 302-387-6030. 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. 90

Item 1. 91

Christiana Executive Campus 121 Continental Drive, Suite 207 Item 1. Newark, DE 19713 T: 302-655-4451 F: 302-654-2895 www.pennoni.com March 10, 2022 PLAWX19001 Ms. Samantha Bulkilvish, AICP Planner II City of Dover Planning Dept. 15 Loockerman Plaza Dover, DE 19901 RE: RAYMOND STREET & RAILROAD AVE STREET IMPROVEMENTS SITE PLAN APPLICATION – WAIVER REQUESTS FILE NO. S-22-04 Dear Ms. Bulkilvish: On behalf of the applicants, Patel College Properties, LLC and Patel Excess College Road, LLC, we are hereby submitting this list of requested design waivers from the City of Dover Code of Ordinances in support of the above referenced project per your request: 1) Appendix A – Subdivisions, Article VI.A.13.1 – To allow a right-of-way width on proposed streets of less than 60 feet. The street right of way is required to be 60 feet wide. Portions of Raymond Street right- of-way will be 35 feet wide as originally platted in 1899. The applicant is requesting relief from the right of way width requirement along the portions of Raymond Street where they do not own property and are unable to dedicate additional land to the City of Dover for this purpose. The applicant is dedicating the necessary right-of-way where they do own property along the streets. 2) Appendix A – Subdivisions, Article VI.A.15 – To allow dead end street length of greater than 400 feet. The maximum allowable dead-end street length is 400 feet. 738 feet is being proposed along Railroad Ave. as measured from its intersection with Raymond Street. The proposed length is required to reach the developable portions of the site and provide two potential entrances. The street is not able to be connected to other streets to avoid a dead-end situation as it is limited by the existing railroad right of way to the west, and undeveloped lands to the north that are owned by the State of Delaware and are not incorporated in the City of Dover. 3) Appendix A – Subdivisions, Article VI.B – To allow proposed streets with sidewalk proposed along only one side. Sidewalk is required on both sides of proposed streets. The applicant requests elimination of the sidewalk on the west side of Railroad Avenue as it directly borders the existing railroad right of way and offers little benefit as the lands to the west side of the road cannot be developed due to the presence of the railroad. A sidewalk connection is being provided on the east side of Railroad Avenue. Sidewalk is being provided along a portion of the north side of Raymond Street where the applicant is able to offer right-of-way for dedication. Sidewalk cannot be provided along the remaining northern portions of Raymond Street as it is held in private ownership by Mishoe Cove Apartments. Sidewalk is being proposed along the entire south side Raymond Avenue between Railroad Avenue and Mishoe Street with a crosswalk connection to the sidewalk on the north side of Raymond. Sidewalk along the south side connects directly to existing sidewalk along Mishoe Street. 92

PLAWX19001 March 10, 2022 Page 2 City of Dover Planning Raymond St & Railroad Ave Street Improvements Item 1. Please feel free to reach out to me with any questions or additional items you may need. I am available by email at grishel@pennoni.com or by phone at 302-351-5259. Respectfully submitted, PENNONI ASSOCIATES INC. Gregory R. Rishel, PLA Senior Landscape Architect/Division Manager Attachments cc: Dominic Balascio Dawn Melson-Williams Doug Barry 93

Item 1. PENNONI ASSOCIATES INC. Limits of former Atlantic Coast Environmental (A.C.E.) Facility subject to an Environmental Covenant with DNREC as recorded in DB Christiana Executive Campus 6009, PG 132 & 140. SITE Map #: 2-05-06700-02-5500-00001 SITE NORTH 121 Continental Drive, Suite 207 NORTH Owner: PATEL EXCESS COLLEGE Newark, DE 19713-4310 ROAD LLC Deed Reference(s): D 6009 0140 D 5983 0056 D 0649 0110 L=35.93', R=25.00' T 302.655.4451 F 302.654.2895 TH CB=S75° 51' 11"E O N R CL=32.91' LEGEND R25' D=082°20'16" ALL DIMENSIONS MUST BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR R50' RIGHT-OF-WAY / PROPERTY LINE W/ MONUMENT A TOTAL OF 0.61 ACRES RIGHT-OF-WAY CURB R40' IS PROPOSED TO BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF DOVER SIDEWALK 15+39 35' POTENTIAL SITE ACCESS POINT SIGN AND OWNER MUST BE NOTIFIED OF ANY 15+00 L=126.12', R=50.00' CB=S44° 45' 44"E UTILITY POLE AND LIGHT CL=95.24' FH D=144°31'11" HYDRANT PROPOSED CATCH 5 MAJOR CONTOUR BASIN TYP. CUL-DE-SAC 4 MINOR CONTOUR R25' WATER LINE L=27.13', R=25.00' DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH WORK CB=S03° 35' 36"E UNDERGROUND GAS LINE CL=25.82' D=062°10'55" SANITARY SEWER 14+00 PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT (MAX. 800' SPACING) OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE LOCATION MAP LOCATION MAP 24' PROP. CARTWAY UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC LINE Scale: 1" = 400' Scale: 1" = 1200' UNDERGROUND TELECOMM LINE PROPOSED STORM SEWER 5 FT WIDE SIDEWALK (ONE UNDERGROUND COMMUNICATIONS LINE SIDE ONLY) Map #: 2-0 MANHOLES 5-0 RAYMOND STREET & RAILROAD AVENUE 6 7 0 0 Ow -02-5400-0 n e VALVES r: P A 0001 T PROPER EL COLLEGE OWNER OF RECORD: STREET IMPROVEMENT SITE PLAN INLET S e c TIE S Map #: 2-05-06700-02-5600-00001 o Owner: P LLC n CITY OF DOVER 13+00 d a ry Owner: PATEL COLLEGE PROPERTIES LLC TREE 15 LOOCKERMAN PLAZA Secondary Owner: PATEL EXCESS COLLEGE ROAD LLC COL ATEL EX Deed Reference(s): D 0649 0106 DOVER, DE, 19901 Deed RefeLEGE ROAD LLC CESS PATEL EXCESS COLLEGE ROAD LLC & re PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY LINE W/ MONUMENT n c APPLICANT: ' 1049.56 e (s ): 0649 010 D 5983 0056 D PROPOSED CONCRETE CURB 3171 DUPONT HIGHWAY, SUITE B PATEL EXCESS COLLEGE ROAD LLC & 6 PROPOSED EASEMENT LINE ---- PATEL COLLEGE PROPERTIES LLC '03" W PROPOSED DEDICATION TO CITY OF DOVER C/O DOMINIC BALASCIO (AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE) PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER 3171 DUPONT HIGHWAY, SUITE B Railro PROPOSED FULL DEPTH ROAD SECTION N 34°41 ' TOWNSEND, DE 19734 1481.10 a d A 12+00 venue (3 PATEL COLLEGE PROPERTIES LLC CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE PLAN PURPOSE: TOWNSEND, DE 19734 '03" W 5' THE PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN IS TO SHOW PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE EXISTING N 34°41 RAYMOND STREET AND RAILROAD AVENUE RIGHTS-OF-WAY WHICH INCLUDES POTENTIAL SITE ACCESS POINT RIGHT-OF-DEDICATIONS AND PROPOSED STREET CONSTRUCTION AND EXTENSION. Wide) WAIVER REQUESTS: PROPOSED ADA RAMP WITH CROSSWALK 11+00 PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT 1. APPENDIX A, ARTICLE VI.A.13.1 - TO ALLOW RIGHT OF WAY ON PROPOSED STREET LESS (MAX. 800' SPACING) THAN 60' WIDE (35' EXISTING). 2. APPENDIX A, ARTICLE VI.A.15 - FOR DEAD END STREET GREATER THAN 400 FEET IN Map #: 2-00-06700-01-1700-00001 Owner: MISHOE, WILMA LENGTH (738 FT PROPOSED ON RAILROAD AVE). '03" E Deed Reference(s): D 6648 0198 C 0054 0162 3. APPENDIX A, ARTICLE VI.B - FOR NOT PROVIDING SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES OF A 597.01' PROPOSED PUBLIC STREET. Map #: 2-0 S 34°41 5-0 Owner: P 6700-02-5300-00 PROPOSED WATER MAIN GENERAL NOTES: BY ATEL CO LLEG 001 PROJECT STATUS: ---- 10+00 N 45°23'57" E 1. THE BOUNDARY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS PLAT WAS TAKEN FROM DOCUMENTS OF PR PUBLIC RECORD IN ADDITION TO AN ACTUAL FIELD SURVEY BY PENNONI ASSOCIATES, Deed RefeOPERTIES LLC E 36.00' INC. ON 8/2021 THROUGH 12/2021. Grove Street re n 5983 006 ce(s): D 6009 0132 (35' Wide) 2. THIS SURVEY DOES NOT VERIFY TO THE LOCATION AND/OR EXISTENCE OF EASEMENTS OR RIGHT OF WAYS CROSSING SUBJECT PROPERTY AS NO TITLE SEARCH WAS 1 D 0649 D PROVIDED. PLOTSTYLE:Pennoni NCS.stb 0106 200.00' 3. SURVEY CLASSIFICATION: SUBURBAN. ' 200.00 Map #: 2-05-06707-01-0100-00001 REVISIONS Map #: 2-05-06707-01-0200-00001 4. TOPOGRAPHY SURVEY WAS PERFORMED ON 8/2021 THROUGH 12/2021 BY PENNONI Owner: APARTMENTS AT MISHOE COVE LLC PORTIONS OF EXISTING Owner: APARTMENTS AT MISHOE COVE LLC '03" E Deed Reference(s): D 6657 0294 C 0054 0162 ASSOCIATES AND THE SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY WAS DONE WITH GPS AND IS IN S 34°2 9+00 CARTWAY FALL OUTSIDE OF Deed Reference(s): D 6657 0294 C 0054 0162 EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAV83, VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88. S 34°41 7'34" E 35' 15' UTILITY EASEMENT NEEDED FOR Ex. R/W TIE INTO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER L=43.51', R=25.00' 35' EXISTING WATER MAIN OUTSIDE OF 5. SITE BENCH MARK: IRON PIPE, NORTHING=429958.27 EASTING=618299.47 ELEV 39.26. THE CB=S84° 32' 17"E RIGHT-OF-WAY (BY OTHERS) PROJECT BENCHMARK IS BASED UPON A RTK-GPS OBSERVATION. U:\Accounts\PLAWX\PLAWX19001 - DSU Student Housing\DESIGN\_SHEETS\SK-1001.dwg PLOTTED:2/4/2022 11:18 AM , BY:Gregory Rishel CL=38.22' TIE INTO EXISTING WATER 37' Ex. Cartway D=099°42'28" MAIN 12" STOP BAR S 34°41'03" E 25.17' PORTIONS OF EXISTING 6. PROPOSED UTILITIES ARE SHOWN CONCEPTUALLY ONLY. DRIVEWAY TO BE REMOVED 25' ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BE DEDICATED TO CITY OF DOVER OWNER'S CERTIFICATION: NO. I, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AND N 45°36'29" E 144.87' SHOWN ON THIS PLAN, THAT THE PLAN WAS MADE AT MY DIRECTION, AND THAT I ACKNOWLEDGE THE 24' PROP. CARTWAY SAME TO ME BY ACT AND DESIRE THE PLAN TO BE DEVELOPED AS SHOWN IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL 8+00 N 45°36'29" E 599.69' APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. DATE 4+00 3+00 2+00 1+00 0+00 S 45°23'57" W 200.00' 6+00 5+00 35' Raymond Street (35' Wide) Ex. R/w R15' ALL DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY PENNONI ASSOCIATES 7+00 PR. STOP SIGN ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE IN RESPECT OF THE CITY OF DOVER DATE PROJECT. THEY ARE NOT INTENDED OR REPRESENTED N 45°36'29" E 408.86' TO BE SUITABLE FOR REUSE BY OWNER OR OTHERS ON N 45°36'29" E 347.16' 15 LOOCKERMAN PLAZA THE EXTENSIONS OF THE PROJECT OR ON ANY OTHER PROPOSED STORM SEWER DOVER, DE 19901 PROJECT. ANY REUSE WITHOUT WRITTEN VERIFICATION 12" STOP BAR OR ADAPTATION BY PENNONI ASSOCIATES FOR THE Map #: 2-05-06707-01-0600-00001 PROPOSED ADA RAMP NEW DRIVEWAY APRON SPECIFIC PURPOSE INTENDED WILL BE AT OWNERS PROPOSED CROSSWALK WITH CROSSWALK PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION: SOLE RISK AND WITHOUT LIABILITY OR LEGAL RELOCATE EX. FIRE Map #: 2-05-06707-01-0701-00001 I, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM A REGISTERED ENGINEER IN THE STATE OF DELAWARE, THAT THE EXPOSURE TO PENNONI ASSOCIATES; AND OWNER WITH ADA RAMPS NEW DRIVEWAY APRON AND HYDRANT SHALL INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS PENNONI PROPOSED CATCH BASIN TYP. RECONFIGURED ALIGNMENT INFORMATION SHOWN HERON HAS BEEN PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND THE THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE ASSOCIATES FROM ALL CLAIMS, DAMAGES, LOSSES AND 5 FT WIDE SIDEWALK AND BELIEF REPRESENTS GOOD ENGINEERING PRACTICES AS REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE LAWS OF THE STATE OF EXPENSES ARISING OUT OF OR RESULTING THEREFROM. (ONE SIDE ONLY) PROPOSED SANITARY DELAWARE. SEWER EXTENSION Owner: PAIGE, JAMES PLAWX19001 Owner: SUDLER, WILMA MISHOE PROJECT BENCHMARK: IRON PIPE, Map #: 2-00-06700-01-1900-00001 Map #: Map #: BRENDAN DIENER, PE (DE LICENSE # 18882) DATE DATE 02-04-2022 NORTHING=429958.27 Map #: Map #: 2-05-06707-01-0500-00001 PENNONI ASSOCIATES INC. 2-05-06707-01-0300-00001 EASTING=618299.47 Secondary Owner: PAIGE, RITA MISHOE Owner: MISHOE, WILMA 2-05-06707-01-0400-00001 121 CONTINENTAL DRIVE, SUITE 207 ELEV 39.26 2-00-06700-01-2000-00001 NEWARK, DE 19713-4310 DRAWING SCALE 1" = 50' Owner: FISHER, RAYMOND PHONE: (302) 655-4451 Owner: WATERS, WYATT T. Deed Reference(s): K 0046 0250 G 0034 0219 DRAWN BY GBR Deed Reference(s): D 6388 0032 E Owner: BURDEN, JOE W. JR. Secondary Owner: WATERS, Owner: DOVER, CITY OF Deed Reference(s): E 0008 Deed Reference(s): L 0044 0139 0 50' 100' APPROVED BY GBR Map #: 2-00-06700-01 SHERRY L. 0077 H 0028 0421 Owner: MISHOE, Deed Reference(s): D 7536 0008 0077 L 0025 0220 Deed Reference(s): M 0032 0349 SK-1001 Deed Reference(s): Deed Reference(s): Z 0051 0195 0045 D 0292 0065 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Secondary Owner: MISH SHEET 1 OF 2 94 Deed Reference(s): D 6648

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 2022 Excerpt from Meeting Minutes - Draft The Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, March 21, 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, Mrs. Denney, Mr. Hartman, Mr. Baldwin, Dr. Jones, Mrs. Welsh (virtual), Mrs. Malone (virtual) and Mrs. Maucher. Mr. Roach was absent. Staff members present were Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Mr. Julian Swierczek, Ms. Samantha Bulkilvish, Mr. Jason Lyon (virtual) and Mrs. Kristen Mullaney. S-22-04 Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue Street Improvements – Public Hearing and Review of a Site Development Plan Application for the proposed construction of street improvements in the Rights-of-Way of Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue. Improvements consist of paved roadways, curbing, sidewalks, and utility infrastructure (water, sewer, and stormwater drainage). Raymond Street is proposed to be extended west as a 24 ft. paved width roadway to intersect with Railroad Avenue. Railroad Avenue is proposed to be constructed as a 24 ft. paved width roadway extending to the north ending in a cul-de-sac. Portions of the surrounding property totaling 0.61 acres and owned by Patel College Properties LLC and Patel Excess College Road LLC are being dedicated to the City of Dover for the expansion of Right- of-Way. The area is located north of College Road and east of the Lands of the Delaware Railroad. Public Right-of-Way to be dedicated to City of Dover. Property Address: Rights-of- way in the vicinity of Tax Parcels: ED-05-067.00-02-53.00-000 and ED-05-067.00-02-56.00- 000. Council District 4. This area was annexed into the City of Dover as of the City Council Meeting of December 13, 2021. Waiver Requests: Reduction of Street Right-of-Way Width, Exceed Maximum Length of Cul-de-sac, and Partial Elimination of Sidewalks. Representatives: Mr. Greg Rishel, Pennoni & Associates; Mr. Dominic Balascio, applicant representative; Mr. Douglas Barry, Pennoni & Associates Ms. Bulkilvish stated that this Application might look familiar to some of the Commission members. These rights-of-way that we are going to discuss tonight have just come through as an application to the Annexation Area of the City. So, now they are officially in the City boundaries and we can move forward with their development. This project is kind of a Phase 1 of a two- phase project. The applicant, who owns the properties, has brought this forward to the north and the east of what is proposed as an extension of Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue. In order to access their property, they needed to develop the road and to make sure that they got everything in place in order to access for further development. The applicant is requesting a series of waivers this evening from the Subdivision Regulations. The road construction guidelines are in our Subdivision Regulations and the first waiver is the reduction of the street right-of-way width. When this area or right-of-way was plotted, it was plotted back in 1899 as a 35 foot right-of-way. The applicant is purposing to expand the right-of-way to today’s standards to put the right-of- way where they have property fronting the right-of-way. In those areas where they don’t have property to dedicate to the City, they are asking for this waiver to maintain the 35 foot right-of- 1 95

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 2022 way in existence. The second waiver that they are requesting is an increase in maximum length of a dead-end street. The maximum length of the cul-de-sac which is going to be Railroad Avenue. The Code has a maximum of 400 feet. She believes that this one is upwards of 700 feet; so, they are asking for a waiver for that cul-de-sac. The reason for it ending in a cul-de-sac is that the property to the north is actually owned by the State of Delaware and there are no plans for development. The Railroad Avenue is also bordered by the lands of the Delaware Central Railroad. That railroad runs directly adjacent so there is no expansion of the roadway in that direction either. They are just making it long enough so that they can have two access points onto the property which is required for what will be a residential development. The third waiver that they are asking for is the elimination of sidewalk on the frontage of a public street and that would be for Railroad Avenue. Like she said, it is bordered by the railroad tracks so there is no proposed development on that side of the street. So, they are proposing the sidewalk on the east side of Railroad Avenue where they are proposing a development and that will continue down Railroad Avenue onto Raymond Street. They would provide sidewalk on Raymond Street on both sides; one side in the right-of-way and then a portion of the other side that they are able to dedicate right-of-way to. Mr. Rishel stated that Ms. Bulkilvish did a fantastic job explaining the project as Stage 1 or Step 1 or Phase 1; whatever you want to call it. We are seeking the waivers for the design of the street and the layout of the street as she mentioned with some of the site constraints that they are faced with. They don’t have a whole lot more that they can add to that great presentation that she did. Mr. Hartman stated that there was a comment from Fire Marshal questioning the turnaround at the cul-de-sac. Has that been addressed? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Rishel stated yes, it has. We did have a DAC Meeting a few weeks ago and we did receive all of these comments and we have no objections or issues with any of the comments. For that one in particular, they actually exceed the State requirement for the cul-de-sac turnaround diameter. Mrs. Maucher opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Mrs. Welsh moved to approve S-22-04 Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue Street Improvements inclusive of three waivers; reduction of street right-of-way width, exceeding the maximum length of the cul-de-sac and the partial elimination of the sidewalks and also inclusive of the DAC comments, seconded by Mrs. Malone and the motion was carried 8-0 by roll call vote with Mr. Roach absent. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; it’s a definitely needed improvement to that area. Mrs. Malone voting yes; for the same reasons. Mr. Cooper voting yes; for previously stated reasons. Mrs. Denney voting yes; she thinks all of these are the usual, normal and necessary changes that have to take place or waivers that have to take place in order for projects like this to happen. This was platted long before she was born and it is much needed and will be quite an enhancement to that area. Mr. Hartman voting yes; particularly because the waivers are much needed and many of them are inappropriate and unnecessary for this site. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; this project should certainly improve the use of the properties in the neighborhood. Dr. Jones voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; for reasons previously stated. 2 96

Item 8. 97

Item 3. 98

Item 3. 99

Item 3. 100

Item 3. 101

Item 3. 102

Item 3. 103

Item 8. 104

Item 8. 105

Schutte Park Dog Park Concept Sketch - Option 1 Item 8. Existing Parking Lot 2 ADA Parking Spots 3 ADA Pear Parking Spots Plaza Potential Sketch Water Existing Access Play Area Existing Plantings/ Plantings/Screening Screening Proposed Skate Park Existing Pathway ~250’ Concrete Open Lawn Sidewalk Potential (0.5 acres) SWM Area Existing Picnic Pavilion ’ 2 20 Plantings/ Screening Open Lawn Small Dog Area Bench and Minimum King/Queen of Waste Agility Course the hill mound Area 0.25 acres Receptacle Dog Waste Maintenance Stations Open Lawn Entrance Gate and Leash (1+ acres) Posts Water Agility Course Shade structure Double Access Area on concrete pad Gate with 2 benches Entry in each area Decomposed granite surface ’ Open Lawn 1 60 King/Queen of the hill mound Large Dog Perimeter Area Fence with surface Maintenance treatment 0.55 acres Entrance Gate 106

Item 3. SCHUTTE PARK RECREATION PROJECTS SKATE PARK AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF DOVER DELAWARE, KENT COUNTY SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION MAY, 2021 Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP 1013 Centre Road, Suite 302, Wilmington, Delaware 19805 107

Item 3. Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP 1013 Centre Road, Suite 302, Wilmington, Delaware 19805 108

Item 3. 40 40 40 40 40 X X 40 X X X 40 40 40 X 40 Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP 1013 Centre Road, Suite 302, Wilmington, Delaware 19805 109

Item 3. Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP 1013 Centre Road, Suite 302, Wilmington, Delaware 19805 110

Item 3. 40 40 40 Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP 1013 Centre Road, Suite 302, Wilmington, Delaware 19805 111

Item 3. 40 40 40 Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP 1013 Centre Road, Suite 302, Wilmington, Delaware 19805 112

Item 3. Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP 1013 Centre Road, Suite 302, Wilmington, Delaware 19805 113

Item 3. Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP 1013 Centre Road, Suite 302, Wilmington, Delaware 19805 114

Item 3. Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP 1013 Centre Road, Suite 302, Wilmington, Delaware 19805 115

Item 3. SCHUTTE PARK SKATEPARK DOVER, DE VICINITY MAP APPROX. PROJECT SITE SHEET INDEX PROJECT INFORMATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION GENERAL NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ALL IMPROVEMENTS IN SP1.0 TITLE SHEET THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY THE CITY OF ACCORDANCE WITH THE DOVER BUILDING CODES AND SP1.1 RENDERINGS CONTACTS DOVER. THE 2012 IBC. SP1.2 SITE PLAN 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL READ THESE PLANS AND NOTES OWNER: CITY OF DOVER ENTIRELY AND BRING ANY DISCREPANCIES TO GRINDLINE SP1.3 COPING MATERIALS PLAN SKATEPARK DESIGNER: SKATEPARKS INC. IMMEDIATELY. SP1.4 CONCRETE MATERIALS PLAN CONTACT: 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL VISIT THE SITE AND VERIFY EXISTING SP1.5 CONCRETE JOINTS ROBIN EATON GRINDLINE SKATEPARKS INC. CONDITIONS BEFORE SUBMITTAL OF A CONSTRUCTION BID. SP1.6 DIMENSIONS PLAN CONTACT: 4. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO LOCATE ALL CITY OF DOVER UTILITIES, SEWERS, WATER LINES, ETC. CALL BEFORE YOU SP1.7 POB DIMENSIONS PLAN SP2.1 SECTIONS AND KEY PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR MATT FLUEGGE DIG 811. 5. IF ANY UTILITIES OF FACILITIES CONFLICT WITH THE SP2.2 SECTIONS AND KEY PHONE: 206 612 3401 P.O. BOX 475 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS, ALL WORK SHALL STOP SP2.3 SECTIONS AND KEY IMMEDIATELY AND THE UTILITY COMPANY SHALL BE PHONE: 302-736-7052 EMAIL: MATT@GRINDLINE.COM SP2.4 SECTIONS AND KEY NOTIFIED. SP3.1 DETAILS EMAIL: REATON@DOVER.DE.US 6. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO SP3.2 DETAILS LOCATE ALL SUBSTRUCTURES WITHIN THE AREA OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS, AND IN THE EVENT OF ENGINEER: DAMAGE, HE SHALL BEAR THE TOTAL COST OF REPAIR OR PETER PATON REPLACEMENT. SITE ADDRESS 7. THE CONTRACTOR WILL PROVIDE ALL LABOR, P2 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, LLC MATERIALS, TRANSPORTATION, AND SERVICES NECESSARY Schutte park, 10 Electric Avenue, TO FURNISH AND INSTALL ALL CONSTRUCTION ELEMENTS Dover, DE 19904 PHONE: 484-888-5001 AS SHOWN IN THESE PLANS AND NOTES. EMAIL: PPATON@P2STRENG.COM 8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN, COORDINATE, AND PAY FOR ALL PERMITS, FEES, AND AGENCY INSPECTIONS AS REQUIRED. 9. ALL WORK SHALL BE GUARANTEED BY THE CONTRACTOR This design is an instrument of professional service and is the property of Grindline Skateparks Inc. Any use of these plans shall be restricted to the project for which they were prepared. AS TO MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP FOR A PERIOD OF 05.06.2021 Digitally signed by Pete ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE DATE OF THE FINAL Paton DN: C=US, E=ppaton@p2streng.co O="P2 Structural Engineering, LLC", Peter Paton ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CN=Peter Paton Reason: I have reviewe this document Contact Info: P. Paton Date: 2021.05.06 10:50:42-04'00' PROVIDE A WRITTEN GUARANTEE ON HIS LETTERHEAD AT THE TIME OF FINAL INSPECTION. N.T.S. 10. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TAKEN FROM CURB FACE OR EDGE OF PAVING, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON PLANS. THE DIMENSIONS ARE SHOWN FOR APPROXIMATE LINE, AND ALL RADII, CURVES, AND SURFACES ARE TO HAVE SCALE: EXTREMELY SMOOTH TRANSITIONS WITH ABSOLUTELY NO PROJECT: SCHUTTE PARK SKATEPARK ABRUPT CHANGES OR BENDS. 11. ALL FORMS AND ALIGNMENT OF PAVING SHALL BE REVIEWED BY AN INSPECTOR PRIOR TO POURING. NOTIFICATION WILL BE GIVEN WITH AT LEAST 48 HOURS NOTICE. 12. FOR SITE GRADING, SEE SITE PLAN PROVIDED FOR APPROXIMATE SLAB ELEVATIONS. REFER TO SECTION DRAWINGS FOR VERTICAL CONTROLS OF SKATEPARK FEATURES. MAINTAIN POSITIVE DRAINAGE WITHIN NEW AND EXISTING SLABS. FIELD FIT AS NECESSARY. 13. THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS REPRESENT THE FINISHED STRUCTURE. ALL BRACING, TEMPORARY LOCATION: DOVER, DE SUPPORTS, SHORING, ETC. ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. SITE INSPECTIONS DO NOT INCLUDE THE INSPECTION OF CONSTRUCTION METHODS AND SAFETY CONDITIONS AT THE WORK SITE. THESE VISITS SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS CONTINUOUS AND DETAILED TITLE SHEET INSPECTIONS. 14. DESIGN MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, AND PRODUCTS OTHER THAN THOSE DESCRIBED OR INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS MAY BE CONSIDERED FOR USE, PROVIDED PRIOR APPROVAL IS OBTAINED FROM THE OWNER, GRINDLINE SKATEPARKS INC. AND THE APPLICABLE GOVERNING CODE AUTHORITY. SHEET: SP1.0 RENDERING FOR REFERENCE ONLY- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DATE: 05.05.21 DRAWN BY: BAJ CHECKED BY: MBF 116

SCALE: DRAWN BY: BAJ SHEET: RENDERINGS CHECKED BY: MBF DATE: 05.05.21 SP1.1 PROJECT: SCHUTTE PARK SKATEPARK 05.06.2021 LOCATION: DOVER, DE This design is an instrument of professional service and is the property of Grindline Skateparks Inc. Any use of these plans shall be restricted to the project for which they were prepared. 117 Item 3.

Item 3. LEGEND EOC EDGE OF CONCRETE INV INVERT ELEVATION RIM RIM ELEVATION FS FINISHED SURFACE TT TOP OF TRANSITION BT BOTTOM OF TRANSITION TB TOP OF BANK BB BOTTOM OF BANK HP HIGH POINT 43.50 EOC 40 40.50 BB 43.00 TB 40.50 BB 40.50 BT 43.50 BB 43.50 TB 40.50 BB 45.00 EOC 45.00 TB 40.50 BT 45.00 TT 41.00 BT 42.00 BT 40.75 RIM 43.50 TB 39.25 INV 41.00 FS 40.75 BB 46.00 TT 45.00 TT 47.00 TT 41.00 BB 40.50 BB 43.00 TB 44.00 FS 44.90 EOC 43.50 BT 42.00 TB 40.50 RIM 44.00 FS 40 43.67 TB 40.50 BB 39.00 INV This design is an instrument of professional service and is the property of Grindline Skateparks Inc. Any use of these plans shall be restricted to the project for which they were prepared. 43.67 TB 43.50 TT 44.00 BT 05.06.2021 43.75 BT 41.00 BT 44.50 RIM 44.50 TB 43.00 INV 43.60 BB 1" = 10' 45.00 TT 45.00 EOC 41.00 BB 44.90 EOC SCALE: 44.77 TB 45.00 TT 44.77 TT 40.50 BT PROJECT: SCHUTTE PARK SKATEPARK 41.00 BT 45.00 TT 43.60 BT 43.67 TB 44.90 EOC 43.60 BB 43.60 BB 45.00 TT 43.60 BB 43.67 TB 45.00 TT 42.50 TT 43.60 BB 45.00 TB 44.90 EOC 44.90 EOC 40.75 RIM 39.25 INV 47.00 TT LOCATION: DOVER, DE 41.00 BT 42.50 TT 45.00 TT 44.90 EOC SITE PLAN 40 SHEET: 40 SP1.2 DATE: 05.05.21 DRAWN BY: BAJ CHECKED BY: MBF 118

40 40 40 SP3.2 11 SP3.2 10 SP3.1 7 LEGEND POOL COPING 2" ROUND STEEL COPING STEEL RAILS - SEE SECTIONS - SP2.1 6" STEEL C-CHANNEL COPING - FLUSH 40 SCALE: DRAWN BY: BAJ SHEET: COPING MATERIALS PLAN 1" = 10' CHECKED BY: MBF DATE: 05.05.21 SP1.3 PROJECT: SCHUTTE PARK SKATEPARK 05.06.2021 LOCATION: DOVER, DE This design is an instrument of professional service and is the property of Grindline Skateparks Inc. Any use of these plans shall be restricted to the project for which they were prepared. 119 Item 3.

Item 3. LEGEND 1 SP3.1 CONCRETE SURFACING 2 SP3.1 SHOTCRETE SURFACING 3 SP3.1 CONCRETE EDGE 6 SP3.1 DRAIN 9 SP3.2 REINFORCED CONCRETE LEDGE - FLUSH EDGE 40 9 12 SP3.2 HANDRAIL FOOTING - END POST SP3.2 13 SP3.2 HANDRAIL FOOTING - CENTER POST 6 SP3.1 12 13 SP3.2 9 SP3.2 9 SP3.2 9 SP3.2 SP3.2 9 SP3.2 1 SP3.1 2 SP3.1 3 12 SP3.1 SP3.2 13 SP3.2 6 SP3.1 40 This design is an instrument of professional service and is the property of Grindline Skateparks Inc. Any use of these plans shall be restricted to the project for which they were prepared. 05.06.2021 1" = 10' 9 SP3.2 9 1 SP3.2 9 SP3.1 SCALE: SP3.2 9 SP3.2 2 PROJECT: SCHUTTE PARK SKATEPARK SP3.1 3 9 SP3.1 SP3.2 CONCRETE MATERIALS PLAN 9 SP3.2 6 SP3.1 9 SP3.2 40 LOCATION: DOVER, DE SHEET: 40 SP1.4 DATE: 05.05.21 DRAWN BY: BAJ CHECKED BY: MBF 120

Item 3. STRUCTURAL CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION STRUCTURAL CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION (CONT.) NOTES NOTES LEGEND ALL CONCRETE SHALL BE READY-MIX AND PROPORTIONED ON THE BASIS OF LABORATORY TRIAL MIXTURE OR FIELD TEST DATA OR BOTH ACCORDING TO ACI301. DESIGN MIXTURES SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS BELOW: 4 SP3.1 SAW CUT JOINT 5 SP3.1 CONSTRUCTION JOINT 7 SP3.1 POOL COPING BOND BEAM 8 SP3.1 KEY JOINT 11 SP3.2 STEEL COPING BOND BEAM NOTE: SAW CUT PATTERN IS SHOWN TO PROVIDE 40 DIRECTION. CONTRACTOR TO CUT SLAB AS NEEDED TO PREVENT CRACKING. SAW CUTS MUST BE MADE BEFORE ANY SIGNS OF THERMAL TENSION LAP SPLICE LENGTH SCHEDULE CRACKING. THERMAL CRACKING AS A RESULT TENSION LAP SPLICE LENGTHS (INCHES) OF INSUFFICIENT CRACK CONTROL MAY RESULT BAR SIZE LAP CLASS F'c = 3000 F'c = 4000 F'c = 5000 F'c = 6000 F'c = 7000 F'c = 8000 IN UNSKATABLE SURFACES. KSI KSI KSI KSI KSI KSI A 16 14 13 12 12 12 #3 B 21 18 16 16 16 16 SAWCUTS TO BE MADE WITHIN 12 HOURS A 23 20 18 16 15 14 #4 B 30 26 23 21 20 18 TAKE SLUMP, AIR, TEMPERATURE FOR EACH CONCRETE CYLINDER SET TAKEN MAXIMUM OF PLACING OF CONCRETE #5 A B 36 46 31 40 28 36 25 33 23 30 22 28 SURFACE. IF TEMPERATURES EXCEEDS 75deg #6 A B 50 65 44 57 39 51 36 46 33 43 31 40 AND/OR WIND EXCEEDS 15mph DELAY #7 A B 69 59 53 49 45 42 PLACING CONCRETE OR SAWCUT IMMEDIATELY 89 77 69 63 58 55 #8 A 90 78 70 64 59 55 AFTER PLACEMENT OF CONCRETE (1 TO 4 HOURS B 117 102 91 83 77 72 #9 A 114 99 89 81 75 70 MAXIMUM) B 148 129 115 105 97 91 A 145 126 112 103 95 89 #10 B 188 163 146 133 123 115 HOOK A OR G Ø Ø 40 This design is an instrument of professional service and is the property of Grindline Skateparks Inc. Any use of these plans shall be restricted to the project for which they were prepared. J D A OR G D 12Ø 4Ø OR 05.06.2021 2 1/2" MIN. STANDARD 180° REBAR HOOK BEND STANDARD 90° REBAR HOOK BEND RECOMMENDED END HOOKS (ALL GRADES) 1" = 10' 180° HOOKS 90° HOOKS FINISHED* BAR SIZE BEND DIAMETER 'A' OR 'G' 'J' 'A' OR 'G' (Ø) IN. #3 0' - 2" 0' - 5" 0' - 3" 0' - 6" SCALE: #4 0' - 3" 0' - 6" 0' - 4" 0' - 8" #5 0' - 3" 0' - 7" 0' - 5" 0' - 10" PROJECT: SCHUTTE PARK SKATEPARK #6 0' - 4" 0' - 8" 0' - 6" 1' - 0" #7 0' - 5" 0' - 10" 0' - 7" 1' - 2" #8 0' - 6" 0' - 11" 0' - 8" 1' - 4" #9 0' - 9" 1' - 3" 0' - 11 3/4" 1' - 7" #10 0' - 10" 1' - 5" 1' - 1 1/4" 1' - 10" '*' - INDICATES FINISHED BEND DIAMETERS INCLUDE 'SPRING BACK' EFFECT WHEN BARS STRAIGHTEN OUT SLIGHTLY AFTER BEING BENT & ARE SLIGHTLY LARGER THAN MINIMUM BEND DIAMETERS IN 3.7.1. 12Ø FOR #6, #7, #8 6Ø FOR #3, #4, #5 HOOK HOOK A OR G A OR G D H H D A OR G D 6Ø D 6Ø C L C L C L CONCRETE JOINTS LOCATION: DOVER, DE Ø GENERAL USE - 90° GENERAL USE - 135° SEISMIC USE - 135° STIRRUP & TIE HOOKS (ALL GRADES) GENERAL USE HOOKS SEISMIC HOOKS BAR BAR SIZE DIAMETER 90° HOOK 135° HOOK 135° HOOK (Ø) 'A' OR 'G' 'A' OR 'G' 'H' APPROX. 'A' OR 'G' 'H' APPROX. #3 0' - 1 1/2" 0' - 4" 0' - 4" 0' - 2 1/2" 0' - 4 1/4" 0' - 3" #4 0' - 2" 0' - 4 1/2" 0' - 4 1/2" 0' - 3" 0' - 4 1/2" 0' - 3" #5 #6 0' - 2 1/2" 0' - 4 1/2" 0' - 6" 1' - 0" 0' - 5 1/2" 0' - 8" 0' - 3 3/4" 0' - 4 1/2" 0' - 5 1/2" 0' -8" 0' - 3 3/4" 0' - 4 1/2" 40 #7 0' - 5 1/4" 1' - 2" 0' - 9" 0' - 5 1/4" 0' - 9" 0' - 5 1/4" #8 0' - 6" 1' - 4" 0' - 10 1/2" 0' - 6" 0' - 10 1/2" 0' - 6" SHEET: 40 SP1.5 DATE: 05.05.21 DRAWN BY: BAJ CHECKED BY: MBF 121

Item 3. LEGEND ARC LENGTH: Y - AXIS RADIUS: R 120'-3" 53'-8" 160'-1" X - AXIS 40 7'-5" 12'-7" X - AXIS 118'-3" 31'-6" 7'-5" 13'-4" 30'-4" 13'-4" 8'-0" 31'-10" 5'-0" 23'-11" 1'-8" 17'-2" 1'-6" 8'-0" 6'-1" 9'-0" 127'-3" 40'-1" 2'-3" 2'-0" 6'-1" 30'-10" 6'-0" 21'-7" 28'-10" 4'-6" 9'-0" 12'-0" 90'-9" R8'-0" 120° R16'-3" R2'-0" 26'-1" 8'-0" 12'-4" 28'-4" 1'-6" 5'-6" 60° 12'-0" 24'-4" 2'-3" 9'-9" R9'-0" 4'-8" 60° R12'-0" 5'-2" R8'-0" R9'-0" 20'-1" 3'-9" 91'-11" 23'-1" 12'-0" 99'-8" 39'-7" 2'-10" 14'-1" 7'-8" R9'-0" 16'-0" 43'-0" 40 9'-5" 1'-9" 2'-3" This design is an instrument of professional service and is the property of Grindline Skateparks Inc. Any use of these plans shall be restricted to the project for which they were prepared. 34'-7" 4'-3" 8'-5" 9'-9" 1'-1" 1'-6" 7'-9" 21'-1" 05.06.2021 3'-3" 6'-7" 1'-9" 16'-11" 7'-9" 2'-0" R12'-0" R1'-0" 10'-11" 12'-0" 1'-6" 14'-8" 5'-2" 8'-0" R4'-0" 8'-11" 9'-9" 1" = 10' 3'-1" 2'-0" 2'-0" 38'-3" 8'-9" R2'-0" 6'-0" 3'-3" 8'-2" R1'-0" 31'-8" 15'-9" 6'-7" 7'-9" 0'-9" 9'-9" R8'-0" 1'-1" 8'-5" R1'-0" SCALE: 12'-0" 30'-3" R10'-0" 15'-9" 0'-8" PROJECT: SCHUTTE PARK SKATEPARK R10'-6" 6'-1" R1'-0" R14'-3" 16'-9" 6'-0" 14'-10" 16'-6" 24'-10" 11'-5" 10'-0" 4'-3" 8'-0" 5'-0" 1'-2" R10'-6" R8'-0" 0'-6" 5'-6" 2'-6" 16'-0" 13'-10" 12'-7" 28'-5" 9'-1" 1'-7" 4'-6" 2'-0" 28'-8" R13'-0" 9'-9" 13'-1" 20'-3" R12'-6" DIMENSIONS PLAN LOCATION: DOVER, DE 167'-11" 197'-1" Y - AXIS 40 SHEET: 40 SP1.6 DATE: 05.05.21 DRAWN BY: BAJ CHECKED BY: MBF 122

40 40 40 40 40 265'-0" 275'-4" X - AXIS 40 43'-0" 40 101'-1" 151'-8" Y - AXIS Y - AXIS 53'-8" 40 127'-3" X - AXIS LEGEND 40 ARC LENGTH: RADIUS: R 40 SCALE: DRAWN BY: BAJ SHEET: POB DIMENSIONS PLAN 1" = 20' CHECKED BY: MBF DATE: 05.05.21 SP1.7 PROJECT: SCHUTTE PARK SKATEPARK 05.06.2021 LOCATION: DOVER, DE This design is an instrument of professional service and is the property of Grindline Skateparks Inc. Any use of these plans shall be restricted to the project for which they were prepared. 123 Item 3.

Item 3. 40 LEGEND AI AK 2.4 SP 4 SP2. 11 2.0" ID SCH 40 11 2.0" ID SCH 40 A SP3.2 STEEL PIPE SP3.2 STEEL PIPE SECTION LOCATION SP2.1 N 2 AI 1'-0" 0'-6" SP2. AJ SP2.4 1'-0" 0'-6" SP2.4 3'-3" 6'-5" O 2 3'-3" 6'-4" M L SP2. 2 1 B SP2. SP2. P 2 SP2.1 SP2. R 2 Q 2 SP2. AJ 4 SP2. T 2. SP 2.2 SP A SP C 2.1 SP U 2.2 R7'-0" 4'-0" R7'-0" 4'-2" SP2.1 Y K AJ SP D 2. 1 L 1 40 SP2. 1 SP 2.3 SP W 2.2 SP 2.4 SP2. AH AA 4 S V SP SP2. SP 2.3 2 2.2 AG J SP2. 4 E 1 SP2. SP2.1 SP2. C SP2.1 I 1 X SP2. SP 2.3 SP D 2.1 Z AB A SP F SP2. 1 2.3 SP2. 3 SECTION A B SECTION B SP2.1 SCALE: 1" = 3' SP2.1 SCALE: 1" = 3' SP H AF 2. 1 3 SP2. AE 3 AD SP2. G 3 SP2. SP2.1 AC 3 SP2. 2.0" ID SCH 40 11 2.0" ID SCH 40 11 STEEL PIPE SP3.2 STEEL PIPE SP3.2 2.0" ID SCH 40 11 STEEL PIPE SP3.2 0'-6" 1'-6" 0'-6" 0'-6" 1'-6" 2.0" ID SCH 40 11 2.0" ID SCH 40 11 2.0" ID SCH 40 11 STEEL PIPE SP3.2 0'-6" 1'-0" STEEL PIPE SP3.2 STEEL PIPE SP3.2 1'-0" 6'-10" 9 6" C-CHANNEL 6'-4" 9 6" C-CHANNEL SP3.2 FLUSH SP3.2 FLUSH 0'-6" 1'-0" 0'-6" 1'-0" 1'-0" 6'-5" 6'-4" 5'-4" 4'-4" 1'-6" 1'-6" 1'-6" 1'-6" R7'-0" R7'-0" 5'-6" This design is an instrument of professional service and is the property of Grindline Skateparks Inc. Any use of these plans shall be restricted to the project for which they were prepared. 4'-0" R7'-0" 4'-2" R7'-0" R7'-0" R7'-0" 4'-0" 05.06.2021 2'-6" 1" = 3' SCALE: PROJECT: SCHUTTE PARK SKATEPARK C SECTION C D SECTION D E SECTION E F SECTION F G SECTION G SP2.1 SCALE: 1" = 3' SP2.1 SCALE: 1" = 3' SP2.1 SCALE: 1" = 3' SP2.1 SCALE: 1" = 3' SP2.1 SCALE: 1" = 3' 0'-6" 1'-6" 5'-5" 2'-6" 2.0" ID SCH 40 11 POOL COPING 7 1'-7" 9 6" C-CHANNEL STEEL PIPE SP3.2 SP3.1 SP3.2 FLUSH 11 2.0" ID SCH 40 11 2.0" ID SCH 40 11 2.0" ID SCH 40 SP3.2 STEEL PIPE SP3.2 STEEL PIPE SP3.2 STEEL PIPE SECTIONS AND KEY 9 LOCATION: DOVER, DE 6" C-CHANNEL 1'-6" 1'-6" FLUSH SP3.2 2'-0" 0'-6" 2'-0" 0'-6" 2'-0" 0'-6" 6" C-CHANNEL 9 6" C-CHANNEL 9 4'-8" FLUSH SP3.2 4'-7" FLUSH SP3.2 4'-10" 1'-7" 1'-0" 0'-6" 5'-8" 4'-2" 6'-8" R7'-0" 2'-0" 1'-0" 2'-7" 2'-0" R5'-0" R6'-0" 3'-3" 3'-0" 2'-6" 1'-5" R5'-0" R5'-0" SHEET: H SECTION H I SECTION I J SECTION J K SECTION K L SECTION L SP2.1 SP2.1 SCALE: 1" = 3' SP2.1 SCALE: 1" = 3' SP2.1 SCALE: 1" = 3' SP2.1 SCALE: 1" = 3' SP2.1 SCALE: 1" = 3' DATE: 05.05.21 DRAWN BY: BAJ CHECKED BY: MBF 124

Item 3. 40 LEGEND SP 2.4 AK AI 4 SP2. A SP2.1 SECTION LOCATION N 2 AI SP2. AJ SP2.4 O SP2.4 1'-0" 0'-6" 2 M L SP2. B SP2. 2 SP2. 1 P 2 1'-0" 0'-6" 7'-0" SP2.1 SP2. 4'-1" 2'-11" R 6'-10" 2 Q 2 SP2. AJ 4 SP2. T 2. SP 2.2 SP U A SP C 2.1 SP2.2 1'-6" 2'-6" SP2.1 Y K AJ SP D 2. 1 L 1 40 SP2 . 1 SP 2.3 SP W 2.2 SP 2.4 SP2. AH R6'-0" R7'-0" AA 4 S V SP SP2. SP 2.3 2 2.2 AG J SP2. 4 E 1 SP2. SP2.1 SP2. C SP2.1 I 1 X SP2. SP 2.3 SP D 2. Z M N 1 AB SP F SP2. 1 2.3 SP2. 3 SECTION M SECTION N SP2.2 SCALE: 1" = 3' SP2.2 SCALE: 1" = 3' SP H AF 2.1 3 SP2. AE 3 AD SP2. G 3 SP2. SP2.1 AC 3 SP2. 13 2.0" ID SCH 40 9 6" C-CHANNEL 0'-9" SP3.2 FLUSH 0'-6" 1'-0" 1'-0" SP3.2 STEEL PIPE 6" C-CHANNEL 9 9 6" C-CHANNEL 1'-0" FLUSH SP3.2 1'-0" 1'-0" SP3.2 FLUSH 7'-0" 9 6" C-CHANNEL 3'-8" 4'-5" 12 2.0" ID SCH 40 12 0'-6" 2.0" ID SCH 40 4'-6" 7'-0" SP3.2 FLUSH 8'-0" 0'-6" 0'-6" STEEL PIPE SP3.2 SP3.2 STEEL PIPE 0'-6" 0'-6" 4'-3" 2'-9" 9'-3" 4'-11" 1'-0" 2'-0" 2'-2" 1'-4" 1'-4" 2'-0" 2'-3" 2'-0" This design is an instrument of professional service and is the property of Grindline Skateparks Inc. Any use of these plans shall be restricted to the project for which they were prepared. 2'-5" 2'-0" 05.06.2021 2'-0" R7'-0" R7'-0" 1'-0" R7'-0" R7'-0" 1" = 3' SCALE: O P Q R PROJECT: SCHUTTE PARK SKATEPARK SECTION O SECTION P SECTION Q SECTION R SP2.2 SCALE: 1" = 3' SP2.2 SCALE: 1" = 3' SP2.2 SCALE: 1" = 3' SP2.2 SCALE: 1" = 3' 9 6" C-CHANNEL 1'-0" SP3.2 FLUSH 0'-3" 1'-3" 0'-6" 9 6" C-CHANNEL 9 6" C-CHANNEL 4'-2" 2'-6" 0'-6" 1'-0" SP3.2 FLUSH SP3.2 FLUSH 1'-6" 0'-6" 7'-9" 0'-6" 6" C-CHANNEL 9 1'-0" 0'-6" FLUSH SP3.2 6'-1" 2'-5" 6'-2" 2'-3" 3'-2" SECTIONS AND KEY LOCATION: DOVER, DE 9 6" C-CHANNEL SP3.2 FLUSH 0'-6" 1'-0" 1'-1" 1'-1" 1'-1" 1'-2" 1'-2" 2'-8" 1'-1" 2'-1" 2'-6" R7'-0" R5'-0" R7'-0" R7'-0" S SECTION S T SECTION T U SECTION U V SECTION V W SECTION W SHEET: SP2.2 SCALE: 1" = 3' SP2.2 SCALE: 1" = 3' SP2.2 SCALE: 1" = 3' SP2.2 SCALE: 1" = 3' SP2.2 SCALE: 1" = 3' SP2.2 DATE: 05.05.21 DRAWN BY: BAJ CHECKED BY: MBF 125

Item 3. 40 LEGEND SP 2.4 AK AI 4 SP2. A SP2.1 SECTION LOCATION N 2 AI SP2. AJ SP2.4 SP2.4 0'-6" 0'-6" O 2 M L SP2. 9'-6" 9'-6" 2 1 B SP2. SP2. P 2 SP2.1 SP2. 3'-6" 6'-0" 6'-0" R Q 2 SP2. 2 AJ 4 0'-7" SP2. 2. SP T 2.2 SP 1'-4" 0'-10" 0'-6" A SP C 2.1 SP U 2.2 0'-3" SP2.1 Y K AJ SP D 2. 1 L 1 40 SP2. 1 SP 2.3 SP W 2.2 SP 2.4 SP2. AH AA 4 S V SP SP2. SP 2.3 2 2.2 AG J SP2. 4 E 1 SP2. SP2.1 SP2. C SP2.1 I 1 X SP2. SP 2.3 SP D 2.1 Z AB X SP 3 2.3 F SP2. SP2. 1 SECTION X SP2.3 SCALE: 1" = 3' SP H AF 2. 1 3 SP2. AE 3 AD SP2. G 3 SP2. SP2.1 AC 3 SP2. 2.0" ID SCH 40 11 STEEL PIPE SP3.2 6" C-CHANNEL 9 19'-0" 9 6" C-CHANNEL SP3.2 FLUSH 0'-6" 2'-0" FLUSH SP3.2 12'-0" 11 2.0" ID SCH 40 2'-0" 2'-0" 6'-4" 9 6" C-CHANNEL SP3.2 STEEL PIPE SP3.2 FLUSH 3'-6" 4'-0" 4'-0" 3'-6" 1'-0" 0'-6" 6" C-CHANNEL 9 FLUSH SP3.2 6'-4" 0'-6" 1'-0" 1'-5" 1'-4" 0'-4" 6'-0" 4'-0" R7'-0" 3'-3" 3'-8" R7'-0" This design is an instrument of professional service and is the property of Grindline Skateparks Inc. Any use of these plans shall be restricted to the project for which they were prepared. 4'-3" 4'-0" 1'-5" 05.06.2021 R7'-0" 1" = 3' SCALE: PROJECT: SCHUTTE PARK SKATEPARK Y SECTION Y Z SECTION Z AA SECTION AA AB SECTION AB SP2.3 SCALE: 1" = 3' SP2.3 SCALE: 1" = 3' SP2.3 SCALE: 1" = 3' SP2.3 SCALE: 1" = 3' POOL COPING 7 7 POOL COPING 7 9 6" C-CHANNEL POOL COPING 9 6" C-CHANNEL SP3.1 9 6" C-CHANNEL SP3.1 SP3.2 FLUSH SP3.1 SP3.2 FLUSH SP3.2 FLUSH 0'-6" 1'-0" 0'-6" 2'-0" 0'-6" 2'-0" 2.0" ID SCH 40 11 7'-0" 2.0" ID SCH 40 11 6'-4" 4'-0" STEEL PIPE SP3.2 STEEL PIPE SP3.2 6'-11" 2'-5" 2'-6" 0'-6" 1'-0" 2'-0" 6'-6" 4'-0" 2'-0" SECTIONS AND KEY 2'-0" LOCATION: DOVER, DE R7'-0" 6'-2" 6'-4" R7'-0" 4'-0" R7'-0" 4'-6" R7'-0" SHEET: AC SECTION AC AD SECTION AD AE SECTION AE AF SECTION AF SP2.3 SP2.3 SCALE: 1" = 3' SP2.3 SCALE: 1" = 3' SP2.3 SCALE: 1" = 3' SP2.3 SCALE: 1" = 3' DATE: 05.05.21 DRAWN BY: BAJ CHECKED BY: MBF 126

Item 3. 40 LEGEND SP 2.4 AK AI 4 SP2. A SP2.1 SECTION LOCATION N 2 AI SP2. AJ SP2.4 13 2.0" ID SCH 40 SP2.4 SP3.2 STEEL PIPE O M L SP2. 2 2.0" ID SCH 40 12 12 2.0" ID SCH 40 B SP2. 2 SP2. 1 P 2 STEEL PIPE SP3.2 0'-6" 0'-6" SP3.2 STEEL PIPE SP2.1 SP2. 3'-6" 4'-0" 4'-0" 3'-6" Q R SP2. 2 AJ 4 0'-6" 1'-8" 1'-8" 0'-6" 2 SP2. T 2. SP2.2 SP SP C U 2.2 5'-4" 5'-4" A 2.1 SP SP2.1 Y K AJ SP D 2. L 40 SP2. 1 SP 2.3 SP W 2.2 SP 2.4 1'-6" 1'-9" 1 1 SP2. V SP AA AH SP2. 4 1'-9" 1'-6" 1'-6" 1'-6" S SP 2.3 2 2.2 AG J SP2. 4 E 1 SP2. SP2.1 S P2 . C SP2.1 I SP2. 1 SP X R7'-0" R7'-0" R7'-0" R7'-0" 2.3 SP D 2. 1 Z SP AB 2.3 3 F SP2. S P 2. 1 SP H AF AG AH 2.1 3 SP2. G AD 3 AE SP2. 3 SECTION AG SECTION AH SP2. SP2.1 AC SP2. 3 SP2.4 SCALE: 1" = 3' SP2.4 SCALE: 1" = 3' 0'-6" 0'-6" 1'-0" 0'-6" 9 6" C-CHANNEL 3'-3" 2'-10" 2'-10" 3'-3" SP3.2 FLUSH 4'-8" 3'-1" 12'-0" This design is an instrument of professional service and is the property of Grindline Skateparks Inc. Any use of these plans shall be restricted to the project for which they were prepared. 0'-8" 05.06.2021 1'-6" 0'-10" 3'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" R6'-0" R7'-0" R7'-0" 1" = 3' R7'-0" SCALE: PROJECT: SCHUTTE PARK SKATEPARK AI SECTION AI AJ SECTION AJ AK SECTION AK SP2.4 SCALE: 1" = 3' SP2.4 SCALE: 1" = 3' SP2.4 SCALE: 1" = 3' SECTIONS AND KEY LOCATION: DOVER, DE SHEET: SP2.4 DATE: 05.05.21 DRAWN BY: BAJ CHECKED BY: MBF 127

Item 3. HAND TROWELED SMOOTH HAND TROWELED SMOOTH NOTE TYP. HAND TROWELED SMOOTH FINISH FINISH SEE GEOTECH REPORT FOR FINISH 6" THICK CONCRETE SLAB, SEE 5" THICK CONCRETE SLAB, SEE SUBGRADE RECOMMENDATIONS. 5" THICK CONCRETE SLAB, SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR FURTHER SPECIFICATIONS FOR FURTHER SPECIFICATIONS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION INFORMATION INFORMATION #3 BARS @10" O.C. BOTH #3 BARS @12" O.C. BOTH WAYS, CENTER BARS IN SLAB WAYS, CENTER BARS IN SLAB #3 BARS @12" O.C. BOTH UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE WAYS, CENTER BARS IN SLAB 3/8" RADIUS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE GRADED AGGREGATE BASE GRADED AGGREGATE BASE TOOLED EDGE 6" TYP. 5" TYP. 4" TYP. 4" TYP. GRADED AGGREGATE BASE 1 CONCRETE SURFACING 2 SHOTCRETE SURFACING 3 CONCRETE EDGE NTS NTS NTS SP3.1 SP3.1 SP3.1 ENGINEERING SPECIFICATION: GRINDLINE GL415SS GRINDLINE THE DRAIN 3 SKATEPARK FLOOR DRAIN, GALVANIZED STEEL BODY WITH 8" GALVANIZED STEEL BOTTOM OUTLET, STAINLESS STEEL MEDIUM DUTY STRAINER MANUFACTURED BY: THE DESIGN GARAGE #4 X 18" SMOOTH (206.933.0988) 1 DOWEL @24" O.C. 8" WIDE SAW-CUT SLOPE TO DRAIN SLOPE TO DRAIN 1/8" RADIUS 0'-3" 0'-3" CENTER BARS 8" DIA. TOOLED EDGES IN SLAB, TYP. CONCRETE SLAB MIN. 41, MAX 31 OF STAINLESS STEEL DRAIN GRATE 3" SLAB THICKNESS 5" TYP. VARIES 4" TYP. 5" TYP. 6" SDR-35 PIPE This design is an instrument of professional service and is the property of Grindline Skateparks Inc. Any use of these plans shall be restricted to the project for which they were prepared. 05.06.2021 SDR-35 ELBOW 8" DIA. TOP OF DRAIN GRATE N.T.S. 6" SDR-35 PIPELINE (TYP.) 4 SAW-CUT JOINT 5 CONSTRUCTION JOINT 6 GRINDLINE THE DRAIN SCALE: PROJECT: SCHUTTE PARK SKATEPARK NTS NTS SP3.1 SP3.1 SP3.1 NTS 2" PRECAST BULLNOSE CONCRETE COPING. TEDDER 1'-0" STONE COPING CO. OR EQUAL W/ 38" MORTAR JOINTS 2" 0'-3" MIN. 1" 0'-1/2" MIN. #3 REBAR OVERLAP 24" MIN. 6" CENTER BAR IN SLAB 1" BED OF MORTAR MASONRY MIX INSTALL KEY BELOW REBAR LOCATION: DOVER, DE TOOLED FLUSH W/ SHOTCRETE (COLOR TO MATCH CONCRETE) 0'-5" TYP. #4 X 18" SMOOTH DOWEL @24" O.C. 6 DETAILS CONSTRUCTION SP3.1 JOINT SHEET: 0'-6" 7 POOL COPING & BOND BEAM 8 KEY JOINT SP3.1 NTS NTS SP3.1 SP3.1 DATE: 05.05.21 DRAWN BY: BAJ CHECKED BY: MBF 128

Item 3. 1 NOTE: PRIME STEEL WITH WITH RUST-OLEUM INTERIOR/ 2" X 6" ANCHOR BOLT OR NELSON STUD @36" O.C. MIN. EXTERIOR FLAT PRIMER OR EQUAL BEFORE INSTALLATION. 1 10 C6 X 8.2 STEEL 8" RADIUS TOOLED EDGE PAINT EXPOSED STEEL WITH RUST-OLEUM ACRYLIC #4 X 18" SMOOTH CHANNEL TYPICAL NOTES: INTERIOR/EXTERIOR BLACK GLOSS ENAMEL OR EQUAL SP3.2 DOWEL @24" O.C. PRIME STEEL WITH WITH RUST-OLEUM AFTER INSTALLATION. INTERIOR/EXTERIOR FLAT PRIMER OR EQUAL VARIES WELD #3 A706 WELDABLE BEFORE INSTALLATION. INSTALL FLUSH W/ COLD JOINT CROSS BRACES @18" O.C. 1 1'-0" PAINT EXPOSED STEEL WITH RUST-OLEUM CONCRETE, GRIND 8" RADIUS TOOLED EDGE BOTH WAYS ACRYLIC INTERIOR/EXTERIOR BLACK GLOSS CONCRETE FLUSH IF ENAMEL OR EQUAL AFTER INSTALLATION. REQUIRED 0'-1/4" LAP & TIE CROSS MEMBERS WELD 21" X 6" ANCHOR 9" AND HORIZONTAL REBAR C6 X 8.2 STEEL BOLT OR NELSON VARIES, CHANNEL, TYP. STUD @36" O.C. MIN. SEE SECTION 4" TYP. #3 BARS @18" O.C. BOTH WAYS 4" 6" 2.0" OR 2.5" ID SCH. 40 1'-0" STANDARD BLACK STEEL SEAM WELDED PIPE COPING 1 8" BULLNOSE CONTINUOUS 3/16" TOOLED EDGE CONSTRUCTION JOINT 0'-1/4" IF REQUIRED 9 6" LENGTH MIN. SP3.2 #3 BARS @18" O.C. BOTH WAYS, TYP. 9 REINFORCED CONCRETE LEDGE - FLUSH EDGE 10 STEEL GRIND EDGE - FLUSH STEEL CHANNEL 11 STEEL COPING AND BOND BEAM NTS NTS NTS SP3.2 SP3.2 SP3.2 This design is an instrument of professional service and is the property of Grindline Skateparks Inc. Any use of these plans shall be restricted to the project for which they were prepared. SEE SECTIONS FOR MATERIAL SEE SECTIONS FOR MATERIAL 05.06.2021 MITER STEEL AT ALL EDGES AND GRIND SMOOTH WELD END PIECE TO PERPENDICULAR STEEL TUBING, GRIND SMOOTH CONTINUOUS WELDS AT N.T.S. MITERED EDGES SEE SECTIONS FOR VARIES, MATERIAL, PAINT STEEL SEE SECTIONS FOR VARIES, VARIES SEE VARIES SCALE: MATERIAL, PAINT STEEL PRIOR TO CONCRETE POUR SECTIONS SEE PRIOR TO CONCRETE POUR PROJECT: SCHUTTE PARK SKATEPARK SECTIONS #4 x 2" STEEL ANCHOR #4 x 2" STEEL ANCHOR BOTH SIDES @ EACH POST 5" BOTH SIDES @ EACH POST 5" 1'-0" MIN. 1'-0" MIN. UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL 6" 6" LOCATION: DOVER, DE 3" CLEAR MIN. UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL 3" CLEAR MIN. 12" 12" 12 HANDRAIL FOOTING - END POST 13 HANDRAIL FOOTING - CENTER POST DETAILS NTS NTS SP3.2 SP3.2 SHEET: SP3.2 DATE: 05.05.21 DRAWN BY: BAJ CHECKED BY: MBF 129

Item 9. CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Council Committee of the Whole (Parks, Recreation & Community Enhancement) DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Water & Wastewater SUBMITTED ON: November 4, 2022 PREPARED BY: Jason A. Lyon, P.E., Director of Water & Wastewater / Engineering Services REVIEWED BY: Dave S. Hugg III, City Manager and Lori Peddicord, Controller / Treasurer SUBJECT: Silver Lake Dam – Annual Inspection Review TIMETABLE: In accordance with the FY 2022 Silver Lake Dam Inspection Update Memorandum RELATED PROJECT: n/a REFERENCE: n/a EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: n/a AMOUNT BUDGETED: n/a FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): n/a STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To accept the Silver Lake Dam 2022 Dam Safety Inspection Report and the FY 2022 Silver Lake Dam Inspection Update Memorandum. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The Department of Water & Wastewater (DWW) utilizes a consultant to perform an annual inspection of the Silver Lake Dam. The annual inspection is required by the State of Delaware’s Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) as well as our insurance carrier. The FY 2022 above water inspection and underwater inspection was performed on May 19, 2022. The final report was fully executed on June 29, 2022. The next inspection will occur in the spring of 2023. Silver Lake Dam 2022 Dam Safety Inspection Report provides the results of the field observations of the embankment dam, concrete spillway and drop inlet including the sluice gate. The report also includes recommendations for repair and maintenance. The FY 2022 Silver Lake Dam Inspection Update Memorandum provides a summary of the recommendations provided in the report. Action items are assigned to either the Parks & Recreation (P&R) Department’s Ground Division or the DWW Engineering Division. The plan of action and/or status for the recommendations are included within the memorandum. The breakdown of the fifty-one (51) action items contained in the report is as follows:  P&R Grounds Division – Annual Maintenance Checklist – 10  P&R Grounds Division – Evaluate / Monitor – 14  DWW Engineering Division – Future CIP Proposal – 26  DPW Streets Division – Maintenance Action - 1 130

Item 9. MEMORANDUM Department of Water & Wastewater / Engineering Services P.O. Box 475 Dover, Delaware 19903 Phone: (302) 736-7025 Fax: (302) 736-7092 E-mail: jlyon@dover.de.us TO: David S. Hugg III, City Manager Sharon J. Duca, P.E., Assistant City Manager CC: Robin Eaton, Parks & Recreation Director Mark Nowak, GISP, Public Works Director FROM: Jason A Lyon, P.E., Director of Water & Wastewater / Engineering Services DATE: November 4, 2022 SUBJECT: FY 2022 Silver Lake Dam Inspection Update Due to the projected cost of the project, a Request for Quotes to perform the FY22 Silver Lake Dam Inspection was sent out on April 7, 2022, to twelve (12) consulting firms. One firm, Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc. (JMT), responded to the request and was ultimately awarded the project. The Silver Lake Dam Inspection Report originally dated June 29, 2022, last revised July 8, 2022, contains various recommendations necessary to maintain the dam in good working order. The tables below provide a summary of the recommendations as well as a status update of each. A Silver Lake Dam Annual Maintenance Checklist for the Parks & Recreation Department Grounds Division was developed in January 2020. Since that time, annual maintenance activities have been performed and will continue to be performed. Some of the recommendations below added additional activities to the Annual Maintenance Checklist. CATEGORY DESCRIPTION ASSIGNMENT STATUS Earth All weeds noted within the rip rap should be Grounds Annual Maintenance Embankment controlled with herbicide and removed. Checklist – 3x Per Year Upstream The trash that has accumulated along the water Grounds Annual Maintenance Slope line at the west end of the left embankment Checklist – 1x Per Year should be removed. Seed the areas of bare ground on the left and Grounds Annual Maintenance right embankments. Checklist – 2x Per Year The small stump by the signs near the boat ramp Grounds Annual Maintenance can be left in place provided they are no longer Checklist – 3x Per Year alive and should be monitored periodically. The stump noted above the rip rap on the right Grounds Annual Maintenance upstream slope can remain provided it is no Checklist – 3x Per Year longer alive and should be monitored periodically. 131

Item 4. FY 2022 Silver Lake Dam Inspection Update November 4, 2022 Page 2 of 6 CATEGORY DESCRIPTION ASSIGNMENT STATUS Earth A depression that was holding water was noted in Grounds Evaluate Embankment the left portion of the crest of the left Upstream embankment in the 2019 report but was not Slope noted during the current inspection. Depressions (Continued) in the crest should be monitored periodically. Any gaps present in the rip rap along the right Grounds Evaluate upstream slope should be filled with additional rip rap. The missing rip rap where the right upstream Grounds Evaluate wing wall meets the water should be replaced. Consideration should be given to repair the Engineering Future CIP proposal. asphalt roadway along the crest of the embankment. Repair the crack noted on the right side of the Engineering Future CIP proposal. boat ramp. Asphalt should be placed along the lower right Streets Maintenance Action edge of the boat ramp in a similar fashion to other areas of the slab. Dam Crest The crest appears to be in good condition. The Grounds Continue to Monitor crest should continue to be monitored for any depressions as indicated in previous inspections. Earth All weeds noted within the rip rap should be Grounds Annual Maintenance Embankment controlled with herbicide and removed. Checklist – 3x Per Year Downstream The bare spots on left side of the spillway should Grounds Annual Maintenance Slope be covered with new grass. Checklist – 2x Per Year The undermined sidewalk near the fence adjacent Grounds Evaluate to the fish ladder should be remediated/backfilled. The woody bushes/weeds that were noted Grounds Annual Maintenance growing in the fence that cordons off the bottom Checklist – 2x Per Year of the fish ladder and near the fish ladder sign can be left in place provided they are no longer alive and should be monitored periodically. Remediate the eroded area adjacent to the upper Grounds Continue to Monitor parking lot. 132

Item 4. CATEGORY DESCRIPTION ASSIGNMENT STATUS Earth The rip rap appears to be sparce or may have Grounds Evaluate Embankment been filled in the areas adjacent to the fish ladder Downstream on the left downstream slope. Additionally, rip rap Slope has been placed only along a portion of the right (Continued) downstream wing wall and appears to be sparce at the toe of the right downstream wing wall. A study should be performed to determine if additional rip rap should be added and/or replaced. The undermined fence post at the southern end Grounds Evaluate of the chain link fence adjacent to the fish ladder should be remediated. The eroded areas noted in the area of the fence post and the eroded area south of the fence that extends to the exit channel should be remediated. Concrete Repair the cracks throughout, above and below Engineering Future CIP proposal. Spillway – water, with pressure injected epoxy (19 LF). Upstream Repair the random pop-outs throughout with Engineering Future CIP proposal. Face and Wing concrete patching material (2 SF). Walls Repair the two cracks on the left upstream wing Engineering Future CIP proposal. wall with concrete patching material. (8 SF) Repair the pop-out where the wall starts to slope Engineering Future CIP proposal. down 2 feet below the top of the wall near railing post on the upstream right-wing wall with concrete patching material. (1 SF) The upstream right-wing wall from where the Engineering Future CIP proposal. section loss starts into the water should be repaired with epoxy concrete. (25 CF) Field measure, cut and re-adjust rotated fence Engineering Future CIP proposal. extension on all wingwalls, and secure to prevent rotation. (195 LF) On the right upstream wing wall move old railing Engineering Future CIP proposal. system up, tighten bracket so new extended railing is aligned with post. 133

Item 4. FY 2022 Silver Lake Dam Inspection Update November 4, 2022 Page 4 of 6 CATEGORY DESCRIPTION ASSIGNMENT STATUS Concrete Bolts should be checked, tightened, and replaced Engineering Future CIP proposal. Spillway – if missing on the railing system. Upstream Face and Wing Walls Rusted bolts in the baseplate should be cleaned Engineering Future CIP proposal. and galvanized and rusted washers and nuts to be (Continued) replaced. (32 Ea., 40 Ea.) Concrete Repair the cracks throughout with pressure Engineering Future CIP proposal. Spillway – injected epoxy (44 LF). Downstream Delamination location should be repaired on right Engineering Future CIP proposal. Face and Wing downstream wing wall with concrete patching Walls material. (2 SF) The rust stain, efflorescence, and water leakage Engineering Future CIP proposal. on the SW concrete wingwall appears to be originating from a crack/spall in the concrete/ which suggests water is penetrating from the earth side of the wall. Though there is no immediate concern, if it is left alone there could be a potential issue in the future. The source of the water leaking, and condition of the concrete should be investigated to determine an appropriate repair. Petrographic testing and a test pit behind the wing wall is highly recommended for the rust stain and water leakage at the noted crack/spall on the right wing wall, as it appears to be getting worse. A reinforcement corrosion assessment is also recommended for the rebar that is rusting along the noted crack. Field measure, cut and re-adjust rotated fence Engineering Future CIP proposal. extension on all wingwalls, and secure to prevent rotation. (239 LF) Fish Ladder Repair the leaking joints. Engineering Future CIP proposal. Repair the broken weld at the third steel brace Engineering Future CIP proposal. from the north (0.17 LF) Replace missing bolts and nuts with stainless steel Engineering Future CIP proposal. hardware. (2 Ea.; 2 Ea.) 134

Item 4. FY 2022 Silver Lake Dam Inspection Update November 4, 2022 Page 5 of 6 CATEGORY DESCRIPTION ASSIGNMENT STATUS Pedestrian Repair the spalls throughout with concrete Engineering Future CIP proposal. Walkway patching material (3 SF). Repair the cracks throughout with pressure Engineering Future CIP proposal. injected epoxy (79 LF). Repair topside cracks on Span 1with concrete Engineering Future CIP proposal. patching material. (4 LF) Replace downstream top railing tee at pier 4 and Engineering Future CIP proposal. between pier 9 and end wingwall with a galvanized tee. (3 Ea.) Bolts should be checked, tightened, and replaced Engineering Future CIP proposal. if missing on the railing system. Fix spalls at pier 2, 6 and 8, and Engineering Future CIP proposal. cracks on south downstream side of walkway with concrete patching material. (3 SF; 10 LF) Joints at piers 2, 4, 6 and 8 need rerouting down Engineering Future CIP proposal. the sides of the walkway on both the upstream side and downstream side, to keep the backer rod in place. The joint at pier 8 sealant on top of walkway needs to be removed and replaced. (8 LF; 3 LF) Outlet Works Repair the opening between the two trash rack Engineering Future CIP proposal. panels (5 LF). Continue to monitor the condition of the Grounds Evaluate hardware for further deterioration or lack of function which would warrant repair. Exit Channel The two bushes just downstream of the spillway Grounds Evaluate and adjacent to the fish ladder should be removed. Multiple bare spots were noted along both the Grounds Annual Maintenance left and right sides. Spots should be covered with Checklist – Quarterly. new grass. Provide vegetation for the bare spots and remove Grounds Annual Maintenance the weeds noted adjacent to the rip rap that lines Checklist – 2x Per Year the banks of the channel. East Boat Repair the northwest dock pile with 40% section Grounds Evaluate Dock at Boat loss with a pile post repair. Ramp 135

Item 4. FY 2022 Silver Lake Dam Inspection Update November 4, 2022 Page 6 of 6 CATEGORY DESCRIPTION ASSIGNMENT STATUS East Boat It is recommended to remove the boat dock Grounds Evaluate Dock at Boat decking and replace with pressure treated lumber Ramp and stainless-steel fasteners. (81 SF) (Continued) Remove and replace any rotted stringers that may Grounds Evaluate not be visible due to decking. At a minimum replace the end stringers that touch the boat ramp. (8 LF) Refasten end rub rail at NE side. (4 LF) Grounds Evaluate TASK TOTALS 51 P&R Grounds Division – Annual Maintenance Checklist 10 P&R Grounds Division – Evaluate / Monitor 14 DWW Engineering Division – Future CIP proposal 26 DPW Streets Division – Maintenance Action 1 136

Item 9. June 29, 2022 City of Dover Department of Public Works P.O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Attention: Mr. Darin Windsor, S.I. Project Manager Reference: Silver Lake Dam 2022 Dam Safety Inspection Report Dover, Delaware JMT Job No.: 22-01359-001 Dear Mr. Windsor: Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc. (JMT) is pleased to submit the results of our visual dam safety inspection of the Silver Lake Dam. This report contains the results of the dam safety inspection and a discussion of our observations and recommendations for remedial repairs for the existing dam. The following scope of work was performed: (1) Review previous dam safety inspection reports and available plans. (2) Perform field observations by geotechnical and structural engineers to determine the conditions of the crest, upstream and downstream slopes of the embankment dam and concrete spillway per DDSD’s checklist. (3) Perform underwater condition survey of the submerged portions of the concrete spillway and drop inlet including the sluice gate. (4) Prepare a written report to provide the results of the field observations of the embankment dam concrete spillway and drop inlet and recommendations for repairs and maintenance items that should be performed, including timeline for completion and probable costs. It has been our pleasure to be of service to the City of Dover Department of Public Works. Should you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours, JOHNSON, MIRMIRAN AND THOMPSON, INC. Patrick E. Ostrowski Michael E. Leffler, P.E. Associate Vice President 121 Continental Drive, Suite 300, Newark, DE 19713 | (302) 266-9600 | www.jmt.com 137

Item 4. SILVER LAKE DAM 2022 DAM SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT Dover, Delaware JMT Job No.: 22-01359-001 Prepared for: CITY OF DOVER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS P.O. BOX 475 DOVER, DELAWARE 19903 Submitted by: Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc. 121 Continental Drive, Suite 300 Newark, Delaware, 19713 June 29, 2022 121 Continental Drive, Suite 300, Newark, DE 19713 | (302) 266-9600 | www.jmt.com 138

Item 4. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2.0 DAM INFORMATION 5 2.1 General................................................................................................................................ 5 2.2 Embankment Dam .............................................................................................................. 6 2.3 Concrete Spillway................................................................................................................ 6 2.4 Outlet Works ....................................................................................................................... 6 2.5 Pedestrian Walkway ........................................................................................................... 7 3.0 OBSERVATIONS 8 3.1 General................................................................................................................................ 8 3.2 Earth Embankment ............................................................................................................. 8 3.2.1 Upstream Slope ...................................................................................................... 8 3.2.2 Dam Crest ............................................................................................................... 8 3.2.3 Downstream Slope ................................................................................................. 9 3.3 Concrete Spillway and Wing Walls ................................................................................... 10 3.3.1 Upstream Spillway Face and Wing Walls ............................................................. 10 3.3.2 Downstream Spillway Face and Wing Walls ........................................................ 10 3.3.3 Fish Ladder ........................................................................................................... 11 3.3.4 Spillway ................................................................................................................ 12 3.4 Pedestrian Walkway ......................................................................................................... 12 3.5 Outlet Works ..................................................................................................................... 13 3.6 Exit Channel ...................................................................................................................... 13 3.7 Boat Dock .......................................................................................................................... 14 3.8 Concrete Slab on Grade Pad ............................................................................................. 14 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 15 4.1 General.............................................................................................................................. 15 4.2 Earth Embankment ........................................................................................................... 15 4.2.1 Upstream Slope .................................................................................................... 15 4.2.2 Dam Crest ............................................................................................................. 15 4.2.3 Downstream Slope ............................................................................................... 15 4.3 Concrete Spillway.............................................................................................................. 16 4.3.1 Upstream Face and Wing Walls ........................................................................... 16 4.3.2 Downstream Face and Wing Walls ...................................................................... 16 4.3.3 Fish Ladder ........................................................................................................... 17 4.3.4 Spillway ................................................................................................................ 17 4.4 Pedestrian Walkway ......................................................................................................... 17 4.5 Outlet Works ..................................................................................................................... 17 4.6 Exit Channel ...................................................................................................................... 17 4.7 Boat Dock .......................................................................................................................... 17 4.8 Concrete Slab on Grade Pad ............................................................................................. 18 Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc. Draft Inspection Report June 29, 2022 139

Item 4. 5.0 CLOSING 19 APPENDICES Appendix A - Site Location Map Appendix B - Inspection Photos Appendix C - Delaware Dam Safety Inspection Checklist Appendix D – Cost Estimate Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc. Draft Inspection Report June 29, 2022 140

Item 4. 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Originally constructed in 1944, the Silver Lake Dam is an earthen embankment type dam with a concrete spillway located near its center. In order to drain the reservoir in emergency situations, a riser structure with a sluice gate and 24-inch pipe that outlets through the downstream face of the concrete spillways is located towards the western side of the concrete spillway. The base flow is controlled by a concrete chute that is located on the western side of the emergency spillway. Due to the failure implications and state guidelines, the Silver Lake Dam is classified as a high hazard dam. Failure of this dam has the high probability to cause loss of human life in addition to other consequences. As such, the City has requested JMT to perform an inspection of the dam and report our findings herein. JMT performed both above water and underwater inspections of the Silver Lake Dam on May 19, 2022, to assess the functionality of the dam and identify deficiencies and the need for remedial repairs. Our underwater inspections included the concrete spillway, and the drop-inlet outlet works while visual observations of the above water components included the earth embankment, concrete spillway and wing walls, pedestrian walkway, and the exit channel. Observations of the dam’s condition and recommendations made herein are intended to assist the City of Dover in programming the dam repairs in order to maintain safe operations of the dam. Direction indicators right and left are based on facing downstream. The following is a summary of our observations and recommendations: OBSERVATIONS: • Upstream Slope of Earthen Dam o Visual inspection indicates the upstream slope is in generally good condition. o All weeds noted within the rip rap should be controlled with herbicide and removed. o All gaps within the rip rap along the right upstream slope should be filled in with additional rip rap. o Seed the areas of bare ground on the left and right upstream slopes. o Repair the crack noted on the right side of the boat ramp. o Asphalt should be placed along the lower right edge of the boat ramp in a similar fashion to other areas of the slab. • Dam Crest o Visual inspection indicates the crest is in generally good condition, but crest should be monitored for any depressions as noted in previous JMT inspections. • Downstream Slope of Earthen Dam o Visual inspection indicates the downstream slope is in generally good condition. o All weeds noted within the rip rap and in the area where No. 57 stone is being used as ground cover near the fish ladder should be removed and controlled with herbicide so future weeds do not grow. o Any bare spots should be seeded and covered with new grass, including any eroded areas, areas disturbed by mowing operations, or around bollards. o The undermined sidewalk exposing bare ground near the fence adjacent to the fish ladder should be remediated/backfilled. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc. Page 1 June 29, 2022 141

Item 4. o The undermined fence post at the southern end of the chain link fence adjacent to the fish ladder should be remediated. The eroded areas noted in the area of the fence post and the eroded area south of the fence that extends to the exit channel should be remediated. o A study should be performed to determine if additional rip rap should be placed in areas along the right downstream wing wall and where it appears to be sparce or infilled at the toe of the right downstream wing wall and adjacent to the fish ladder near the left downstream wing wall. o Continue to monitor the eroded area adjacent to the upper parking lot that has been remediated for further signs of erosion. Repair the soil reinforcement netting in this location. • Upstream Face and Wing Walls o Repair the cracks throughout, above and below water, with pressure injected epoxy. o Repair the random pop-outs throughout with non-shrink grout. o Repair the two cracks on the left upstream wing wall with concrete patching material. o The upstream right-wing wall from where the section loss starts into the water should be repaired with epoxy concrete. o Repair all rotated railing extensions and replace/check/tighten all bolts, washers and nuts on the railing extensions and railing post baseplates. • Downstream Face and Wing Walls o Repair the cracks throughout, above and below water, with pressure injected epoxy. o The source of water possibly associated with the recurring rust stain should be investigated to determine the appropriate repair. • Fish Ladder o Repair the leaking joints. o Repair the broken weld at the third steel brace from the north. o Replace missing bolts and nuts with stainless steel hardware. • Spillway o No repairs required. • Pedestrian Walkway o Repair the spalls throughout with non-shrink grout. o Repair the cracks throughout with pressure injected epoxy. o Replace downstream top railing tee at pier 4 and between pier 9 and end wingwall with a galvanized tee. o Bolts should be checked, tightened, and replaced if missing on the railing system. • Outlet Works o Repair the opening between the two trash rack panels. • Exit Channel o Rip rap and other smaller stone near the bottom of the fish ladder should be removed. o Bushes and woody weed should be removed from the rip rap, and any bare spots should be remediated. • Boat Dock o Repair the northwest dock pile that exhibits 40% section loss Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc. Page 2 June 29, 2022 142

Item 4. o Remove and replace rotted stringers that touch the concrete boat ramp and any rotten stringers that are hidden by the decking. • Concrete Slab o No repairs required. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc. Page 3 June 29, 2022 143

Item 4. RECOMMENDATIONS: This report contains observations and recommendations in accordance with dam safety regulations and standard inspection techniques for such facilities. Overall, results indicate that the dam is considered in good condition without the need for immediate remedial actions. However, JMT has identified several non-emergency remedial actions that we recommend become prioritized and programmed for action over the next two years. These remedial actions are summarized below and included in Section 4 of this report. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc. Page 4 June 29, 2022 144

Item 4. 2.0 DAM INFORMATION 2.1 General The Silver Lake Dam is located within Silver Lake Park and is at the terminus of Lewis Mill Drive in Dover, Delaware as shown in Figure 1 and Appendix A of this report. The City of Dover requested JMT to perform an inspection of the dam based on Delaware state guidelines and sound engineering principles. The inspection of the dam occurred on May 19, 2022 and included both above ground and below water inspections. Due to the lack of existing dam drawings, some dimensions mentioned in this report were estimated. Figure 1. Silver Lake Dam Location The Silver Lake Dam is classified as a high hazard dam in accordance with the Delaware Dam Safety guidelines. Based on its definition, a high hazard dam has the potential to cause probable loss of human life in the event of a dam failure or faulty operations. In addition, failure would cause economic loss, environmental damage, disruption of lifeline facilities, or can impact other concerns. The dam is located along the St. Jones River and is an earthen embankment dam with a length of approximately 630 feet. The dam’s western (left) abutment is located near its intersection with the sandy beach. The dam consists of a concrete gravity dam spillway approximately 150 feet in length, which is located near the middle of the earthen dam. A boat ramp is located about 85 feet east of the east wall of the spillway. The dam’s outlet works consists of a wood riser structure with a 24-inch diameter cast iron pipe that exits the dam through the downstream toe of the concrete spillway on the eastern side. Figure 2 highlights the critical components of the dam. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc. Page 5 June 29, 2022 145

Item 4. Figure 2. Silver Lake Dam Inspection Components 2.2 Embankment Dam Based on measurements from the staff gauge located on the east wall of the concrete spillway, the dam’s top elevation is at about EL 20.0 and the downstream toe is at about EL 5.0, resulting in an overall dam height of approximately 15 feet. The crest width of the dam is about 20 feet at its narrowest point. The side slopes of the upstream face of the dam are roughly 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. The downstream slopes of the dam are 2:1, where the slopes are more gradual near the earthen portions of the dam at the east and west abutments, they are in the range of 5:1 or flatter. 2.3 Concrete Spillway The concrete dam spillway serves as both the principal and emergency spillways. The entrance and exit channels to the spillway consist of concrete gravity retaining walls. A concrete chute measuring about 2.5 feet wide (W) by 1.5 feet deep (D) is located on the east side of the spillway and is believed to have been designed to carry the base flow over the spillway. Flash boards are located in the upstream end of the concrete chute which can be removed to lower the lake about 1.5 feet below the top of the concrete spillway. A fish ladder is located between the east wing wall of the spillway and the base flow concrete chute. 2.4 Outlet Works The riser structure for the outlet works is located about 50 feet out into the lake from the top of the concrete spillway. The riser structure is constructed with timber materials and measures approximately 10 feet by 10 feet in plan dimensions. A 24-inch cast iron pipe extends from the downstream side of the riser structure and exits through the downstream side of the concrete spillway. A sluice gate is located on the upstream side of the riser structure and is believed to be used for reservoir drawdown in emergency situations. The sluice gate consists of a flat metal plate and stem. The stem can be accessed through a trap door in the top of the riser structure to raise and lower the sluice gate. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc. Page 6 June 29, 2022 146

Item 4. 2.5 Pedestrian Walkway A pedestrian walkway is located on the top of the concrete spillway. The walkway measures 3 feet wide and was constructed with reinforced concrete. The walkway is supported by concrete piers fixed to the top of the concrete spillway. A chain link fence is located on each side of the walkway to act as a railing and fall protection. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc. Page 7 June 29, 2022 147

Item 4. 3.0 OBSERVATIONS 3.1 General The Silver Lake Dam consists of an earthen embankment dam with a concrete spillway. JMT performed visual observations of the dam on May 19, 2022. In addition to ground inspections, JMT also performed underwater inspections with an in-house diving crew. These inspections were performed simultaneously under the supervision of JMT engineers. Included in Appendix B are photographs taken during the inspection that represent the observations that are summarized below for the various dam components. During the inspection deficiencies noted in the previous dam safety inspection performed in 2021 were observed to verify their condition and if they were repaired and are identified on the Delaware Dam Safety Inspection Checklist, which is included in Appendix C. Please note that all references regarding direction (i.e. left or right) are referenced as if the observer was facing downstream. Therefore, left was noted to be in the general east direction and right was noted to be in the general west direction. 3.2 Earth Embankment 3.2.1 Upstream Slope 1. Overall view of left upstream slope and crest. (Photo 1) 2. Overall view of right upstream slope and crest. (Photo 2) 3. Some debris and trash have collected upstream of the rip rap adjacent to the left abutment. (Photo 3) 4. Rip rap between the wing wall and the boat ramp on the left embankment is in generally good condition with some woody weeds noted. (Photo 4) 5. A few bare spots were noted above the rip rap to the left of the boat ramp, while larger areas of bare ground were noted uphill of the rip rap between the wing wall and the boat ramp. (Photo 5, Photo 6) 6. A 2-inch diameter woody stump was noted near the sign for the boat ramp. (Photo 7) 7. The lower right side of the boat ramp has erosion along the lower left and right edges. Asphalt has been placed along the upper left and right edges presumably to address previous erosion. (Photo 8) 8. There is a shallow crack in the left upstream embankment boat ramp, +/- 6 feet long. (Photo 9) 9. Previously placed rip rap on the left upstream wingwall is in good condition, though some weeds were noted. (Photo 10) 10. The right upstream embankment is generally in good condition. Areas of bare ground were observed adjacent to the top area of the rip rap along the slope towards the right end of the embankment. Additionally, some missing rip rap was noted. (Photo 11) 11. Some weeds and vegetation were noted in the right upstream rip rap. An old stump was noted above the rip rap on the right upstream slope. (Photo 12) 12. Previously placed rip rap on the right upstream wingwall is in good condition, though some weeds were noted. Additionally, some rip rap appears to be missing where the right upstream wing wall meets the water. (Photo 13, Photo 14) 3.2.2 Dam Crest 1. The dam crest is in overall good condition. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc. Page 8 June 29, 2022 148

Item 4. 2. Although light rain occurred in the morning on the day of the inspection, no ponded water, which was previously noted in the 2019 report was observed. 3. A concrete slab measuring about 10 by 8 feet was noted in the crest of the right embankment, approximately 50 feet west of the right-wing wall. (Photo 15) 3.2.3 Downstream Slope 1. The downstream slope is in satisfactory condition. 2. Moderate alligator cracking and a shoving failure was noted in the asphalt roadway leading up to and down from the upper parking area/left slope crest. (Photo 16, Photo 17) 3. Isolated minor erosion and exposed roots and some mower disturbances around trees were noted at the extreme left of the left downstream embankment. (Photo 18) 4. Bare ground was noted around the bollards adjacent to the drive lane up to and down from the upper parking lot, and some mower disturbance was noted along the slope downhill of the bollards along the same drive lane. (Photo 19, Photo 20) 5. Some ponded water was noted at the toe of the left downstream slope near the lower parking lot. It appears that the ponded water may be sheet flow from the lower parking lot area that has collected in the area shown in the photo. (Photo 21) 6. The repair of the previous erosion and exposed roots south of the upper parking area on the left downstream slope looks good, but there is still a slight erosion channel noted, some bare ground noted near the wooden bollards, exposed roots and the upper portion of the reinforcing net is exposed and has been damaged. (Photo 22, Photo 23) 7. The vegetation and weeds were noted in the rip rap at the left downstream slope adjacent to the fish ladder. The rip rap appears to be sparce and infilled. (Photo 24) 8. There is a large area of no. 57 stone placed above the rip rap on the left downstream slope. Weeds are growing in the slope. (Photo 25) 9. Some three-inch diameter stumps were noted in the fence that cordons off the bottom of the fish ladder and some bushes near the fish ladder sign at the left downstream slope. (Photo 26, Photo 27) 10. The sidewalk adjacent to the chain link fence that cordons off the fish ladder has been undermined, and some bare ground/mower disturbance was noted between the sidewalk and the roadway in the same area. (Photo 28) 11. There is moderate erosion adjacent to the southern portion of the fence cordoning off the fish ladder on the left downstream slope. The erosion is undermining the south fence post. Erosion and exposed roots were noted above the rip rap and extends south toward the exit channel. (Photo 29) 12. Some bare ground and mower disturbance was noted on the left downstream slope uphill from the fish ladder sign and adjacent to the downstream wing wall. 13. Some erosion is still occurring around newer rip rap adjacent to the right downstream wing wall, and some bare spots/mower disturbance was noted uphill of this area near the chain link fence and sidewalk. (Photo 30) 14. The weeds, vegetation and stumps were noted in the right downstream rip rap. The rip rap looks sparce or may have been infilled. (Photo 31, Photo 32) 15. Erosion and exposed roots extend south toward the exit channel. (Photo 33) Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc. Page 9 June 29, 2022 149

Item 4. 3.3 Concrete Spillway and Wing Walls 3.3.1 Upstream Spillway Face and Wing Walls 1. Overall view of right wingwall (Photo 34) 2. Overall view of left wingwall (Photo 35) 3. The upstream left concrete wing wall is in good condition with abrasion (eroded cement and exposed aggregate) up to ½” depth (D) throughout. (Photo 34, Photo 35). 4. There is a 4.0’ long (L) up to 1.0” wide (W) horizontal crack 5.0’ south of the north end of the left wingwall, 1.4’ above the mudline. 5. Both wingwalls have random pop-outs up to 3.0”D throughout (Photo 36) 6. The left and right wingwalls exhibits abrasion up to ½”D at the waterline and a 3.5’L fine vertical crack 10.0’ south of the north end. (Photo 37) 7. The crack repair at the top of the left wingwall at midspan exhibits a 2.0’L fine vertical crack. (Photo 38) Also, the crack repair under the walkway on the left wingwall exhibits a 3’L fine vertical crack with efflorescence. (Photo 39) 8. The right wingwall exhibits a 6.0”H x 2.0’L x 1.0”D area of heavy abrasion with exposed aggregate 1.0’ above the mudline and 10.0’ south of the north end of the right wingwall. 9. The upstream face of the spillway is protected by 1.0 to 1.5 foot nominal size stone riprap for the full length of the spillway with parts of the riprap being silted over. 10. The left wingwall exhibits a 0.6’H x full length x ¼”D band of abrasion at the waterline. (Photo 39a) 11. The left upstream concrete wall from the last railing post into the water was repaired and is in good condition. (Photo 35) 12. The right upstream concrete wall from the last railing post into the water has section loss. (Photo 40) 13. On the right upstream concrete wall below the 2nd from the north railing post a small spall has started to form. (Photo 39a). 14. The railing extension that was added to extend the height of the railing is in good condition, although some sections are starting to twist. At the top of the new railing on the left upstream wing wall the new railing is zip tied to hold it in place. (Photo 41)) 15. The bent plate to help reinforce the last railing post has been damaged making the plate bow. (Photo 41) 3.3.2 Downstream Spillway Face and Wing Walls 1. Overall view of right wingwall. (Photo 42) 2. Overall view of left wingwall. (Photo 43) 3. The downstream right wingwall has been repaired for approximately 85% of the wingwall with multiple fine diagonal cracks up to 2.0’L with rust staining and efflorescence approximately 28 feet from the south end in roughly the same location noted in the 2014 location. (Photo 42) 4. The downstream left wingwall exhibits several failed crack repairs along the top of the wall with three vertical cracks up to 3.0’L x 1/8”W and one 2.0’L hairline horizontal crack. (Photo 44) 5. Previous cracks on the left downstream wingwall have cracked again. There is a new delaminating previous repair between the 2nd and 3rd post, 4.0’ south of the spillway, Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc. Page 10 June 29, 2022 150

Item 4. exhibits a 5.0’L vertical crack and adjacent 0.5 square foot (SF) incipient spall with efflorescence and rust staining. (Photo 45) 6. Both wingwalls downstream of the spillway exhibit abrasion up to ¼”D throughout with algae. 7. All 5 downstream right-wing wall railing base plates galvanized and bolts are in good condition. (Photo 44) 8. There are horizontal cracks at the south side of the right downstream wing wall with some descaling. (Photo 45a) 9. On the right downstream concrete wall, 9 feet from the south end there is a 12”H x 3”W delamination of the wall. (Photo 45b) 10. On the right downstream wing wall, the bolts on the base plates are showing a slight amount of rusting. (Photo 45c) 11. The new railing extension is in good condition on both sides of the downstream walls. (Photo 45d) 12. The right downstream wing wall railing extension have started to twist at the bottom end. Photo (45e) 13. A cap is missing on the 2nd railing post from the top on the right downstream wing wall. Photo (45e). 14. A crack at the 3rd fence post at the top of the left downstream wing wall, 2’ L at the top & 5’L below the fish ladder that may run together behind the fish ladder. (Photo 45, Photo 46) 15. On the top of the right downstream wing wall between the 2nd and 3rd rail post, 3 previous cracks were patched and have cracked again. There are new cracks further south of these cracks that need to be repaired. (Photo 47) 16. Joints in wall appear to be in good condition. 3.3.3 Fish Ladder 1. Overall view of fish ladder (Photo 43) 2. The stainless-steel fish ladder was noted to be in fair condition. The top and side seem to be starting to rust. (Photo 46) 3. The fish ladder steel support members and hardware exhibit slight corrosion with up to 10% section loss. 4. The fish ladder is leaking from most of the joints. 5. The third fish ladder steel brace from north exhibits a 2.0”L x ¼”W broken weld splice. (Photo 48) 6. The broken weld previously mentioned in the 2020 inspection report at the first brace from north has been repaired. (Photo 49) 7. The left bottom bolt is missing from the plate fourth down to the south side. 8. The horizontal beams at the bottom of the ladder are in good condition and painted. There is algae on the bottom vertical columns. (Photo 50) 9. On the top of the fish ladder, two nuts are missing on the west side and one bolt is missing on the east side. (Photo 51) 10. Moss growing on top and side of middle section of the fish ladder. (Photo 51a) 11. Concrete flow chute, next to fish ladder spillway has minor abrasion. (Photo 51a) Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc. Page 11 June 29, 2022 151

Item 4. 3.3.4 Spillway Overall view of spillway (Photo 52) 1. The downstream toe of the spillway is in satisfactory condition with abrasion up to 1.0”D throughout. The toe is exposed the entire length with a vertical exposure of 0.5’H to 1.3’H. There is no undermining. 2. There is 0.7’ to 1.0’ diameter riprap in the downstream channel along the base of the exposed toe. 3. All the concrete surfaces below the water surface and upstream of the spillway exhibit ¼”D abrasion throughout, with localized areas in Span 10 at the top of the spillway which exhibit up to 1.0”D abrasion. (Photo 53) 3.4 Pedestrian Walkway (spans numbered from right to left) 1. The concrete surfaces below water exhibit abrasion up to ½”D with exposed aggregate on all piers. 2. The underside of the deck in Span 1 exhibits a 2.0’L x 1.0’W x 2.0”D spall with exposed and corroded rebar at midspan. (Photo 54) 3. The east face of Pier 1 exhibits several fine vertical cracks within the repaired area. (Photo 55) 4. The underside of the deck in Span 2 exhibits several longitudinal cracks up to 6.0’L x 1/8”W with rust staining and efflorescence. (Photo 56) 5. The east face of Pier 2 exhibits a shallow spall 0.3’H x 3.0’L x 0.08’D along the underside of the deck and within the failed repair area. (Photo 57) 6. The underside of the deck in Span 3 exhibits several 6.0’L x 1/8”W longitudinal cracks with efflorescence in the failed repair area. (Photo 58) 7. The underside of the deck in Span 3 exhibits minor honeycombing. (Photo 58) 8. The underside of the deck in Span 4 exhibits several longitudinal cracks up to 10.0’L x 1/8”W with efflorescence. (Photo 59) 9. The underside of the deck at the east end of Span 5 exhibits a 4.0’L fine longitudinal crack with efflorescence. (Photo 60) 10. The repair on the north nose of Pier 5 exhibits corner abrasion. (Photo 61) 11. The underside of the deck in Span 6 exhibits several fine to 1/16”W longitudinal cracks up to 3.0’L with efflorescence. 12. The underside of the deck in Span 7 exhibits minor map cracking with efflorescence (Photo 62) 13. The northeast corner of Pier 7 exhibits 0.42’H x 0.17’ x 0.83’D edge abrasion. (Photo 63) 14. The west end of the underside of the deck in Span 9 exhibits map cracking with efflorescence. (Photo 64) 15. The underside of the deck in Span 10 exhibits abrasion with exposed aggregate for 2.0’L x 1.0’W x 0.13’D. 16. Posts and railings have lost galvanization and have section loss in sections of rails. The downstream top railing tee is rusted through at Pier 4 and between Pier 9 and the end wingwall. At Pier 2 on the downstream side top railing, there is a bolt extruding out. There is also a bolt missing on the downstream top railing side. The previous repaired spalls on the topside of the walkway appear to be in good condition. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc. Page 12 June 29, 2022 152

Item 4. 17. The downstream side of the walkway has hairline cracks at the West end, on Span 1, 1.5’L, and a crack 2’L on Span 2 with a spall starting to form, and a 2’L crack from a previous repair that water has seeped through onto the side of the walkway. (Photo 65) 18. On the topside of the walkway near Span 1, is a 3’L crack. (Photo 66) 19. On the topside of the walkway at Span 1, the previously repaired crack has failed on the north side, 1.5’L. 20. On the side of the walkway at pier 2 the backer rod seems to be exposed and joint failing and previous patch failing. There is a 1’x1’ spall at Pier 2, on the downstream side of the walkway. (Photo 67) 21. There is a small hairline crack between Piers 1 & 2 and previous cracks routed and sealed are in fair condition. (Photo 67a) 22. Joints at Piers 2, 4 and 6 sealants are in good condition on the top side of the walkway. (Photo 67b). 23. Between Piers 6 & 7 on the top side there is a crack repair in fair condition. (Photo (67c) 24. There is a 1’x1’ spall at Pier 8 at the joint, on the downstream side of the walkway. (Photo 67d) 25. The Joint at Pier 8 is failing and starting to peal up. (Photo 67e) 3.5 Outlet Works 1. The trash racks around the perimeter of the outlet works and the lack of water clarity prevented the diver from inspecting the interior portions of outlet works. 2. The sluice gate was successfully opened and closed by personnel with the City of Dover. (Photo 67f) 3. The outlet works trash rack on the north face exhibit an opening between the two panels for 0.17’H x 5.0’L. (Photo 68) 4. The wooden outlet structure is in satisfactory condition. There is a light covering of soft marine growth and minor checks (cracks in wood due to uneven shrink/swell) in the timber elements with up to 1/16”D penetration with an awl. 5. The timber structure’s galvanized hardware is in poor condition below the waterline with up to 30% section loss. (Photo 69 to 71) 6. The floor slab exhibits minor abrasion with exposed aggregate and was covered with silt up to 0.17’H at the time of inspection. 7. The outlet work piles exhibit 1/8”W checking. The diver was unable to verify the previously noted 50% section loss at the right downstream pile due to lack of access. 8. The outlet works is armored with riprap around its perimeter, and the riprap is covered with silt up to 0.25’H. 3.6 Exit Channel 1. Water was flowing through the exit channel; therefore, it was not possible to visually observe the bottom of the exit channel. However, no areas of depressions were noted when divers walked in the exit channel downstream of the spillway. 2. Rip rap and smaller stone was noted above the waterline on the fish ladder side of the stilling basin. (Photo 72) 3. Two bushes were located centrally in the exit channel downstream of the spillway. (Photo 73) 4. Some bushy/woody weeds were noted at the base of the rip rap along the right side of the exit channel. (Photo 31 and 32) Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc. Page 13 June 29, 2022 153

Item 4. 5. Many more bare spots were noted along the left side of the exit channel than the right. (Photo 74 and 75) 3.7 Boat Dock 1. The boat dock is in poor condition due to the northwest dock pile exhibiting 40% section loss below the waterline. 2. The decking was observed to be in fair condition. 3. The decking has splits and knots. Both side stringers touching the boat ramp have rotted areas. (Photo 76) 4. The 2 cleats at the end of the dock are in good condition. The other 4 cleat bolts have started to rust. 5. The rub rails have some wear. The existing end rub rail on the NE side is damaged and detached from the dock. 3.8 Concrete Slab on Grade Pad 1. The concrete pad on the NW side of the park is in good condition. It is 9’-7” long by 7’-4” wide and grass has started to grow over the pad on the edges. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc. Page 14 June 29, 2022 154

Item 4. 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 General Based on our observations, we consider the dam in good condition and not in danger of failure. The results of our observations indicated that there are various components of the dam that need remedial repair. These repairs are not considered critical and do not require immediate attention. However, we recommend that these repairs be prioritized and programmed to be addressed in the next one to two years to prevent further problems that could lead to failure or safety concerns. The following parts of this section detail recommendations for specific remedial actions categorized by its location. The remedial repairs are also outlined in the Delaware Dam Safety Inspection Checklist is included in Appendix C. 4.2 Earth Embankment 4.2.1 Upstream Slope 1. All weeds noted within the rip rap should be controlled with herbicide and removed. 2. The trash that has accumulated along the water line at the west end of the left embankment should be removed. 3. Seed the areas of bare ground on the left and right embankments. 4. The small stump near the signs near the boat ramp can be left in place provided it is no longer alive and should be monitored periodically. 5. Repair the crack noted on the right side of the boat ramp. 6. Asphalt should be placed along the lower right edge of the boat ramp in a similar fashion to other areas of the slab. 7. Consideration should be given to repair the asphalt roadway along the crest of the embankment. 8. A depression that was holding water was noted in the left portion of the crest of the left embankment in the 2019 report but was not noted during the current inspection. Depressions in the crest should be monitored periodically. 9. Any gaps present in the rip rap along the right upstream slope should be filled with additional rip rap. 10. The stump noted above the rip rap on the right upstream slope can remain provided it is no longer alive and should be monitored periodically. 11. The missing rip rap where the right upstream wing wall meets the water should be replaced. 4.2.2 Dam Crest 1. The crest appears to be in good condition. The crest should continue to be monitored for any depressions as indicated in previous inspections. 4.2.3 Downstream Slope 1. All weeds noted within the rip rap should be removed and controlled with herbicide so future weeds do not grow. 2. Any bare spots should be seeded and covered with new grass, including any eroded areas, areas disturbed by mowing operations, or around bollards. 3. The undermined sidewalk near the fence adjacent to the fish ladder should be remediated/backfilled. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc. Page 15 June 29, 2022 155

Item 4. 4. The woody bushes/weeds that were noted growing in the fence that cordons off the bottom of the fish ladder and near the fish ladder sign can be left in place provided they are no longer alive and should be monitored periodically. 5. The No. 57 stone that is being used as ground cover inside the fence adjacent to the fish ladder is allowing weeds to grow. The weeds should be removed and controlled with herbicide. Consideration should be given to replacing the No. 57 stone with grass seed or rip rap to minimize the potential for weed growth. 6. The rip rap appears to be sparce or may have been filled in the areas adjacent to the fish ladder on the left downstream slope. Additionally, rip rap has been placed only along a portion of the right downstream wing wall and appears to be sparce at the toe of the right downstream wing wall. A study should be performed to determine if additional rip rap should be added and/or replaced. 7. The undermined fence post at the southern end of the chain link fence adjacent to the fish ladder should be remediated. The eroded areas noted in the area of the fence post and the eroded area south of the fence that extends to the exit channel should be remediated. 8. Continue to monitor the eroded area adjacent to the upper parking lot that has been remediated for further signs of erosion. Repair the soil reinforcement netting in this location. 4.3 Concrete Spillway and Wing Walls 4.3.1 Upstream Face and Wing Walls 1. Repair the cracks throughout, above and below water, with pressure injected epoxy (19 LF). 2. Repair the random pop-outs throughout with concrete patching material (2 SF). 3. Repair the two cracks on the left upstream wing wall with concrete patching material. (8 SF) 4. Repair the pop-out where the wall starts to slope down 2 feet below the top of the wall near railing post on the upstream right-wing wall with concrete patching material. (1 SF) 5. The upstream right-wing wall from where the section loss starts into the water should be repaired with epoxy concrete. (25 CF) 6. Field measure, cut and re-adjust rotated fence extension on all wingwalls, and secure to prevent rotation. (195 LF) 7. On the left upstream wing wall, instead of zip tying the new railing to the posts the new railing that extends past the post should be measured and cut to size in the field to make the new cap be in line with the posts therefore aligning new railing system. 8. On the right upstream wing wall move old railing system up, tighten bracket so new extended railing is aligned with post. 9. Bolts should be checked, tightened, and replaced if missing on the railing system. 10. Rusted bolts in the baseplate should be cleaned and galvanized and rusted washers and nuts to be replaced. (32 Ea., 40 Ea.) 4.3.2 Downstream Face and Wing Walls 1. Repair the cracks throughout with pressure injected epoxy (44 LF). 2. Delamination location should be repaired on right downstream wing wall with concrete patching material. (2 SF) 3. The rust stain, efflorescence, and water leakage on the SW concrete wingwall appears to be originating from a crack/spall in the concrete/ which suggests water is penetrating Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc. Page 16 June 29, 2022 156

Item 4. from the earth side of the wall. The condition of the rust stain and water leakage appears similar to the condition observed in the 2021 inspection. Though there is no immediate concern, if it is left alone there could be a potential issue in the future. The source of the water leaking, and condition of the concrete should be investigated to determine an appropriate repair. Petrographic testing and a test pit behind the wing wall is highly recommended for the rust stain and water leakage at the noted crack/spall on the right wing wall, as it appears to be getting worse. A reinforcement corrosion assessment is also recommended for the rebar that is rusting along the noted crack. 4. Field measure, cut and re-adjust rotated fence extension on all wingwalls, and secure to prevent rotation. (239 LF) 4.3.3 Fish Ladder 1. Repair the leaking joints. 2. Repair the broken weld at the third steel brace from the north (0.17 LF) 3. Replace missing bolts and nuts with stainless steel hardware. (2 Ea.; 2 Ea.) 4.3.4 Spillway 1. None of the defects noted warrant repair. 4.4 Pedestrian Walkway 1. Repair the spalls throughout with concrete patching material (3 SF). 2. Repair the cracks throughout with pressure injected epoxy (79 LF). 3. Repair topside cracks on Span 1with concrete patching material. (4 LF) 4. Replace downstream top railing tee at pier 4 and between pier 9 and end wingwall with a galvanized tee. (3 Ea.) 5. Bolts should be checked, tightened, and replaced if missing on the railing system. 6. Fix spalls at pier 2, 6 and 8, and cracks on south downstream side of walkway with concrete patching material. (3 SF; 10 LF) 7. Joints at piers 2, 4, 6 and 8 need rerouting down the sides of the walkway on both the upstream side and downstream side, to keep the backer rod in place. The joint at pier 8 sealant on top of walkway needs to be removed and replaced. (8 LF; 3 LF) 4.5 Outlet Works 1. Repair the opening between the two trash rack panels (5 LF). 2. Continue to monitor the condition of the hardware for further deterioration or lack of function which would warrant repair. 4.6 Exit Channel 1. The two bushes just downstream of the spillway and adjacent to the fish ladder should be removed. 2. Bushes and woody weeds in the rip rap should be removed and controlled with herbicide. 3. Any bare spots along the exit channel should be remediated with rip rap or seeded. 4.7 Boat Dock 1. Repair the northwest dock pile with 40% section loss with a pile post repair. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc. Page 17 June 29, 2022 157

Item 4. 2. It is recommended to remove the boat dock decking and replace with pressure treated lumber and stainless-steel fasteners. (81 SF) 3. Remove and replace any rotted stringers that may not be visible due to decking. At a minimum replace the end stringers that touch the boat ramp. (8 LF) 4. Refasten end rub rail at NE side. (4 LF) 4.8 Concrete Slab on Grade Pad 1. No repairs are required. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc. Page 18 June 29, 2022 158

Item 4. 5.0 CLOSING This report has been prepared to provide the City of Dover with the results of observations and recommendations for remedial repairs that should be performed on the dam. This report is intended to provide the City of Dover with the necessary information to program on going repairs and maintenance of the dam. The report scope is limited to recommendations pertaining to specific scope of the project and the location described. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc. Page 19 June 29, 2022 159

Item 4. APPENDIX A Site Location Map 160

Item 4. Site Vicinity Map N Silver Lake Dam Dover, Delaware 161

Item 4. END OF APPENDIX A 162

Item 4. APPENDIX B Inspection Photos 163

Item 4. Photo 1. Overall view of left upstream slope Photo 2. Overall view of right upstream slope 164

Item 4. Photo 3. Debris and trash left upstream slope. Photo 4. Weeds between boat ramp and upstream left-wing wall 165

Item 4. Photo 5. Some bare spots above the rip rap left of the boat ramp Photo 6. Larger areas of bare ground above rip rap right of boat ramp 166

Item 4. Two-inch stump Photo 7. Woody stump near boat ramp sign Boat ramp undermined Asphalt to minimize undermining Photo 8. Undermining of lower right side of boat ramp where no asphalt was noted 167

Item 4. Photo 9. Crack on right side of boat ramp Photo 10. Weeds noted in left upstream rip rap near left wing wall 168

Item 4. Photo 11. Missing rip rap and bare areas above rip rap on right upstream slope Photo 12. Remains of a stump in right upstream slope 169

Item 4. Photo 13. Weeds in rip rap adjacent to right upstream wing wall Photo 14. Note missing rip rap where right upstream wing wall meets water. 170

Item 4. Photo 15. Concrete slab in crest of right embankment Photo 16. Alligator cracking in asphalt leading up to upper parking lot 171

Item 4. Photo 17. Alligator cracking in asphalt coming down from upper parking lot, bare ground around bollards Photo 18. Minor erosion, exposed roots and some mower disturbances left downstream slope 172

Item 4. Photo 19. Bare ground around bollards Photo 20. Mower disturbance under tree on left downstream slope 173

Item 4. Photo 21. Ponded water was noted at the toe of the left downstream slope near the lower parking lot. Photo 22. Repair of the previous erosion from upper to lower parking area 174

Item 4. Photo 23. Repair of the previous erosion from upper to lower parking area. Note slight erosion channel and exposed reinforcement net Photo 24. Weeds in rip rap in left downstream slope near fish ladder. 175

Item 4. Photo 25. No. 57 stone ground cover with weeds growing from it Photo 26. Stumps were noted in the fence near the fish ladder 176

Item 4. Photo 27. Bush growing near fish ladder sign Photo 28. Sidewalk undermined and mower disturbance in slope above sidewalk 177

Item 4. Photo 29. Fence post near fish ladder has become undermined. Note erosion and exposed roots. Photo 30. Erosion noted around newer rip rap. Mower disturbance on slope above near sidewalk. 178

Item 4. Photo 31. Weeds, vegitation and stumps noted in right downstream slope. Photo 32. Weeds, vegitation and stumps noted in right downstream slope. 179

Item 4. Photo 33. Erosion and exposed roots extend south toward the exit channel. Photo 34. Overall view of right upstream wing wall 180

Item 4. Photo 35. Overall view of left upstream wing wall Photo 36. Typical pop-out on left and right upstream wing walls 181

Item 4. Photo 37. Typical abrasion at waterline at right upstream wing wall. Photo 38. Crack in existing repair on left upstream wing wall 182

Item 4. Photo 39. Crack and efflorescence in existing repair on left wing wall underneath walkway Small spall Photo 39a. Abrasion at water line along left wing wall and small spall below second post from the north 183

Item 4. Photo 40. Concrete section loss near water line at right upstream wing wall Photo 41. Railing extension zip tied to old railing and bent reinforcement/bowed base plate 184

Item 4. Photo 42. Overall view of right downstream wing wall Photo 43. Overall view of left downstream wing wall and fish ladder 185

Item 4. Photo 44. Failed crack repairs on left downstream wing wall Photo 45. Vertical crack may connect to crack near 3rd fence post on left downstream wing wall. Note incipient spall and rust spot below crack. 186

Item 4. Horizontal cracks showing descaling Photo 45a. Three horizontal cracks show some descaling. Photo 45b. Delamination of right wing wall 9 feet from south end. 187

Item 4. Photo 45c. Bolts on base plates showing slight rust. Photo 45d. Railing extensions on both sides of the downstream wing walls look good. 188

Item 4. Photo 45e. Railing extensions twist at bottom of right downstream wing wall. Cap is missing on post in foreground. Photo 46. Crack near 3rd fence post on left downstream wing wall may connect to crack below. 189

Item 4. Photo 47. Prevously repaired cracks on top of right downstream wing wall require additional repair Photo 48. Third fish ladder brace from north has broken weld splice 190

Item 4. Photo 49. First fish ladder brace from north has been repaired Photo 50. Horizontal beams at bottom of fish ladder in good condition. Algae noted on vertical columns. 191

Item 4. Missing Nuts Missing Bolt Photo 51. Two missing nuts and one missing bolt on the top of fish ladder Moss growing on top side of fish ladder Photo 51a. Moss growing on top side of fish ladder. 192

Item 4. Photo 51a. Minor abrasion on chute near fish ladder Photo 52. Overall view of spillway 193

Item 4. Photo 53. Typical abrasion below water line Photo 54. Spall and exposed rebar on Span 1 194

Item 4. Photo 55. Existing repairs on east side of Pier 1 exhibits cracking Photo 56. Longitudinal cracking with rust and efflorescence for Span 2 195

Item 4. Photo 57. Spall within repair area on east face of Pier 2 Photo 58. Minor honeycombing and longitudinal cracks and efflorescence in repair area on underside of Span 3 196

Item 4. Photo 59. Longitudinal cracks and efflorescence on underside of Span 4 Photo 60. Longitudinal crack and efflorescence on underside of Span 5 197

Item 4. Photo 61. Corner abrasion on north west corner of Pier 5 Photo 62. Map cracking and efflorescence in repair area on underside of Span 7 198

Item 4. Photo 63. Edge abrasion on northeast corner of Pier 7 Photo 64. Map cracking and efflorescence on underside of Span 9 199

Item 4. Photo 65. Cracking on downstream side of walkway Photo 66. Crack on top side of walkway near Span 1 200

Item 4. Photo 67. Backer rod and spall on downstream side of Pier 2 Photo 67a. Small hairline crack between Piers 1 and 2. 201

Item 4. Photo 67b. Joint sealants at phies 2, 4 and 6 appear in good condition. Photo 67c. Crack repair between Piers 6 and 7 appears to be in fair condition. 202

Item 4. Photo 67d. Spall at Pier 8 joint on downstream side. Photo 67e. Joint at Pier 8 is beginning to fail. 203

Item 4. Photo 67f. Sluice gate was opened by the City of Dover. Photo 68. Opening on north side of outlet works trash rack 204

Item 4. Photo 69. Timber structure hardware in poor condition Photo 70. Timber structure hardware in poor condition 205

Item 4. Photo 71. Timber structure hardware in poor condition Photo 72. Rip rap and stone near fish ladder 206

Item 4. Photo 73. Bushes in center of spillway Photo 74 Bare spots on left side of exit channel 207

Item 4. Photo 75. Bare spots on right side of exit channel Photo 76. Stringers touching boat ramp exhibit some rot 208

Item 4. END OF APPENDIX B 209

Item 4. APPENDIX C Delaware Dam Safety Inspection Checklist 210

Item 4. Delaware Dam Safety Program Visual Inspection Checklist This general checklist should be used as an aid when examining all dams. This checklist may not, however, include all features or conditions found at a specific dam that are relevant to the safety of that dam. All features integral to the safety of the dam being examined should be inspected and their condition reported. TYPE OF INSPECTION: (Regular, Formal or Informal): FORMAL DE INSPECTION YEAR: 2022 DAM NAME: Silver Lake Dam NID ID: S137 STATE ID: DE00031 LOCATION: St. Jones River, Dover DE OWNER: The City of Dover, DE OPERATOR: DATE OF INSPECTION: May 19, 2022 RESERVOIR INFORMATION Normal Reservoir Elevation (ft): N/A Reservoir Elevation at time of inspection (ft): N/A WEATHER CONDITIONS (including recent rainfall): Sunny, 70 degrees F Page 1 211

INSPECTION PERSONNEL Item 4. Delaware Licensed Professional Engineer(s): Name Affiliation Michael E. Leffler, P.E. Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc. Assisted By: Name Affiliation Patrick E. Ostrowski, P.E. Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc. Danielle Brady, P.E. Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc. Szymon Saniewski, EIT Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc. DNREC Dam Safety Program Representative(s): Name Affiliation Dam Owner Representative(s): Name Affiliation Paul Thompson Dover DPW Others: Name Affiliation Page 2 212

2008 DELAWARE DAM INVENTORY INFORMATION (provided by DNREC if available): Item 4. HISTORY Date Constructed: 1944 Dates(s) Reconstructed: N/A Designer: N/A Constructed By: N/A Owner & Address: The City of Dover, DE 19903 Owner/Operator present during inspection (yes or no): Yes PREVIOUS INSPECTIONS Last Inspection: Last Regular Inspection: Phase I Inspection: January 1978 Last Formal Inspection: June 28, 2022 List all recommendations from previous inspection reports and note whether those items have been completed: Completed Repairs: 1. Spalls in left upstream and downstream wingwalls appear to have been repaired with epoxy concrete. 2. Some cracks in left upstream wingwall appear to have been repaired with pressure injected epoxy. 3. City of Dover has indicated that some investigation has occurred to determine the source of water in the area of the rust spot on the right downstream wingwall to determine the appropriate repair. 4. The joint delamination of Pier 6 appears to have been repaired. 5. The crack on Span 4 appears to have been repaired. Immediate Repairs No immediate repairs required. Non-Immediate Repairs Upstream Slope 1. All weeds noted within the rip rap should be controlled with herbicide and removed. Not completed. 2. The trash that has accumulated along the water line at the west end of the left embankment. Continue to monitor – some trash was noted during the inspection. 3. Seed the areas of bare ground on the left and right embankments. Not completed. 4. The small stump near the signs near the boat ramp can be left in place provided it is no longer alive and should be monitored periodically. Continue to monitor. 5. Repair the crack noted on the right side of the boat ramp. Not completed. 6. Asphalt should be placed along the lower right edge of the boat ramp in a similar fashion to other areas of the slab. Not completed. 7. Consideration should be given to repair the asphalt roadway along the crest of the embankment. Not completed. 8. Depressions in the crest should be monitored periodically. Continue to monitor. 9. Any gaps present in the rip rap along the right upstream slope should be filled with additional rip rap. Not completed. 10. The stump noted above the rip rap on the right upstream slope can remain provided it is no longer alive and should be monitored periodically. Continue to monitor. 11. The missing rip rap where the right upstream wing wall meets the water should be replaced. Not completed. Dam Crest 1. Depressions that were noted in previous inspections were not noted. Continue to monitor. Downstream Slope 1. All weeds noted within the rip rap should be removed and controlled with herbicide so future weeds do not grow. Not completed. 2. Any bare spots should be seeded and covered with new grass, including any eroded areas, areas disturbed by mowing operations, or around bollards. Not completed. Page 3 213

3. The undermined sidewalk near the fence adjacent to the fish ladder should be remediated/backfilled. Not Item 4. completed. 4. The woody bushes/weeds that were noted growing in the fence that cordons off the bottom of the fish ladder and near the fish ladder sign can be left in place provided they are no longer alive and should be monitored periodically. Continue to monitor. 5. The No. 57 stone that is being used as ground cover inside the fence adjacent to the fish ladder is allowing weeds to grow. The weeds should be removed and controlled with herbicide. Consideration should be given to replacing the No. 57 stone with grass seed or rip rap to minimize the potential for weed growth. Continue to monitor. 6. The undermined fence post at the southern end of the chain link fence adjacent to the fish ladder should be remediated. The eroded areas noted in the area of the fence post and the eroded area south of the fence that extends to the exit channel should be remediated. Not completed. 7. Continue to monitor the eroded area adjacent to the upper parking lot that has been remediated for further signs of erosion. Repair the soil reinforcement netting in this location. Continue to monitor/not completed. Upstream Face and Wing Walls 1. Repair the cracks throughout, above and below water, with pressure injected epoxy (12 LF). Not completed. 2. Repair the random pop-outs throughout with non-shrink grout (2 SF). Not completed. Downstream Face and Wing Walls 1. Repair the cracks throughout with pressure injected epoxy (36 LF). Not completed. Fish Ladder 1. Repair the leaking joints. Not completed. 2. Repair the broken weld at the third steel brace from the north (0.17 LF) Not completed. Spillway 1. None of the defects noted warrant repair. Continue to monitor. Pedestrian Walkway 1. Repair the spalls throughout with non-shrink grout (3 SF). Not completed. 2. Repair the cracks throughout with pressure injected epoxy (79 LF). Not completed. 3. Replace downstream top railing tee at pier 4 and between pier 9 and end wingwall with a galvanized tee. Not completed. 4. Bolts should be checked, tightened, and replaced if missing on the railing system. Not completed. Outlet Works 1. Repair the opening between the two trash rack panels (5 LF). Not completed. 2. Continue to monitor the condition of the hardware for further deterioration or lack of function which would warrant repair. Not completed. Exit Channel 1. The rip rap, other smaller stone and the two bushes just downstream of the spillway and adjacent to the fish ladder should be removed. Not completed. 2. Bushes and woody weeds should be removed and controlled with herbicide. Not completed. 3. Any bare spots along the exit channel should be remediated with rip rap or seeded. Not completed. Boat Dock 1. Repair the northwest dock pile that exhibits 40% section loss. Not completed. 2. Remove and replace rotted stringers that touch the concrete boat ramp and any rotten stringers that are hidden by the decking. Not completed. EMERGENCY ACTION PLAN (Required for all High and Significant Hazard dams) Date of Approved Plan: N/A Date of Plan Revision: N/A Is the notification flowchart complete and current? (If the notification flow chart is not complete and current, all modifications, corrections, and additions must be made and replacement pages submitted with this report) Is inundation mapping or a description included? N/A Page 4 214

Are emergency materials and equipment identified? When was the plan last tested? N/A Item 4. DOWNSTREAM HAZARD CLASSIFICATIONS Present Hazard Classification: High Changes in Downstream Land Use and Habitation: No Is present classification appropriate? Yes OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE Date of Operation and Maintenance Plan: N/A Are instructions adequate? N/A Do operating personnel follow instructions? N/A What are operating personnel capabilities? N/A Page 5 215

EXAMINATION OF EMBANKMENT DAMS Item 4. DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE Embankment Material: Earth Cutoff Type: Unknown Impervious Core: Unknown Internal Drainage System: Drainage system outlets were not observed which may indicate one is not present. Movement (Horizontal and Vertical Alignment): None observed Junctions with Abutments or Embankments: Miscellaneous: Good condition with some erosion around the previously placed rip rap along the wing walls. CREST Vertical Alignment: Good Horizontal Alignment: Good Surface Cracks: None observed Settlement: None observed Unusual Conditions: None observed UPSTREAM SLOPE Slope (Estimate) (H:V): 3H:1V Trees, Undesirable Growth or Debris, Animal Burrows: Upstream Slope in good to very good condition except as noted below. No animal burrows observed. 1. The rip-rap on both left and right slopes appeared to be in good condition, with some small to medium weeds noted. 2. Trash and debris accumulation was noted in the water at the end of the left upstream embankment. 3. Some small to moderate bare spots were noted in the upstream right embankment approximately 100 feet right of the wing wall. 4. New grass seed in areas adjacent to boat ramp should be monitored for growth Sloughing, Subsidence or Depressions: None observed. Slope Protection: Rip rap at water line was in good condition with some weeds growing between rip rap stones. Some rip rap was noted to be missing about 100 feet from the right wing wall and where the right wing wall meets the water. Surface Cracks or Movement at Toe: None Observed. Unusual Conditions: None Observed. DOWNSTREAM SLOPE Slope (Estimate) (H:V): Variable 2H:1V to flatter than 5H:1V Trees, Undesirable Growth or Debris, Animal Burrows: Downstream Slope in good condition except as noted below. No animal burrows observed. 1. All weeds noted within the rip rap and No. 57 stone ground cover should be controlled with herbicide Page 6 216

and removed. Item 4. 2. Any bare spots on either side should be covered with new grass. 3. The woody bushes/weeds that were noted growing in the fence that cordons off the bottom of the fish ladder and near the fish ladder sign can be left in place provided they are no longer alive and should be monitored periodically. Sloughing, Subsidence or Depressions: None Observed. Surface Cracks or Movement at Toe: None Observed. Seepage: None Observed. External Drainage System (Ditches, Trenches, Blanket): None Observed. Condition Around Outlet Structure: Stilling Basin at toe of concrete spillway in good conditions. No signs of seepage, boils or undermining of the concrete spillway. Unusual Conditions: None Observed. ABUTMENTS AND TOE AREA Erosion at Contract: None Observed. Seepage or Wet Area Along Contract: None Observed. Signs of Movement: None Observed. Depressions, Sinkholes: None Observed. Unusual Conditions: None Observed. SEEPAGE OR TOE DRAIN FLOW MEASUREMENTS Location Estimated Flow Color (Turbidity) OTHER CONDITIONS/OBSERVATIONS: NONE Page 7 217

EXAMINATION OF SPILLWAYS AND OUTLET WORKS Item 4. TYPE(S) AND DESCRIPTION OF SPILLWAY(S) Primary: Concrete Dam Spillway with base flow chute with flash boards on west side of spillway Secondary (auxiliary): None Emergency: Combined with Primary Spillway Low Level Outlet (flashboards, operable gates, etc.): Wood riser structure with sluice gate Other: FOR EACH SPILLWAY THE FOLLOWING ASPECTS MUST BE EXAMINED WHERE APPROPRIATE ENTRANCE CHANNEL Description: Cast in place concrete wing walls Vegetation (Trees, Bushes): None Observed Debris: None Observed Channel Side-Slope Stability: Concrete Wing walls were observed to be vertical and in good to very good condition.Slope Protection/Erosion: Unusual Conditions: Minor erosion around existing rip rap along left and right wingwalls SPILLWAY CREST Description: Concrete Condition of Material: 1. Water was breaching overtop the crest of the spillway; therefore, could not clearly see the concrete surface. 2. 2. The mudline is protected with approximately 1’ to 1 ½’ nominal size stone rip rap except, between spans 2 through 4 in which the mudline is sand and silt. Signs of Movement: None Observed Joints: Good condition Unusual Conditions: None Observed DROP BOX: N/A Description: N/A Condition of Material: N/A Signs of Movement: N/A Joints: N/A Floor: N/A Unusual Conditions: N/A Page 8 218

SPILLWAY WING WALLS Item 4. Description: Concrete Condition of Material: 1. There is a 4.0’L up to 1.0”W horizontal crack 5.0’ south of the north end of the left wingwall, 1.4’ above the mudline. 2. Both wingwalls have random pop-outs up to 3.0”D throughout (Photo 36) 3. The left and right wingwalls exhibits abrasion up to ½”D at the waterline and a 3.5’L fine vertical crack 10.0’ south of the north end. 4. The crack repair at the top of the left wingwall at midspan exhibits a 2.0’L fine vertical crack. Also, the crack repair under the walkway on the left wingwall exhibits a 2.53’L fine vertical crack with efflorescence. 5. The right wingwall exhibits a 6.0”H x 2.0’L x 1.0”D area of heavy abrasion with exposed aggregate 1.0’ above the mudline and 10.0’ south of the north end of the right wingwall. 6. The upstream face of the spillway is protected by 1.0 to 1.5’ nominal size stone riprap for the full length of the spillway with parts of the riprap being silted over. 7. The left wingwall exhibits a 0.6’H x full length x ¼”D band of abrasion at the waterline. 8. The upstream face is in good condition with areas of mild abrasion up to ¼” deep (D). Signs of Movement: None observed Joints: See above Drains: See above Unusual Conditions: None observed DOWNSTREAM APRON Description: Concrete Condition of Material: Could not be observed due to water flow. Signs of Movement: Could not be observed due to water flow. Unusual Conditions: Could not be observed due to water flow. CULVERTS Description: 24-inch diameter cast iron pipe from low level outlet works penetrates downstream apron. Condition of Material: Could not be observed due to water flow Joints: Could not observe. Recommend next inspection include video inspection of inside of the pipe Signs of Movement: None observed Seepage: None observed Location Estimated Flow Turbidity Unusual Conditions: None observed TRASH RACKS Description: N/A Page 9 219

Condition of Material: N/A Item 4. Unusual Conditions: N/A CHUTES Description: Base flow concrete chute located on west side of downstream apron with wood flash boards Condition of Material: Signs of Movement: N/A Unusual Conditions: N/A Page 10 220

Item 4. STILLING BASIN Description: 6 to 18-inch size stone riprap Condition of Material: Good with no signs of seepage and boils observed to be present Signs of Movement: None observed Erosion: None observed Unusual Conditions: None observed EXIT CHANNEL Vegetation (Trees, Bushes): Some minor vegetation was observed to be growing in riprap that lined the entrance channel at the end of the wing walls for the downstream apron. Debris: None observed Channel Side-Slope Stability: Good Condition. No signs of stability problems Erosion: Some erosion and bare spots noted Unusual Conditions: None observed LOW LEVEL OUTLET Description: Wood riser structure with sluice gate Condition: 1. The trash racks around the perimeter of the outlet works and the lack of water clarity prevented the diver from inspecting the interior portions of outlet works. 2. The sluice gate was successfully opened and closed by personnel with the City of Dover. 3. The wooden outlet structure is in satisfactory condition. There is a light covering of soft marine growth and minor checks in the timber elements wit up to 1/16”D penetration with an awl. 4. The timber structure’s galvanized hardware is in poor condition below the waterline with up to 30% section loss. 5. The floor slab exhibits minor abrasion with exposed aggregate and was covered with silt up to 0.17’H at the time of inspection. 6. The outlet work piles exhibit 1/8”W checking. The diver was unable to verify the previously noted 50% section loss at the right downstream pile due to lack of access. 7. The outlet works is armored with riprap around it’s perimeter, and the riprap is covered with silt up to 0.25’H. Trash Rack: The outlet works trash rack on the north face exhibit an opening between the two panels for 0.17’H x 5.0’L. Leakage: None observed Location Estimated Flow Unusual Conditions: Page 11 221

Item 4. Was the low level outlet operated during the inspection? Sluice gate was opened and closed by the City of Dover Were there difficulties operating the low level outlet? No When was the low level outlet last operated and did this conform with the Operation and Maintenance procedures? Unknown Miscellaneous: None Page 12 222

STILLING BASIN FOR LOW LEVEL OUTLET Item 4. Description: Combined with stilling basin for combined principal and emergency spillways. See description above. Condition of Material: 1. The exit channel was observed to be in good condition. 2. The banks of the channel were lined with 1 to 2-foot diameter size riprap observed to be in good condition. 3. Several bare spots and some weeds were noted in the landscape areas directly adjacent to the riprap along the banks of the channel Signs of Movement: None observed Erosion: None observed Unusual Conditions: None observed EXIT CHANNEL FOR LOW LEVEL OUTLET Description (Trees, Bushes): N/A Debris: N/A Channel Side-Slope Stability: N/A Slope Protection Erosion: N/A Unusual Conditions: N/A Page 13 223

Item 4. EXAMINATION OF CONCRETE AND MASONRY DAMS DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE Type of Dam (Gravity, Arch, etc.): Internal Drainage System: Movement (Horizontal and Vertical Alignment): Miscellaneous: UPSTREAM FACE Condition of Concrete or Masonry: Cracking: Location Orientation Length Width Type DOWNSTREAM FACE Condition of Concrete or Masonry: Cracking: Location Orientation Length Width Type Leakage through Dam (Location and Estimated Flow): CREST Condition of Concrete or Masonry: Cracking Location Orientation Length Width Type Signs of Movement: Differential Movement (Joint or Crack Separation or Offset): GALLERIES Cracking Location Orientation Length Width Type Differential Movement (Joint or Crack Separation): Leakage into Galleries (Location and Estimated Flow): Condition of Gallery Drains: Page 14 224

Item 4. FOUNDATION Condition of Rock or Concrete Lining: Cracking: Signs of Movement: Seepage (Location and Estimated Flow): ABUTMENTS AND TOE AREA Seepage or Wet Areas: Signs of Movement: Cracking: Erosion: Unusual Conditions: Page 15 225

Item 4. EXAMINATION OF OTHER FEATURES INSTRUMENTATION (Monumentation/Surveys, Observation Wells, Weirs, Piezometers, etc.) location, condition: No Instrumentations except for reservoir staff gauge was present (A separate report including instrument readings, condition of instruments, observations, and conclusions based upon the collected data should be attached.) RESERVOIR Slopes: Good condition Sedimentation: Could not be observed Unusual Conditions Which Affect Dam: Non observed Other Unusual Conditions: None observed APPURTENANT STRUCTURES Description and Condition of Each: Fish Ladder 1. The stainless-steel fish ladder was in fair condition. The top and side seem to be starting to rust. 2. The fish ladder steel support members and hardware exhibit moderate corrosion with up to 10% section loss. 3. The fish ladder is leaking from most of the joints. 4. The third fish ladder steel brace from north exhibits a 2.0”L x ¼”W broken weld splice. (Photo 48) 5. The previously mentioned broken weld at the first brace from north has been repaired. (Photo 49) 6. The stainless-steel fish ladder was in fair condition. The top and side seem to be starting to rust. 7. The left bottom bolt is missing from the plate fourth down to the south side. 8. The horizontal beams at the bottom of the ladder are in good condition and painted. There is algae on the bottom vertical columns. (Photo 50 ) 9. On the top of the fish ladder, two nuts are missing on the west side and one bolt is missing on the east side. (Photo 51 ) 10. Moss growing on top and side of middle section of the fish ladder. 11. Concrete flow chute, next to fish ladder spillway has minor abrasion. There is also a log stuck at the top of the concrete the fish ladder rests on the top of the downstream side. Pedestrian Walkway 1. The concrete surfaces below water exhibit abrasion up to ½”D with exposed aggregate on all piers. 2. The underside of the deck in span 1 exhibits a 2.0’L x 1.0’W x 2.0”D spall with exposed and corroded rebar and midspan. (Photo 54) 3. The east face of pier 1 exhibits several fine vertical cracks within the repaired area. (Photo 55) 4. The underside of the deck in span 2 exhibits several longitudinal cracks up to 6.0’L x 1/8”W with rust staining and efflorescence. (Photo 56) 5. The east face of pier 2 exhibits a shallow spall 0.3’H x 3.0’L x 0.08’D along the underside of the deck and within the failed repair area. (Photo 57) Page 16 226

Item 4. 6. The underside of the deck in span 3 exhibits several 6.0’L x 1/8”W longitudinal cracks with efflorescence in the failed repair area. (Photo 58) 7. The underside of the deck in span 3 exhibits minor honeycombing. 8. The underside of the deck in span 4 exhibits several longitudinal cracks up to 10.0’L x 1/8”W with efflorescence. (Photo 59) 9. The underside of the deck at the east end of span 5 exhibits a 4.0’L fine longitudinal crack with efflorescence. (Photo 60) 10. The repair on the north nose of pier 5 exhibits corner abrasion. (Photo 61) 11. The underside of the deck in span 6 exhibits several fine to 1/16”W longitudinal cracks up to 3.0’L with efflorescence. 12. The underside of the deck in span 7 exhibits minor map cracking with efflorescence (Photo 62) 13. The northeast corner of pier 7 exhibits 0.42’H x 0.17’ x 0.83’D edge abrasion. (Photo 63) 14. The west end of the underside of the deck in span 9 exhibits map cracking with efflorescence. (Photo 64) 15. The underside of the deck in span 10 exhibits abrasion with exposed aggregate for 2.0’L x 1.0’W x 0.13’D. 16. Posts and railings have lost galvanization and have section loss in sections of rails. The downstream top railing tee is rusted through at pier 4 and between pier 9 and the end wingwall. At pier 2 on the downstream side top railing, there is a bolt extruding out. There is also a bolt missing on the downstream top railing side. The previous repaired spalls on the topside of the walkway appear to be in good condition. 17. The downstream side of the walkway has hairline cracks at the West end, on span 1, 1.5’L, and a crack 2’L on span 2 with a spall starting to form, and a 2’L crack from a previous repair that water has seeped through onto the side of the walkway. (Photo 65) 18. On the topside of the walkway near span 1, is a 3’L crack. (Photo 66) 19. On the topside of the walkway at span 1, the previously repaired crack has failed on the north side, 1.5’L. 20. On the side of the walkway at pier 2 the backer rod seems to be exposed and joint failing and previous patch failing. There is a 1’x1’ spall at pier 2, on the downstream side of the walkway. (Photo 67) 21. There is a small hairline crack between pier 1 & 2 and previous cracks routed and sealed are in fair condition. 22. Joints at pier 2, 4 and 6 sealants are in good condition on the top side of the walkway. 23. Between pier 6 & 7 on the top side there is a crack in fair condition. 24. There is a 1’x1’ spall at pier 8 at the joint, on the downstream side of the walkway. 25. The Joint at pier 8 is failing and starting to peal up. Page 17 227

RECOMMENDATIONS Item 4. THE FOLLOWING REPAIRS SHOULD BE MADE IMMEDIATELY: No immediate repairs required. THE FOLLOWING NON-IMMEDIATE REPAIRS/IMPROVEMENTS SHOULD BE MADE: Upstream Slope 1. All weeds noted within the rip rap should be controlled with herbicide and removed. 2. The trash that has accumulated along the water line at the west end of the left embankment should be removed. 3. Seed the areas of bare ground on the left and right embankments. 4. The small stump near the signs near the boat ramp can be left in place provided it is no longer alive and should be monitored periodically. 5. Repair the crack noted on the right side of the boat ramp. 6. Asphalt should be placed along the lower right edge of the boat ramp in a similar fashion to other areas of the slab. 7. Consideration should be given to repair the asphalt roadway along the crest of the embankment. 8. A depression that was holding water was noted in the left portion of the crest of the left embankment in the 2019 report but was not noted during the current inspection. Depressions in the crest should be monitored periodically. 9. Any gaps present in the rip rap along the right upstream slope should be filled with additional rip rap. 10. The stump noted above the rip rap on the right upstream slope can remain provided it is no longer alive and should be monitored periodically. 11. The missing rip rap where the right upstream wing wall meets the water should be replaced. Dam Crest 1. The crest appears to be in good condition. The crest should continue to be monitored for any depressions as indicated in previous inspections. Downstream Slope 1. All weeds noted within the rip rap should be removed and controlled with herbicide so future weeds do not grow. 2. Any bare spots should be seeded and covered with new grass, including any eroded areas, areas disturbed by mowing operations, or around bollards. 3. The undermined sidewalk near the fence adjacent to the fish ladder should be remediated/backfilled. 4. The woody bushes/weeds that were noted growing in the fence that cordons off the bottom of the fish ladder and near the fish ladder sign can be left in place provided they are no longer alive and should be monitored periodically. 5. The No. 57 stone that is being used as ground cover inside the fence adjacent to the fish ladder is allowing weeds to grow. The weeds should be removed and controlled with herbicide. Consideration should be given to replacing the No. 57 stone with grass seed or rip rap to minimize the potential for weed growth. 6. The rip rap appears to be sparce or may have been filled in the areas adjacent to the fish ladder on the left downstream slope. Additionally, rip rap has been placed only along a portion of the right downstream wing wall and appears to be sparce at the toe of the right downstream wing wall. A study should be performed to determine if additional rip rap should be added and/or replaced. 7. The undermined fence post at the southern end of the chain link fence adjacent to the fish ladder should be remediated. The eroded areas noted in the area of the fence post and the eroded area south of the fence that extends to the exit channel should be remediated. 8. Continue to monitor the eroded area adjacent to the upper parking lot that has been remediated for further signs of erosion. Repair the soil reinforcement netting in this location. Upstream Face and Wing Walls 1. Repair the cracks throughout, above and below water, with pressure injected epoxy (19 LF). 2. Repair the random pop-outs throughout with concrete patching material (2 SF). 3. Repair the two cracks on the left upstream wing wall with concrete patching material. (8 SF) 4. Repair the pop-out where the wall starts to slope down 2 feet below the top of the wall near railing post on the upstream right-wing wall with concrete patching material. (1 SF) 5. The upstream right-wing wall from where the section loss starts into the water should be repaired with epoxy Page 18 228

concrete. (25 CF) Item 4. 6. Field measure, cut and re-adjust rotated fence extension on all wingwalls, and secure to prevent rotation. (195 LF) 7. On the left upstream wing wall, instead of zip tying the new railing to the posts the new railing that extends past the post should be measured and cut to size in the field to make the new cap be in line with the posts therefore aligning new railing system. 8. On the right upstream wing wall move old railing system up, tighten bracket so new extended railing is aligned with post. 9. Bolts should be checked, tightened, and replaced if missing on the railing system. 10. Rusted bolts in the baseplate should be cleaned and galvanized and rusted washers and nuts to be replaced. (32 Ea., 40 Ea.) Downstream Face and Wing Walls 1. Repair the cracks throughout with pressure injected epoxy (44 LF). 2. Delamination location should be repaired on right downstream wing wall with concrete patching material. (2 SF) 3. The rust stain, efflorescence, and water leakage on the SW concrete wingwall appears to be originating from a crack/spall in the concrete/ which suggests water is penetrating from the earth side of the wall. The condition of the rust stain and water leakage appears similar to the condition observed in the 2021 inspection. Though there is no immediate concern, if it is left alone there could be a potential issue in the future. The source of the water leaking, and condition of the concrete should be investigated to determine an appropriate repair. Petrographic testing and a test pit behind the wing wall is highly recommended for the rust stain and water leakage at the noted crack/spall on the right wing wall, as it appears to be getting worse. A reinforcement corrosion assessment is also recommended for the rebar that is rusting along the noted crack. 4. Field measure, cut and re-adjust rotated fence extension on all wingwalls, and secure to prevent rotation. (239 LF) Fish Ladder 1. Repair the leaking joints. 2. Repair the broken weld at the third steel brace from the north (0.17 LF) 3. Replace missing bolts and nuts with stainless steel hardware. Spillway 1. None of the defects noted warrant repair. Pedestrian Walkway 1. Repair the spalls throughout with concrete patching material (3 SF). 2. Repair the cracks throughout with pressure injected epoxy (79 LF). 3. Repair topside cracks on Span 1with concrete patching material. (4 LF) 4. Replace downstream top railing tee at pier 4 and between pier 9 and end wingwall with a galvanized tee. (3 Ea.) 5. Bolts should be checked, tightened, and replaced if missing on the railing system. 6. Fix spalls at pier 2, 6 and 8, and cracks on south downstream side of walkway with concrete patching material. (3 SF; 10 LF) 7. Joints at piers 2, 4, 6 and 8 need rerouting down the sides of the walkway on both the upstream side and downstream side, to keep the backer rod in place. The joint at pier 8 sealant on top of walkway needs to be removed and replaced. (8 LF; 3 LF) Outlet Works 1. Repair the opening between the two trash rack panels (5 LF). 2. Continue to monitor the condition of the hardware for further deterioration or lack of function which would warrant repair. Exit Channel 1. The rip rap, other smaller stone and the two bushes just downstream of the spillway and adjacent to the fish ladder should be removed. 2. Bushes and woody weeds in the rip rap should be removed and controlled with herbicide. 3. Any bare spots along the exit channel should be remediated with rip rap or seeded. Boat Dock 1. Repair the northwest dock pile with 40% section loss with a pile post repair. 2. It is recommended to remove the boat dock decking and replace with pressure treated lumber and stainless-steel fasteners. (81 SF) 3. Remove and replace any rotted stringers that may not be visible due to decking. At a minimum replace the end stringers that touch the boat ramp. (8 LF) Page 19 229

4. Refasten end rub rail at NE side. (4 LF) Item 4. Concrete Slab on Grade Pad 1. No repairs are required. THE FOLLOWING MAINTENANCE ITEMS SHOULD BE COMPLETED: 1. Area where new grass seed has been planted should be monitored for growth 2. Weeds growing from the joints between the rip rap stones should be removed and maintained to prevent further growth. THE FOLLOWING ENGINEERING ANALYSIS/STUDIES SHOULD BE PERFORMED: □ Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis YES □ Embankment Stability Analysis □ Dam Failure Analysis/Inundation Mapping YES □ Other: Structural design of concrete walkway over concrete spillway □ None Page 20 230

CONDITION ASSESSMENT Item 4. Silver Lake Dam was personally inspected by me and was found to be in the following condition (select one only): □ SATISFACTORY No existing or potential dam safety deficiencies are recognized. Acceptable performance is expected under all loading conditions (static, hydrologic, seismic) in accordance with the applicable regulatory criteria or tolerable risk guidelines. X FAIR No existing dam safety deficiencies are recognized for normal loading conditions. Rare or extreme hydrologic and/or seismic events may result in a dam safety deficiency. Risk may be in the range to take further action. □ POOR A dam safety deficiency is recognized for loading conditions which may realistically occur. Remedial action is necessary. POOR may also be used when uncertainties exist as to critical analysis parameters which identify a potential dam safety deficiency. Further investigations and studies are necessary. □ UNSATISFACTORY A dam safety deficiency is recognized that requires immediate or emergency remedial action for problem resolution. Delaware Registered Professional Engineer Performing Condition Assessment: Name Michael E. Leffler DE PE License Number 16329 Affiliation (Agency/Company) Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc. Signature Date June 29, 2022 Delaware Dam Safety Program Concurrence with Condition Assessment: Name DE PE License Number Signature Date Dam Owner Acknowledgement of Condition Assessment: Name Title Signature Date Page 21 231

Item 4. END OF APPENDIX C 232

Item 4. APPENDIX D Cost Estimate 233

Item 4. Appendix D - Cost Estimate Item Description Estimated Cost Rip Rap Installation Clearing and Grubbing $ 1,500 Geotextiles $ 1,000 R-5 Rip Rap $ 9,800 Turbidity Curtain $ 8,400 Stabilize Slope Grading $ 3,200 Borrow, Type F $ 880 Topsoil (6" Depth) $ 4,200 Streambank Seed Mix, Seeding $ 2,700 Boat Ramp Repair Repair NW Dock Pile $ 3,250 Replace Decking with Pressure Treated Lumber/Stainless Fasteners $ 6,075 Replace Stringers $ 360 Rehabilitate Piers and Walkway Shallow Concrete Spall/Delamination/Pop-out Repair $ 345 Epoxy Injection Crack Repair $ 3,915 Wing Walls Shallow Concrete Spall/Delamination/Pop-out Repair $ 1,495 Epoxy Injection Crack Repair $ 4,400 Repair Right Upsream Wing Wall Section Loss with Epoxy Concrete $ 8,125 Petrographic Testing $ 1,800 Test Pit $ 2,200 Rust Spot Repair* $ 4,700 Fish Ladder Repair Repair Leaking Joints $ 3,000 Repair Broken Weld at 3rd Brace From North $ 2,250 *It is assumed that the rust spot on the wing wall can be repaired by epoxy injection and that no repair to the rebar is necessary. If petrographic testing indicates otherwise, the cost to repair the rebar and to fill in the hole could be much higher. Pricing assumes all fo the work will be cmpleted together. Individual selections of work amy increase cost. 234

Item 4. END OF APPENDIX D 235

Item 1. COMMITTEE ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Council Committee of the Whole - Legislative, Finance and Administrative Committee DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Electric DATE SUBMITTED: October 31, 2022 PREPARED BY: Paul Waddell, Electric Director SUBJECT: Increased Purchase Cost of Electric Truck, more than 15% REFERENCE: N/A RELATED PROJECT: N/A REVIEWED BY: David S. Hugg, III, City Manager & Lori Peddicord, Controller EXHIBITS: Estimate of purchase cost from Altec Industries Inc. through Sourcewell. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: As required AMOUNT BUDGETED: $364.500 FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): Electric/page 167, Electric T & D; listed as line items 2010 Digger Veh #775 $440.166 would be charged against 411-42-82-99-000-54025. TIMETABLE: Award upon Council Approval RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approving the additional cost of $75,707.76 to purchase the Digger Truck Veh #775 utilizing the funds designated for the purchase of the 2013 F550 Veh #778 and pushing the purchase of Veh #778 to FY24 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS The Electric Department maintains a fleet of special use vehicles designed to perform specific functions related to overhead and underground electrical line work. Vehicle #775 is utilized as a heavy lift truck used for setting poles up to 90ft and equipment such as large three phase transformers. A quote for this vehicle was received on October 27, 2021, for $364,458.24 and was approved in the FY23 budget. In early August, the Electric Dept contacted Altec to order this vehicle and were informed Altec could not honor the original quote from last October due to the rising cost of manufacturing materials. We received an updated quote on August 22, 2022, for $440,166.00 an increase of $75,707.76 or about 21%. The Electric Department’s solution to this problem would be to delay the purchase of vehicle #778 also approved for FY23 at $214,384.00 until FY24 and use this money to make up the increase of Truck #775. 236

Item 3. ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Council Committee of the Whole DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Planning and Inspections DATE SUBMITTED: November 10, 2022 PREPARED BY: Mary Ellen Gray, Director of Planning, Inspections and Community Development SUBJECT: Code Revision: Appendix B Zoning, Article 3 Section 20A, Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone – Technology Center (IPM2) REFERENCE: N/A RELATED PROJECT: N/A REVIEWED BY: EXHIBITS: Ordinance #2022-21 EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: n/a AMOUNT BUDGETED: n/a FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): n/a TIMETABLE: Review of Zoning Text Amendment in accordance with Zoning Ordinance Article 10 Section 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Referral of proposed zoning Text Amendment (Ordinance #2022-22) for First Reading and Public Hearings with Planning Commission and City Council Background of the IPM2 (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone – Technology Center) and the Garrison Oak Business and Technology Center The Garrison Oak Business and Technology Center (formerly known as the Garrison Oak Technical Park), was purchased by the city, with funding from the State, in 1999 and zoned as IPM2. This 400-acre site was funded through the State’s FY 2000 Bond Bill in the amount of $2,000,000 to facilitate the site acquisition The Bond Bill included epilogue language specifying that for at least a period of ten years that the site be used as a “high technology industrial park” targeted to information technology, life sciences, semiconductor fabrication, scientific research and development, and high-tech manufacturing. Its location on White Oak Road with potential access to State Route 1 has been identified by Dover and the State as a “potential location to promote economic activity.” Council adopted the ordinance creating the IPM2 zoning district on August 23, 1999 that put the zoning for the Garrison Oak Business and Technology Center (then known as the Garrison Oak Technical Park) in place. The allowed uses included: • Manufacturing and processing of biotechnology and related products; • Research, design, testing and development laboratories; • Offices for corporate support operations for financial services, insurance, and health care industries; and • Agricultural or farm uses. It should be noted that the Garrison Oak Business and Technology Center is the only tract of land in the City of Dover that is zoned IPM2. The Garrison Oak Business and Technology Center was subdivided into lots and infrastructure planned under development application SB-09-06. The IPM2 zoning district was revised by Council on October 12, 2009 (Ordinance #2009-18, MI-09-14). These revisions added electricity generation as a permitted use and modified the bulk standards by reducing the minimum lot size from 50 to 10 acres with a minimum width and depth of 100 feet.

Item 3. In December 2018, City Council adopted Resolution #2018-12 that modified the name of the Garrison Oak Technical Park facility to “Garrison Oak Business and Technology Center.” (Resolution attached) This Resolution also articulated that the City wanted to expand the purpose and nature of this site “…to reflect current business conditions and the changing marketplace, therefore improving its marketability…” This Resolution was part of a new marketing approach to secure occupants and a strategy linked to the research performed for the Kent Economic Partnership (KEP) that the area is best suited for growth prospects in the logistics, warehousing and distribution sector. Council adopted the amendments to the IPM2 zoning district (Ordinance #2019-15, MI-19-04) on September 9, 2019, which reflected the intent of Resolution #2018-12 and were identified in the economic assessment research performed for the Kent Economic Partnership. This revision changed the name of the zone to Industrial park manufacturing zone – Technology Center and added warehousing, transshipment, distribution, and logistics support, as well as business and professional services and data management as permitted uses. Source Water Protection Overlay Zone (SWPOZ) The eastern portion of this Garrison Oak Business and Technology Center is in a Tier 2 primary wellhead protection area in the Source Water Protection Overlay Zone (see map). The purpose of a Tier 2 area is to safeguard the potable water resources of Dover and Kent County through regulation of land use and development with zones of protection surrounding potable water supply well fields. Since the nearest wellfield is over 1 mile away; the enhanced protection requirements and immediately surrounding the wellhead likely do not apply. However, there are uses prohibited in the SWPOZ per Article 3 Section 29.. Proposed New Uses The Commercial Moving Experience Real Estate Company is the Broker of Record (Broker) has been working with potential buyers and tenants for the Garrison Oak Business and Technology Park. They have indicated through a letter to the City Manager received on September 20, 2022, that the current IPM2 zoning limits development opportunities due to restricted development opportunities. (letter attached) Furthermore that some of the potential purchasers uses have been denied due to zoning restrictions. A few of these potential users include: • Educational Facility • Athletic Fields • Self-Storage • Concrete Recycling • Contractor’s Yard In addition, the September 20, 2022 Letter suggests that the City consider some of these uses as Permitted Uses, Permitted Uses with Restrictions, and/or Conditional Uses without requiring a zoning change. A follow up letter dated October 7, 2022 was sent that included some suggested text language for the proposed uses described above. It also asked “to allow for an easy approval process for more modern parking requirements” and to add “printing, publishing, binding, packaging, storage, warehousing, transshipment and distribution, and trucking terminals.” (Letter attached) Staff Recommendation When this park was created and state tax dollars provided funds to facilitate the site acquisition, it was done so with the provision that the site be used as a high-technology industrial park. The 2018 Resolution and associated 2019 Ordinance modified and expanded that purpose to reflect current business conditions and the changing

Item 3. marketplace and added the uses of warehousing, transshipment, distribution, and logistics support, as well as business and professional services and data management as permitted uses. Planning Staff believes that any revisions to the IPM2 zoning district need to stay within these parameters. Planning Staff concurs with adding the following suggested uses and recommends them since these uses meet the intent and purpose of this zoning district: • Printing, publishing, binding, and packaging, , • Add trucking terminals to section 20A.16 Warehousing, transshipment and distribution, and logistics support is already an allowed use in IMP2 ; • Building contractor’s yard as a conditional use; and • Vocational education facility. In addition, in reviewing this Code, planning staff thought it would be helpful to suggest some additional revisions to the IPM2 zoning district. Planning staff believes that these changes and additional uses will potentially expand the market potential of this site. These suggested changes include: • Add a purpose section per the suggestion of Councilman Taylor and Councilman Anderson; • Clarify the definition of allowed manufacturing uses; • Add the following uses: o Cafeterias and recreational facilities for the exclusive use of employee as an accessory use; o Retail component that is associated with a business as a conditional use; and o Craft distillery and microbrewery as a conditional use a. Uses Not Recommended Planning Staff does not recommend including Athletic Fields, Indoor Recreation, Self-storage, or Concrete Recycling for this zoning district since these uses do not meet the intent and purpose of this zoning district. Planning Staff recognizes that there is a market for these uses. Below is a list of zoning districts where these uses are currently allowed except for concrete recycling which is not allowed in any district currently. Planning staff recommends that this use be considered as a conditional use in the Manufacturing zoning district in the future. • Athletic Fields - Athletic Fields are currently allowed in Institutional and Office (IO) and Recreational and Commercial (RC) zoning district. Recreational facilities are allowed but limited to locating on thoroughfares, arterial streets or access highways within the Industrial Park Manufacturing (IPM).. • Indoor Recreational Facilities are allowed in Institutional and office zone (IO), Highway commercial (C-4) Recreational and commercial (RC) zoning district and have been allowed by interpretation in the Industrial Park Manufacturing (IPM) zoning district. • Mini-storage facilities are allowed in Service Commercial (C-3), Highway Commercial (C-4), Manufacturing (M), and Industrial Park Manufacturing (IPM) zoning districts. Parking Regarding the parking issue raised by the Broker, planning staff looks forward to working on revising parking requirments in this and other zoning districts in the future. a Craft distilleries and microbreweries are an allowed conditional use in Smyrna in the Central Business District and Industrial/Office/Research Park District; in Kent County in the Agricultural Districts; Newark in the Central Business District, General Industrial District, Office Research District, General Business Districts; and Milford in Central Business District, Riverfront Development District, Limited Industrial and Business Park District.

Item 3. Attachments: • Resolution #2018-12 • September 20, 2022 Letter from Commercial Moving Experience Real Estate (Broker) • October 7, 2022 Letter from Commercial Moving Experience Real Estate (Broker)

({itp of 1!\ober MA YOR AND COUNCIL COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2018-12 A RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE GARRISON OAK TECHNICAL PARK TO GARRISON OAK BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY CENTER WHEREAS, the City of Dover acquired the property known as the "Garrison Tract" in 1999 for purposes of creating jobs and providing economic stability, and WHEREAS, the State of Delaware provided funds from the FY 2000 Capital Improvements Act (Bond Bill) in the amount of $2,000,000 to facilitate the site acquisition with the provision that the site be used as a high-technology industrial park, and the site was designated as the "Garrison Oak Technical Park" and marketed as such, and WHEREAS, in accordance with epilogue language for the FY 2000 Bond Bill, a Memorandum of Understanding was executed between the City of Dover, Kent County and the State of Delaware setting forth various commitments regarding the responsibilities of each party. One condition contained in the epilogue language identified the types of business to be targeted, such designation to be in effect until January 1,2010, after which the limitation can be altered by mutual agreement of the City of Dover and the Delaware Economic Development Office (DEDO), and WHEREAS, the City of Dover now desires to expand the purpose and nature of the Garrison Oak Technical Park to reflect current business conditions and the changing marketplace, therefore improving its marketability, and the Delaware Secretary of State has determined that with the elimination of DEDO, no State approval of the name change is required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dover hereby directs the Mayor to take necessary actions to cause the name to be changed to Garrison Oak Business and Technology Center and market the Center to prospective businesses in cooperation with the Kent Economic Partnership and the Delaware Prosperity Program. ADOPTED: DECEMBER 10,2018 S:\RESOLUTIONS-PROCLAMATIONS-TRIBUTES\2018\DRAFT\Rcsolution No. 2018-12 _ Changing the Name of Garrison Oak Technical Park\RcsolullOll No. 2018-12 - Change the Name of Garrison O:lk Tcchincal Park - FOR SIGNATURE.wpd ~~AVIN COUNCIL PRESIDENT Actions History 12/10/2018 - Introduction - City Council 11114/2018 - Introduction - Economic Development Committee P.O. Box 475·:· Dover, Delaware ·:·19903 Q[ollllllunitp (Excellence ijrIJrounlJ I!l!lualitp ~eruice

CITY OF DOVER ORDINANCE #2022-21 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN 2 COUNCIL MET: 3 4 That Appendix B – Zoning, Article 3 Section 20A Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone-Business 5 Technology Center (IPM2) be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue font and deleting the 6 text indicated in red strikeout as follows: 7 8 APPENDIX B – ZONING 9 10 ARTICLE 3 - DISTRICT REGULATIONS 11 12 Section 20A. Industrial park manufacturing zone – Business Technology Center (IPM2) 13 14 Sec. 20A.A Purpose and Intent The industrial park manufacturing zoning Business Technology 15 Center (IPM2) is established for the following: 16 17 (a) To provide locations for the development of light to moderate industrial manufacturing, 18 warehousing, distribution, logistics, research and technology establishments as well as 19 offices and professional services which could be compatible with residential uses. 20 21 (b)To provide employment opportunities for nonoffensive industries, businesses, and 22 technologies businesses in close proximity to centers of population. 23 24 (c) To include guidelines and performance standards which will control and confine any 25 offensive features such as noise, vibration, heat, smoke, glare, dust, objectionable odors, 26 toxic waste or unsightly storage. 27 28 Sec. 20A.1. 29 30 20A.1 Uses permitted. No building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a 31 building shall be erected, which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, 32 for any purpose, except the following, and in accordance with performance standards procedure 33 as set forth in article 5, section 8, and subject to site development plan approval as set forth in 34 article 10, section 2: 35 36 20A.11 Manufacturing, assembling, converting, altering, finishing, cleaning, cooking, baking or 37 any other type of manufacturing, industrial, or technological processing of any goods, materials, 38 products, instruments, appliances, biotechnology, and devices., provided that the fuel used shall 39 be oil, gas or electricity; together with incidental clinics, cafeterias and recreational facilities for 40 the exclusive use of employees of the concern engaged in such undertaking. 41 42 20A.12 Research, design, testing and development laboratories. 43 20A.13 Offices and corporate support operations for business and professional services, data 44 management, financial services, insurance, and health care industries. 45

Proposed Ordinance #2022-21 - Amending Section 20A-Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone (IPM2) 2 46 20A.14 Agricultural or farm uses as defined and permitted in article 3,section 1.11. 47 20A.15 Production of electricity provided that the power source used shall be gas, oil solar or 48 wind. 49 20A.16 Warehousing, transshipment and distribution, and logistics support and trucking 50 terminals. 51 52 20A.17 Printing, publishing, binding, and packaging. 53 54 20A.18 Accessory uses: 55 56 a) On-site offices, clinics, food service facilities, recreation facilities and child day care 57 services collocated within the permitted use and limited to exclusive use by employees, 58 and such other accessory uses and structures clearly incidental to, and customary to 59 and associated with the permitted use. 60 61 20A.192 Conditional uses: The following uses may be permitted as conditional uses if 62 approved by the planning commission in accordance with the provisions and procedures 63 set forth in article 10, section 1 and any specified requirements set forth below: 64 65 20A.21 Building contractor’s yard provided that: 66 67 (a) Outside storage is within a completely enclosed and secure area and 68 appropriately screened from public view and not in any required setback 69 from property lines. 70 71 20A.22 Vocational education facility 72 73 20A.23Associated retail uses in conjunction with and accessory to a permitted use, 74 provided that the associated retail use does not occupy more than 30 75 percent of the gross floor area of the building or group of buildings on a lot. 76 Parking shall be provided at a rate of one parking space per 300 square feet 77 of retail space for the exclusive use of retail customers in addition to the 78 bulk parking requirements of this zoning district for a particular use. 79 80 20A.24Craft distillery and microbrewery provided that: 81 a) All permits and approvals required by the Delaware Alcoholic 82 Beverage Commission are obtained and remain in full force and 83 effect. 84 b) All aspects of the distilling or brewing process are completely 85 confined within a building, including storage of all materials and 86 finished products. 87 c) Such establishment may offer to the public, various activities 88 ancillary to its distilling and/or brewing process, including by way of 89 example: tours of the premises, educational classes, demonstrations,

Proposed Ordinance #2022-21 - Amending Section 20A-Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone (IPM2) 3 90 tasting rooms, and retail sales areas limited to the sale of beer, mead, 91 cider, or spirits brewed or distilled on the premises for consumption 92 off-premises and other retail items. 93 d) On-site consumption or tasting associated with a craft distillery or 94 microbrewery establishment shall be permitted. Any area associated 95 with on-site consumption or tasting shall not operate as a stand- 96 alone bar or tavern, shall be located on the premises of the craft 97 distillery or microbrewery establishment, and shall be ancillary to 98 the primary use. "Ancillary" for purposes of this section means 99 subordinate, auxiliary, smaller and less intensive than the primary 100 use. On-site consumption or tasting of alcohol shall be limited to 101 those products brewed or distilled on the premises, except as 102 otherwise permitted by Delaware Law. 103 e) All food sales shall be limited to prepackaged snack items or those 104 food items prepared by a food establishment licensed by the State of 105 Delaware. 106 f) Outdoor seating and gathering areas shall be permitted subject to 107 the following requirements: 108 i. Permanent and temporary outdoor seating and 109 gathering areas shall be subject to building permit 110 application and approval requirements. 111 ii. Outdoor seating and gathering areas and ancillary 112 improvements shall include physical barriers from 113 public rights-of-way and physical and visual barriers 114 from adjoining properties. Physical barriers along 115 public rights-of-way shall restrict access from the 116 public rights-of-way to the outdoor seating and 117 gathering areas and shall not exceed four feet in 118 height. Barriers along adjoining property lines shall 119 create a physical and visual barrier consisting of 120 fencing six feet in height or vegetation at least six feet 121 in height. 122 iii. Maximum occupancy and points of ingress/egress shall 123 be clearly marked. Occupancy of outdoor seating and 124 gathering areas shall not exceed one person per 15 125 square feet of the outdoor seating and gathering areas 126 identified in the building plans or any other occupancy 127 limit established by the City of Dover. 128 iv. All structures and uses related to outdoor seating and 129 gathering areas and facilities are subject to the Dover 130 Code of Ordinances Chapter 22 and Chapter 46.

Proposed Ordinance #2022-21 - Amending Section 20A-Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone (IPM2) 4 131 v. The occupancy of outdoor seating and gathering areas 132 shall be included when calculating the building 133 requirements and minimum parking standards 134 required by the City of Dover and State of Delaware. 135 vi. Tables, chairs, umbrellas, equipment, games, and any 136 other items provided in connection with outdoor 137 seating and gathering areas shall be maintained in 138 good repair and shall be secured during non-business 139 hours in a safe and orderly manner. 140 vii. Any licensing required by the Delaware Alcoholic 141 Beverage Control Commissioner for outdoor seating 142 and gathering areas shall be obtained. 143 144 20A.23 Uses prohibited. The following uses are specifically prohibited: 145 20A.231 Residences, except those existing at the time of adoption of this amendment. 146 20A.232 Manufacturing uses involving primary production of the following products from raw 147 materials: Asphalt, cement, charcoal, and fuel briquettes; chemicals: aniline dyes, ammonia, 148 carbide, caustic soda, cellulose, chlorine, and carbon black and bone black, creosote, hydrogen 149 and oxygen, industrial alcohol, nitrates (manufactured and natural) of an explosive nature, potash, 150 and synthetic resins, pyroxylin, rayon yarn, and hydrochloric, nitric, phosphoric, picric, and 151 sulphuric acids; coal, coke, and tar products, including gas manufacturing; explosives, fertilizers, 152 glue, and size (animal); linoleum and oil cloth; matches; paint, varnishes, and turpentine; rubber 153 (natural or synthetic); and soaps, including fat rendering. 154 20A.233 Storage, except that which is incidental to the primary use on the lot. 155 20A.234 The following processes: nitrating of cotton or other materials; magnesium foundry; 156 reduction, refining, smelting, and alloying of metal or metal ores; refining secondary aluminum; 157 refining petroleum products, such as gasoline, kerosene, naphtha, and lubricating oil; distillation 158 of wood or bones; and reduction and processing of wood pulp and fiber, including papermill 159 operations. 160 20A.235 Operations involving stock yards, slaughter houses, and slag piles. 161 20A.236 Storage of explosives, and bulk or wholesale storage of gasoline above the ground. 162 20A.237 Dumps. 163 20A.238 Quarries, stone crushers, screening plants, and storage of quarry screenings, accessory to 164 such uses. 165 20A.239 Junkyards, automobile dismantling plants or storage of used parts of automobiles or other 166 machines or vehicles or of dismantled or junked automobiles. 167 20A.34 Site development plan approval. Site development plan approval, in accordance with article 10, 168 section 2 hereof, shall be required for either conventional individual lot development or planned 169 industrial park development of land zoned IPM2 prior to the issuance of building permits for the 170 erection or enlargement of all structures and prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for any 171 change of use.

Proposed Ordinance #2022-21 - Amending Section 20A-Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone (IPM2) 5 172 20A.45 Performance standards. All uses are subject to performance standards as set forth in article 5, 173 section 8. 174 175 BE IF FURTHER ORDAINED: 176 177 That Appendix B – Zoning, Article 12 – Definitions be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, 178 blue font in appropriate alphabetical order: and deleting the text indicated in red strikeout as follows: 179 180 Vocational education facility: Services or instruction which are geared toward training for a 181 specific occupation or set of skills. 182 183 184 185 186 187 ADOPTED: * 188 S:\ClerksOffice\Ordinances\BLOCKS\Ordinance.wpd 189 190 191 SYNOPSIS 192 This is a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance provisions related to the IPM2 zone. These revisions 193 add a purpose section, clarified the definition of allowed manufacturing uses, adds the uses of adult 194 vocational educational facility, builder contractor’s yard, retail component as an accessory use and craft 195 distillery and microbreweries to the Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone – Business and Technology 196 Center (IPM2). 197 198 (SPONSORS: COUNCILMAN TAYLOR AND COUNCILMAN ANDERSON) 199 200 201 Actions History: 202 11/15/22 - Introduced at Council Committee of the Whole/Legislative Finance, and Administration 203 Committee

Item 4. ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Council Committee of Whole; Legislative, Finance and Administration Committee DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: City Manager DATE SUBMITTED: 11/9/22 PREPARED BY: David S. Hugg III SUBJECT: Authorization for Tax Increment Financing REFERENCE: Chapter 102 Taxation RELATED PROJECT: REVIEWED BY: David S. Hugg III EXHIBITS: Ordinance 2022-22 EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: n/a AMOUNT BUDGETED: n/a FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): n/a TIMETABLE: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS This Ordinance creates a new Section in Chapter 102, Taxation to implement the authority granted to the City of Dover pursuant to 22 Delaware Code, Chapter 17, Municipal Tax Increment Financing Act. Delaware Code was amended to authorize the City of Dover to use the provisions of 22 Delaware Code, Chapter 17, Municipal Tax Increment Financing Act, including specific Dover provisions in 22 Del. C, Section 1716. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is a financing method that allows the use of future tax revenues generated by economic development projects to help pay for the project; allows for the issuance of revenue bonds for such purposes, such bonds being tax-exempt and not a pledge of good faith or credit of the city; and by capturing the tax revenue increment between the original assessed value and the value resulting from the project. Due to the condition, age and design of buildings and infrastructure, configuration and size of parcels, competition from commercial activities throughout the city, and other factors, the costs and complexities of development, redevelopment and reinvestment tend to limit investment. Tax increment financing is frequently used by local governments to enable funding of certain development and infrastructure projects which but for the availability of alternative financing options for these projects might not occur otherwise.

Item 4. City of Dover PROPOSED CITY OF DOVER ORDINANCE #2022-22 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN 2 COUNCIL MET: 3 4 That Chapter 2 - Administration, Article V - Finance be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, 5 blue font and deleting the text indicated in red strikeout as follows: 6 7 Section 2-422 -Tax Increment Financing, Purpose, and Findings 8 9 a) The City Council of the City of Dover has determined that a need exists within the city for 10 improvements and reinvestment throughout the city. Such improvements will enhance the taxable 11 base of the city, directly and indirectly, encourage the development and redevelopment of 12 commercial and residential areas of the city, increase commercial activity, increase employment, 13 and benefit the general health and welfare of residents; and 14 15 b) The City Council on February 14, 2017, passed Resolution #2017-02 supporting changes to the 16 Delaware Code to enable Dover and Kent County to utilize the provisions of the TIF and Special 17 District code provisions; and 18 19 c) 22 Delaware Code, Section 1703 provides “In addition to whatever other powers it may have, and 20 notwithstanding any limitation by law, any municipality may borrow money by issuing and selling 21 bonds, at any time and from time to time, for the purpose of financing the development of an 22 industrial, commercial or residential area.”; and 23 24 d) Delaware Code was amended to authorize the City of Dover to use the provisions of 22 Delaware 25 Code, Chapter 17, Municipal Tax Increment Financing Act, including specific Dover provisions 26 in 22 Del. C, Section 1716; and 27 28 e) Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is a financing method that allows the use of future tax revenues 29 generated by economic development projects to help pay for the project; allows for the issuance 30 of revenue bonds for such purposes, such bonds being tax-exempt and not a pledge of good faith 31 or credit of the city; and by capturing the tax revenue increment between the original assessed 32 value and the value resulting from the project; and 33 34 f) Due to the condition, age, and design of buildings and infrastructure, configuration and size of 35 parcels, competition from commercial activities throughout the city, and other factors, the costs 36 and complexities of development, redevelopment, and reinvestment tend to limit investment; and 37 38 g) Tax increment financing is frequently used by local governments to enable funding of certain 39 development and infrastructure projects but the availability of alternative financing options for 40 these projects might not occur otherwise. 237

Item 4. Proposed Ordinance #2022-22 Chapter 2 - Administration, Article V - Finance Section 2-422 - Tax Increment Financing, Purpose, and Findings Page 2 41 42 Section 2-423 - Authorization to Consider Issuance of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District 43 Bonds 44 45 a) Before issuing bonds under the Municipal Tax Increment Financing Act, the city must designate 46 by Resolution, an area as a TIF District, obtain from the City Assessor an assessment of the original 47 assessed value in the district, create a special fund for the purpose of receiving the tax revenue 48 increment, and comply with all other provisions of the Municipal Tax Increment Financing Act. 49 50 b) By enactment of this Ordinance the City Council indicates its intention to issue bonds, notes, or 51 similar instruments in one or more series from time to time for projects and amounts to be 52 determined in the future, prior to the bond offering, for the purposes set forth in the Resolution and 53 as allowed under Municipal Tax Increment Financing Act. 54 55 c) "Council shall have the power by Resolution to establish terms of the bonding and financial 56 arrangement and enter a cooperating agreement with other taxing entities such as State, County, 57 and school districts." 58 59 Section 2-424 - Effective date 60 This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon final passage by the City Council of the City of Dover. 61 Passed *. 62 63 Sec. 2-4225. - Sale and disposition of real property. 64 65 (a) Authorized. Except as otherwise provided and upon approval of the city council, the city manager 66 is hereby authorized to sell or dispose of excess property. 67 68 (b) Determination of excess status. The city manager, upon determining that a city owned parcel of 69 land is excess in nature and that the disposal of such land would be beneficial to the City of Dover, 70 will request, through the legislative, finance, and administration committee, that city council 71 consider disposal of such land. 72 73 (c) Costs of conveyance. Unless otherwise specified by the city council, all fees and costs, legal or 74 otherwise, associated with the sale and conveyance of all excess lands shall be paid by the 75 purchaser. 76 77 (d) Standard method of disposition. 78 (1) The legislative, finance, and administration committee, upon receiving a request to dispose 79 of excess real property, shall, prior to making a recommendation to city council, request all 80 pertinent information including, but not limited to, the following: 81 a. Determination that subject parcel is not required by any other city department. 82 b. Written explanation of why subject parcel is now surplus. 83 c. Determination of whether a zoning change would enhance the sale value of subject 84 parcel and recommend said change if warranted. 85 d. Determination if the parcel's exact location and size is known and, if not, recommend 86 whether said parcel should be surveyed by the city prior to any sale attempts. 238

Item 4. Proposed Ordinance #2022-22 Chapter 2 - Administration, Article V - Finance Section 2-422 - Tax Increment Financing, Purpose, and Findings Page 3 87 88 (2) City council, after receiving a positive recommendation from the legislative, finance, and 89 administration committee to dispose of a surplus parcel of land, shall, as part of its 90 deliberations: 91 a. Determine if disposal of the parcel is in the city's best interests. 92 b. Determine if disposal by sale, gift, or some other means would best serve the city's 93 interests. 94 c. Determine if the city planner should be requested to initiate rezoning procedures. 95 d. Publicize the pertinent information concerning the surplus parcel and its availability 96 for purchase to the general public at least once a week for two weeks in a local 97 newspaper. 98 e. Make public, and a part of the record, all written correspondence received and, after 99 the publicizing requirements of subsection (2)d. are met, hold a public hearing to 100 receive any other citizen input. 101 102 (3) City council, after voting to proceed with the sale of surplus land, shall determine: 103 a. If an unbiased appraisal is needed to establish a minimum acceptable price. 104 b. Whether to sell the parcel by public auction or by sealed bid, and what the minimum 105 acceptable offer will be. 106 c. The degree and scope of advertising, with a minimum of exposure being advertisement 107 once a week for two weeks in a newspaper of general circulation within the county. 108 d. Whether the circumstances of and surrounding a particular sale may be such that the 109 best interests of the city would be served by listing the property for sale with a licensed 110 real estate agent. 111 112 (4) City staff shall, with city council's direction: 113 a. Arrange for advertisement of the sale. 114 b. Draft the sale bill setting out a description of the parcel to be sold, time, date, and place 115 of sale or bid opening, the terms and conditions of sale, and the city's reservation of 116 acceptance or rejection of any or all bids received at the time of sale or bid opening. 117 c. Order and distribute a sufficient number of sale bills for posting and distribution in the 118 county courthouse, at the site, and in the general area of the parcel. 119 d. Obtain the services of a professional auctioneer if said sale is to be a public auction. 120 e. Conduct the sale and submit the results to city council. 121 f. Obtain the services of a licensed real estate agent if the sale is to be brokered. 122 123 (5) City council, after confirming the sale, shall: 124 a. Request the city solicitor to prepare a deed for execution and to arrange for final 125 settlement with the purchaser, at which time the city will deliver the deed, the 126 purchaser will pay all balances due, and the city solicitor will record said deed in the 127 Recorder of Deeds Office for Kent County. 128 129 (e) Exceptions to standard method of disposition. 130 (1) Exception A—Sale to an abutting owner. When, in the opinion of city council, a public sale 131 would be detrimental to the lands of an abutter, and/or that a public sale would place the 132 abutter at undue risk; or that the combination of abutter's land and city's land would be 239

Item 4. Proposed Ordinance #2022-22 Chapter 2 - Administration, Article V - Finance Section 2-422 - Tax Increment Financing, Purpose, and Findings Page 4 133 substantially greater in value than that of the sum of the parcels considered individually, city 134 council may direct the city assessor to have prepared one or more unbiased fee appraisals of 135 the parcel. Thereafter, the subject land will be offered for sale to the said abutter at the 136 appraisal price, plus the appraisal fees, plus the legal costs. In the event the offer is not 137 accepted, a public sale may be ordered. 138 139 Examples of detrimental affect might be when the surplus city parcel lies between an abutting 140 property and the street and development of the parcel would obstruct visibility of the abutter's 141 property, or when the surplus parcel is zoned multi-family and abuts a single-family parcel. 142 143 (2) Exception B—Trade of lands. Trade of lands may be approved when it is shown beyond 144 doubt that such a trade will be equal to or better than the lands to be traded either on a "square 145 foot for square foot" measure and/or on a "dollar for dollar" measure. 146 147 (3) Exception C—Conveyance of odd shaped and/or unbuildable parcels. City acquisitions for 148 roads, utility usages, etc. may, after such usage is accomplished, leave a small strip of land 149 that is odd shaped and unbuildable. City council may approve the conveyance of this strip of 150 land to an abutting property owner on request of said owner. The price for these lands shall 151 be at the same cost basis as that paid by the city. If conveyance is made in excess of two 152 years after the date of city acquisition, then the consideration shall either be based on a price 153 established by an unbiased fee appraisal made on the basis of the value added to the abutting 154 property by the acquisition of said lands, or on the city's cost basis for the parcel adjusted for 155 inflation, whichever city council shall select. All fees, legal or otherwise, associated with the 156 conveyance are to be paid by the purchaser. 157 158 (4) Exception D—Sale of small or irregular shaped lot to an abutting owner. If any excess parcel 159 of land is too small or irregular in shape to be of any value to anyone other than an abutting 160 owner, it may be sold to such owner at either its fee appraised fair market value, or at its fair 161 market value as established by the city's assessment records, whichever city council shall 162 select. The costs of the appraisal and all legal costs shall be paid by the owner requesting the 163 conveyance. 164 165 (5) Exception E—Donation of land to non-profit organizations. If, in the opinion of city council, 166 the donation of a parcel of excess land to a non-profit organization would be in the best 167 interest of the city, council then reserves unto itself the right to make such donation. 168 (Code 1981, § 2-80; Ord. of 3-12-2001; Ord. No. 2017-02 , 2-13-2017) 169 170 Secs. 2-4236—2-500. - Reserved. 171 172 173 174 ADOPTED: * 175 S:\ClerksOffice\Ordinances\BLOCKS\Ordinance.wpd 176 177 178 SYNOPSIS 179 This Ordinance creates a new Section to implement the authority granted to the City of Dover pursuant 240

Item 4. Proposed Ordinance #2022-22 Chapter 2 - Administration, Article V - Finance Section 2-422 - Tax Increment Financing, Purpose, and Findings Page 5 180 to 22 Delaware Code, Chapter 17, Municipal Tax Increment Financing Act. It renumbers the existing 181 code as necessary. 182 183 (SPONSORS: ANDERSON, PILLSBURY, AND ROCHA) 184 185 186 Actions History: 187 November 15, 2022 - Introduced at the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee 241

Item 5. ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Council Committee of the Whole – Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: City Clerk’s Office DATE SUBMITTED: 11/9/2022 PREPARED BY: Rachel Engle, Assistant City Clerk SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance #2022-23 - Amending Chapter 2. Administration - Article IV. Officers and Employees - Division 4. Controller/Treasurer REFERENCE: N/A RELATED PROJECT: N/A REVIEWED BY: Mr. Anderson and Mr. Hugg EXHIBITS: N/A EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: n/a AMOUNT BUDGETED: n/a FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): n/a TIMETABLE: First Reading November 28, 2022, and Final Reading December 12, 2022. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: approve the Proposed Ordinance for First Reading at the November 28, 2022, Regular City Council Meeting BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS This ordinance is to make a technical correction to mirror the changes made in the Charter that was adopted on September 9, 2022, H.B. 456. 242

Item 5. City of Dover CITY OF DOVER ORDINANCE #2022-23 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN 2 COUNCIL MET: 3 4 That Chapter 2. Administration - Article IV. Officers and Employees - Division 4. Controller/Treasurer 5 be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue font and deleting the text indicated in red 6 strikeout as follows: 7 8 Section 2-261. - Appointment. 9 10 There shall be a controller/treasurer selected by a council majority vote of the city council at its annual 11 meeting. to hold office until their successor has been duly chosen and qualified, but subject to 12 removal at any time by the council. 13 14 15 (Code 1981, § 2-136; Ord. of 3-12-2001; Ord. No. 2009-23, 10-26-2009) 16 17 Charter reference— Treasurer and financial affairs, subpart A, §§ 42—50. 18 19 Secs. 2-262—2-280. - Reserved. 20 21 22 ADOPTED: * 23 24 25 SYNOPSIS 26 This ordinance is to make a technical correction to mirror the changes made in the Charter that was 27 adopted on September 9, 2022, H.B. 456. 28 29 (SPONSORS: ANDERSON AND HUGG) 30 31 32 Actions History: 33 November 15, 2022 - Introduced at Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee 34 P.O. Box 475 ❖ Dover, Delaware ❖19903 243 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

Item 6. ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Council Committee of the Whole – Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: City Clerk’s Office DATE SUBMITTED: 11/9/2022 PREPARED BY: Rachel Engle, Assistant City Clerk SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance #2022-24 - Amending Chapter 2. Administration - Article IV. Officers and Employees - Division 5. City Clerk REFERENCE: N/A RELATED PROJECT: N/A REVIEWED BY: Mr. Anderson and Mr. Hugg EXHIBITS: N/A EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: n/a AMOUNT BUDGETED: n/a FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): n/a TIMETABLE: First Reading November 28, 2022, and Final Reading December 12, 2022. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: approve the Proposed Ordinance for First Reading at the November 28, 2022, Regular City Council Meeting BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS This ordinance is to make a technical correction to mirror the changes made in the Charter that was adopted on September 9, 2022, H.B. 456. 244

Item 6. City of Dover CITY OF DOVER ORDINANCE #2022-24 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN 2 COUNCIL MET: 3 4 That Chapter 2. Administration - Article IV. Officers and Employees - Division 5. City Clerk be amended 5 by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue font and deleting the text indicated in red strikeout as follows: 6 7 Sec. 2-281. - Appointment. 8 9 There shall be a city clerk selected by a council majority vote of the city council at its annual meeting, 10 and such person shall serve as the clerk of the city council until their successor has been duly chosen 11 and qualified, but subject to removal at any time by the council. 12 13 (Code 1981, § 2-116; Ord. of 3-12-2001) 14 15 Sec. 2-282. - Functions. 16 17 The city clerk shall perform the following functions: 18 (1) Records generally. Have charge of and preserve the records, books and papers of the city that are 19 entrusted to him by this Code or by the city manager; 20 21 (2) Meetings. Attend all meetings of the city council and transcribe a record of the proceedings; 22 23 (3) Ordinance records. Keep records of all ordinances adopted by the city; 24 25 (4) Notices. Prepare and sign, at the direction of the city council or the city manager, all notices for 26 grading, paving, graveling or curbing sidewalks or the placing of gutterplates, notices for 27 opening streets and condemnation of land and whatever other notices that the city shall direct; 28 29 (5) Recording and filing. Record or file reports or papers, at the direction of the city council or the 30 city manager; 31 32 (6) Other duties. Perform such other duties as required by law, by this Code or as directed by the 33 mayor or city council. 34 35 (Code 1968, § 2-26; Code 1981, § 2-117; Ord. of 3-12-2001) 36 37 Sec. 2-283. - Records management program. 38 39 The city records management program shall consist of an established policy and procedures, as follows: 40 41 (1) Policy. A records management policy shall be established and implemented by the city to ensure 42 the safety of essential records; to provide for an archival depository for the permanent P.O. Box 475 ❖ Dover, Delaware ❖19903 245 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

Proposed Ordinance #2022- 24 - Chapter 2. Administration - Article IV. Officers and Employees Item 6. - Division 5. City Clerk Page 2 43 preservation of historical records; and to provide an orderly system of maintaining, retrieving 44 and storing of records and proper and legal disposal of obsolete records. In order to establish an 45 efficient and economic records program, it shall be the duty and responsibility of each 46 department head to ensure compliance within their department of the city records management 47 policy. Should a department fail to comply with the records management policy, the records 48 manager or his designee has the authority to serve as the records coordinator for the department 49 in implementing the policy. 50 51 (2) Records manager. The city clerk is hereby designated as the records manager for the city and is 52 responsible for the implementation and maintenance of the city records management policy. The 53 records management policy shall incorporate the minimum requirements and guidelines set forth 54 in 29 Del. C. § 501 et seq. The records manager shall serve as the city's liaison with the state 55 bureau of archives and records. The records manager shall also serve as the coordinator of all 56 city departments and shall develop, or assist in the development of, records management 57 procedures specific to those departments consistent with state law, the city Charter, and this 58 Code. 59 60 (Code 1981, § 2-118; Ord. of 8-12-1996) 61 62 Secs. 2-284—2-300. - Reserved. 63 64 65 ADOPTED: * 66 67 68 SYNOPSIS 69 This ordinance is to make a technical correction to mirror the changes made in the Charter that was 70 adopted on September 9, 2022, H.B. 456. 71 72 (SPONSORS: ANDERSON AND HUGG ) 73 74 75 Actions History: 76 November 15, 2022 - Introduced at Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee P.O. Box 475 ❖ Dover, Delaware ❖19903 246 Community Excellence Through Quality Service