| Date: | February 14, 2011 |
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
The Regular Council Meeting was held on February 14, 2011 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Hogan presiding. Council members present were Mr. Leary, Mr. McGiffin, Dr. McGlumphy, Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Russell, Mr. Salters, and Mrs. Williams. Mr. Bonar was absent.
Council staff members present were Police Chief Hosfelt, Ms. Russell, Mrs. Mitchell, Mrs. Townshend, Fire Chief Fortney, Mr. DePrima, Deputy City Solicitor Pepper, and Mrs. McDowell. Mayor Carey was also present.
OPEN FORUM
The Open Forum was held at 7:15 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Hogan declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council was not in official session and could not take formal action.
Mr. Robert Hartman, 35 Lotus Street, relayed his concerns regarding City spending. He stated that, although he understood that City staff and Council have worked hard to reduce the City’s budget, he objected to pay raises provided to City employees. It was his feeling that these salaries should be discussed and an attempt made to make them more equitable to those in surrounding communities. Mr. Hartman stated that raises that are over and above the rate of inflation, as reflected by the Consumer Price Index (CPI), have been provided to City employees every year, noting that the CPI is 1.5% this year and that employees were provided a 2% increase. He conveyed his objection to this action.
The invocation was given by Chaplain Dixon, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Dr. McGlumphy moved for approval of the agenda, as presented, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried.
Council President Hogan requested that Item #7B - Monthly Budget Report be removed from the consent agenda.
Mr. Leary moved for approval of the consent agenda, as amended, seconded by Dr. McGlumphy and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Bonar absent).
ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2011
The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of January 24, 2011 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Leary, seconded by Dr. McGlumphy, and bore the written approval of Mayor Carey.
PUBLIC HEARING - VIOLATION OF THE DANGEROUS BUILDING ORDINANCE - 106 S. NEW STREET - HOUSE OF PRIDE
A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider a violation of the Dangerous Public Services Manager/Director of Public Works, reviewed a presentation regarding the property (Exhibit #1), noting that the property has been the subject of a number of code violations in recent years. He stated that staff is currently bringing forward the structure for violation of the Dangerous Building Ordinance in accordance with Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, Article XI - Dangerous Buildings, Sec. 22-388 - Emergency Cases. Mr. Koenig advised members that this is considered an “emergency case” due to the receipt of a report from Scott Engineering, Inc., following a structural inspection of the property. He noted that the house has been used for storage purposes for many years and has accumulated an abundance of various types of furniture, fixtures, and miscellaneous supplies as well as household items. Mr. Koenig explained that the building’s support structure is overtaxed by the weight of the items being stored. He stated that a section of the foundation wall has failed and the structural engineer has determined that it is unsafe to enter the property and remove the stored items in the structure’s current condition. Mr. Koenig indicated that House of Pride has stated its intent to hire a contractor to provide the minimum stabilization necessary to remove the stored items; however, the structure will still be considered dangerous once these minimal efforts are completed.
Staff recommended that the City:
1)Declare this building and any accessory buildings dangerous;
2)Order the property repaired or demolished by Monday, February 21, 2011 by the owner or equity owner at their own risk;
3)Order the Building Inspector to cause the repair or demolition of the structure if not completed by the owner within (10) days of the date set by Council;
4)Order the City Manager, with the assistance of the City Solicitor, to cause the cost of repairs or demolition to be charged against the land on which the building exists as a municipal lien, or cause such cost to be added to the tax duplicate as an assessment, or to be levied as a special tax, or to be recovered in a suit at law against the owner.
Mr. Koenig assured members that staff has met with the property owners and that they are aware of staff’s recommendations.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Koenig stated that, since the preparation of the action form, the Finance Department approved an internal budget revision, increasing the demolition line item from $50,000 to $120,000. He estimated that the cost of the demolition would be approximately $20,000, including asbestos abatement.
Council President Hogan declared the public hearing open. There being no one present wishing to speak during the public hearing, Council President Hogan declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. McGiffin moved that the structure located at 106 S. New Street, owned by House of Pride, be declared a dangerous building and subject to demolition, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Leary and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Bonar absent).
PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 293 SAULSBURY ROAD, OWNED BY F & B PROPERTIES
A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider the rezoning of property located at 293 Saulsbury Road, owned by F & B Properties, consisting of 3.64+/- acres. The property is currently zoned C-3 (Service Commercial) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) and the proposed zoning is C-2A (Limited Central Commercial) and subject to COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The subject property is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Saulsbury Road and North Street (Tax Parcel: ED05-076.11-01-43.00-000; Fourth Council District; Planning Reference: Z-11-01).
Mr. Salters moved that the final reading of Proposed Ordinance #2010-31 be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried (Mr. Bonar absent). (The First Reading of this ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of December 13, 2010.)
Planner's Review
Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, reviewed the petition to amend the zoning district and the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Townshend stated that traffic impact studies are typically completed prior to the submission of the site plan application, which is considered by the Planning Commission.
Public Hearing
Council President Hogan declared the hearing open.
Mr. John Paradee, Attorney with Prickett, Jones, and Elliott, 11 N. State Street, stated that he serves as the legal counsel for the applicant, F & B Enterprises. He noted that the application is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Paradee stated that the proposed zoning and use of the property is actually less intensive than that currently permitted. He stated that, although no adverse implications from the traffic study are anticipated, it is understood that a traffic study must be completed and that the applicant must abide by all recommendations from the study. Mr. Paradee also stated his understanding that the traffic study will be taken into account prior to submission of the application for the conditional use and site plans. He urged members to approve the request.
Mr. John Fellows, Project Manager with Duffield Associates, stated that his firm would serve as the site civil engineer for the project if the rezoning is approved. He advised members that the developer has obtained a letter of intent from Royal Farms to place a convenience store on the site. Mr. Fellows also stated that, although a firm commitment has not been received to date, the developer is in discussion with a bank to potentially locate on the northern portion of the site. He advised members that a meeting has been scheduled with the Dover Housing Authority regarding several aspects of the project, including closure of an access road and installation of sidewalks.
Responding to Mrs. Williams, Deputy City Solicitor Pepper suggested that she recuse herself from any action regarding this matter, since she serves as a member of the Dover Housing Authority.
Mr. Martin Prada, representative of Hill Farms Commercial (owners of Eden Hill Commercial District), indicated that he did not oppose or favor the requested zoning; however, requested clarification. Responding, Mrs. Townshend stated that the C-2A zoning classification would allow for a variety of retail uses and would not limit usage to a convenience store and bank. She confirmed that professional offices would be permitted within the C-2A zoning classification. Mr. Prada relayed concern that the proposed project could hamper the Eden Hill Commercial District’s ability to bring a bank to its site or inhibit future expansion.
Council President Hogan declared the hearing closed.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Townshend noted that notification of the rezoning request was provided to those property owners within 200’; therefore, the residents of Lincoln Park were probably not notified of the proposed rezoning request. Mr. Ruane questioned if staff could put forth a “good faith” effort to notify residents in the area of the site plan. Responding, Mrs. Townshend felt that it would be very difficult to administratively change the standard for notification without appearing arbitrary. She reminded members that staff is working on an ordinance amendment that would expand notification to property owners within 300’ and require posting on the property. She anticipated that the proposed amendment would be presented to the Committee in March and that approval by Council could occur in June. She stated that since the traffic impact study has not been completed, there is a possibility that the ordinance amendment would be effective prior to the submission of the site plan application for this project. Mr. Ruane stated his desire that the proposed amendment require notification of property owners within 500’.
Mr. Leary moved for approval of the rezoning request, as recommended by the Planning Commission, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and failed by a roll call vote of three (3) no, one (1) abstention (Mrs. Williams due to conflict of interest), one (1) absent (Mr. Bonar), and four (4) yes (Dr. McGlumpy, Mr. Leary, Mr. McGiffin, and Council President Hogan). Council President Hogan noted that, in accordance with Article II, Section 10 of the City Charter, the affirmative vote of a majority of the members elected to Council is required to pass a motion. Since the Planning Commission’s recommendation was not supported by the vote, members in opposition provided reasoning for their votes, as follows:
Mrs. Russell stated her feeling that the Planning Commission cannot “speak” for homeowners (taxpayers) in such a situation.
Mr. Salters felt that it would be wrong to consider the request without receiving input from the residents of Simon Circle. He stated that if these individuals are notified and do not attend the appropriate meeting, or do not object to the proposed rezoning, he would support the rezoning request.
Mr. Ruane stated that his reason for objecting to the recommendation is due to inadequate notification and the absence of a traffic impact study.
PRESENTATION - DOVER TRANSIT CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
Ms. Juanita Wiezoreck of the Dover/Kent County MPO introduced Mr. Gregg Moore, President of the Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP), who reviewed a Presentation of the Dover Transit Center Neighborhood Plan and Design Book (Exhibit #2). He noted that the charrette was an open public process and that the plan study region is generally defined as an area of influence surrounding the new Dover Transit Center. The area is bound by Loockerman, State, South, and West Streets and includes The Green, the historic downtown retail corridor, the legislative office area, museum square, and medical offices.
Mr. Moore stated that the Dover Transit Center Neighborhood Plan and Design Book was being presented to obtain Council’s support prior to making presentations to the State of Delaware and other constituents and notifying the community of the proposed improvements.
Mr. Salters moved for approval of the concept as presented, seconded by Mr. Ruane.
Responding to Mr. Leary, Mr. Moore stated that a direct funding mechanism was not being requested, but noted that the DDP does have limited resources available to accomplish this project. He stated that items in the document that may require zoning changes or other ordinance amendments would be presented individually to members.
In response to Dr. McGlumphy, Mr. Moore stated that the focus Hyatt Palma Study was to create an entity that would be a catalyst for redevelopment, and this resulted in the creation of the DDP. Mr. Moore stated that the Hyatt Palma Study did not provide tangible drawings, streetscapes, and zoning changes; however, the Dover Transit Center Neighborhood Plan and Design Book accomplished this. It was his feeling that the Dover Transit Center Neighborhood Plan and Design Book enhances the results of the Hyatt Palma Study, which dealt with strategies and leadership groups. Mr. Moore explained that, although the charrette and the Hyatt Palma Study are different, they work together.
Mr. Ruane noted that the executive summary indicates that the purpose of the Dover Transit Center Neighborhood Plan and Design guidelines are to provide the City with a design and planning strategy to guide development around the new transit center site. He stated that it is a conceptual design guidebook that provides a very specific understanding of what the City could realize.
Ms. Wiezoreck advised members that this project was presented to the Planning Section of the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) to determine their needs in order to make the plan a reality, since there are state-maintained streets throughout the area. DelDOT has indicated that a area-wide traffic impact study will be performed and, consequently, individual studies are not necessary as buildings are constructed. As a result, she stated that the group has begun to determine costs and possible funding. In addition, Ms. Wiezoreck stated that an area-wide stormwater management program will be necessary. She explained that a workshop with the Planning Commission has been scheduled for February 23, 2011 to discuss this issue and the matter will be presented to the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee for their review.
The motion to approve the concept as presented was unanimously carried (Mr. Bonar absent).
UTILITY COMMITTEE REPORT - JANUARY 24, 2011
The Utility Committee met on January 24, 2011 with Chairman Ruane presiding.
Request for Alley Abandonment (Improved) - Adjacent to 514 Loockerman Street and 222 S. DuPont Highway - HUB Associates, LLC and A & G Kramedas Associates
Members reviewed a request received from HUB Associates, LLC and A & G Kramedas Associates for abandonment of an improved alley adjacent to 514 Loockerman Street and 222 S. DuPont Highway.
Mr. Scott Koenig, Public Services Manager/Director of Public Works, advised members that the applicants requested the City to abandon a segment of an alley approximately 220 feet in length that runs parallel to Loockerman Street, east of Bayard Avenue. He stated that the request is a precursor to redevelopment of the property, which is owned by HUB Associates, LLC and A & G Kramedas Associates. Mr. Koenig stated that the subject property consists of a 15-foot wide alley, bounded on the south by lands owned by A & G Kramedas Associates and bounded on the north by three (3) parcels, two (2) of which are owned by HUB Associates, LLC and one owned by Thelma F. Johnson. He indicated that the alleyis partially improved with paving that serves as the fire lane for the hotel on the property, which is owned by A & G Kramedas Associates.
Mr. Koenig noted that a map depicting the alley was provided to members. He stated that the Planning Commission reviewed the alley abandonment request on December 20, 2010 and recommended its approval, provided that all necessary easements related to City utilities are in place.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Koenig indicated that the City Clerk’s Office would notify all adjacent property owners prior to the required public hearing before City Council. Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, explained that the procedure for notification of adjacent property owners is in accordance with Appendix B Article 10, Section 5 of the Dover Code; however, she stated that she and Mrs. Traci McDowell, City Clerk, recommended that the City’s procedure be improved and incorporated into the City Code.
As suggested by Mr. Ruane, it was the consensus of members that staff should take administrative measures to notify adjacent property owners of such requests in the future until a procedure is codified.
Ms. Thelma Johnson, 512 E. Loockerman Street (adjacent property owner), indicated that her back yard is adjacent to the Comfort Inn. She stated her interest in the plans for the alley and how these plans would affect the property line.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Koenig stated that if the Committee recommends approval of the abandonment and Council approves the Committee’s recommendation, a public hearing will be set before City Council, at which time adjacent property owners will be notified. If 220 feet of the alley is abandoned, he stated that the current procedure requires the alley to be split equally between each adjacent property; however, each property owner would be required to amend their deed to reflect ownership of a portion of the alley and deeds would have to be recorded.
Mr. Koenig stated his understanding that, if the abandonment is successful, the applicant wishes to re-form their property lines, re-create a deed, assemble a number of properties, and re-record this subdivision of the properties of HUBAssociates, LLC and A & G Kramedas Associates for a future land development application. He stated that, at this point, staff is not aware of a final application being presented to the City for consideration, although a draft land development application has been received. Reminding members that there are setback requirements based on the zoning classification of the property, Mr. Koenig noted that, if abandoned, the north property line has the potential to move 7½ feet closer to Ms. Johnson, and she would have thepotential to move her southern property line 7½ feet to the HUB Associates, LLC property.
Ms. Johnson stated that Mr. Kramedas indicated to her a desire to build stores at this location. She questioned how close these establishments would be to her property line and, being a senior citizen, relayed concerns regarding visitors loitering in front of the stores near her property. Ms. Johnson advised members that she has had no problems with the Comfort Inn as a neighbor during the last 14 years. She requested an assurance of peace and safety and, if the applicants build, that they be required to construct a fence at least six (6) feet in height.
In response to Mr. Bonar, Mrs. Townshend stated that conditions, such as the erection of a fence, would not be necessary at this time unless members chose to include this requirement. She noted that if the applicants submit a Site Plan in the future, the Site Plan would be presented to the Planning Commission and there would be public notice of this meeting. Mrs. Townshend stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires buffering between residential and non-residential uses; therefore, the applicants would be required to erect an opaque, six (6) foot fence and landscaping on the residential side of the fence, unless the Planning Commission waives this requirement. Mrs. Townshend assured members that staff would notify the Planning Commission that the adjacent property owner desires a fence and Ms. Johnson would have the opportunity to speak before the Planning Commission. She noted that many residential property owners have concerns related to being situated adjacent to commercial properties; however, she explained that these locations often improve when the property is redeveloped since redevelopment must conform to current standards.
Responding to Mr. Bonar, Mr. Koenig stated the cost to property owners to re-record deeds is estimated to be $125 per property.
Ms. Johnson advised members that she does not object to the abandonment request.
Mr. Garth Jones, Becker Morgan Group, representing Mr. Tom Kramedas, advised members that it is planned to redevelop the site by demolishing two (2) hotel buildings and building a new hotel with a retail component on the property; therefore, the setbacks are important as they relate to the reconfiguration of the property for construction. He advised members that Becker Morgan Group has been working with Mr. Kramedas since 2005 on a development plan and noted the importance of the additional 7½ feet to the development application. Although the abandonment would move the property lines 7½ feet closer to Mrs. Johnson’s residential property, Mr. Jones stated his understanding that the building setback requirement for zoning is 30 feet for both the rear and side yards. He stated that the retail component would not be located behind Ms. Johnson’s property, since that area would not be visible from the street.
The Committee recommended approval of the request for abandonment of the improved alley located adjacent to 514 Loockerman Street and 222 S. DuPont Highway, as recommended by the Planning Commission, with the condition that the City retain all necessary easements related to City utilities. (City Clerk’s Note: In accordance with the City’s Procedure for Alley Abandonments, Resolution No. 2011-02 setting the Public Hearing was presented to Council for consideration for adoption.)
By motion of Mr. Ruane, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Bonar absent), Council approved the Committee’s recommendation and adopted Resolution No. 2011-02, as follows:
A RESOLUTION PROPOSING THE VACATING AND ABANDONMENT OF A CERTAIN ALLEY SITUATED IN THE CITY OF DOVER.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:
Section 1. The Council of the City of Dover favors the vacating and abandoning of the following alley:
Being all that certain piece or parcel of land situated in the City of Dover, Kent County, State of Delaware, being an improved public alley running east to west, lying on the southerly side of and running parallel to East Loockerman Street, said portion of alley beginning at a point identified as the southeast corner of 516 East Loockerman Street, parcel #ED-05-077.06-01-63.00; thence running west toward Bayard Avenue, South 57 degrees 11 minutes 46 seconds West 213.78 feet along the northwest line of said 15’ wide alley but stopping at the southwest corner of 512 East Loockerman Street, parcel #ED-05-077.06-01-65.00; thence running perpendicular across said 15’ wide alley to a point in the southwest line of a 15’ wide alley; thence running North 57 degrees 11 minutes 46 seconds East 213.78 feet along the southwest line of said 15’ wide alley to a point at the corner of parcel #ED-05-077.06-01-87.00; thence running 15 feet along the eastern boundary of said 15’ wide alley to the point and place of beginning and containing 3,206.70 square feet (0.0736 acres) of land, be the same more or less.
Section 2. The Council of the City of Dover will sit on Monday, February 28, 2011, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers at City Hall, Dover, Delaware, to hear the objections of such residents of the City or owners of the property affected as shall attend, in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 of the Charter of the City of Dover (Chapter 158, Volume 36, Laws of Delaware).
Section 3. The Clerk of Council is hereby directed to post copies of this Resolution in five (5) or more public places in the City of Dover.
ADOPTED: February 14, 2011
Proposed Ordinance #2011-01 - Amendment to Appendix B - Zoning, Article 5 Supplementary Regulations, (New) Section 20 - Solar and Small Wind Energy Systems (Deferred by Committee on 01/10/2011)
During their meeting of January 10, 2011, members considered Proposed Ordinance #2011-01 Amendment to Appendix B - Zoning, Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, (New) Section 20 Solar and Small Wind Energy Systems. The proposed ordinance would add solar energy systems and small wind energy systems as accessory uses within all zoning districts; set standards for these systems to ensure protection of the character of the zones, as well as for public health, safety and welfare; and add definitions for such systems to the Zoning Ordinance. After much discussion, members deferred action until the next Committee meeting to allow time for staff to address the concerns relayed.
Referring to the proposed ordinance provided to members, Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and CommunityDevelopment, reminded members that the red text reflects the revised version provided to members at the previous meeting and that the blue text was added to address concerns relayed at that time.
Mr. Phil McGinnis, McGinnis Commercial Real Estate Company, 555 E. Loockerman Street, indicated support for the proposed ordinance, including the additional amendments, as presented.
Mr. John Paradee, Prickett, Jones, and Elliott, 11 North State Street, thanked members of the Committee and City staff for making the changes suggested during the previous Committee meeting. He indicated full agreement with the proposed ordinance, as presented, and requested the Committee’s support.
Council President Hogan relayed concern regarding the phrase “visually screened,” which appears several times in the proposed ordinance. Recalling a previous situation, he questioned the definition of this term and felt that the City should be clear in this regard. Responding, Mrs. Townshend referred to the definition provided in Lines 17 and 18 and suggested that the ordinance be amended to incorporate this language in other areas within the ordinance that include the term “visually screened.” Members of the Committee, Mr. McGinnis, and Mr. Paradee relayed no objections to the additional amendments.
The Committee recommended adoption of Proposed Ordinance #2011-01, as amended.
By consent agenda, Mr. Leary moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Dr. McGlumphy and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Bonar absent). (The First Reading of the Proposed Ordinance will take place during the latter part of the meeting.)
Annual Engineering Consultant’s Report on the Operation and Maintenance of the Electric System - Fiscal Year 2010 (Deferred by Committee on 1/10/2011)
Members were provided the Annual Engineering Consultant’s Report on the Operation and Maintenance of the Electric System for Fiscal Year 2010. Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, reviewed highlights of the Report with members, including Conclusions of the Executive Summary (Page ES-6).
The Committee recommended acceptance of the Annual Engineering Consultant’s Report on the Operation and Maintenance of the Electric System for Fiscal Year 2010.
By consent agenda, Mr. Leary moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Dr. McGlumphy and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Bonar absent).
Annualized Comparison of Utility Rates (Deferred by Committee on 1/10/2011)
Mr. Anthony DePrima, City Manager, reviewed the Residential Rate Comparison Annualized at 1,000 kWh Per Month as of November 23, 2010. He advised members that the information is produced by the Delaware Municipal Electric Corporation (DEMEC) on a monthly basis.
The Committee recommended acceptance of the Residential Rate Comparison Annualized at 1,000 kWh Per Month as of November 23, 2010, as presented.
By consent agenda, Mr. Leary moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Dr. McGlumphy and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Bonar absent).
Development Projects - Performance and Maintenance Bonding Concerns
During their meeting of January 10, 2011, members were advised that, as part of a shared performance goal, the City Manager, the Public Services Manager, and the Director of Planning and Community Development conducted a series of four (4) internal meetings to brainstorm various ideas to address concerns raised about performance and maintenance bonding in subdivisions, site plan compliance, ensuring the functionality of homeowners’ associations (HOAs), and other development project issues. As a result of these meetings, which were held in October, November, and December of 2010, he stated that eight (8) specific issues/concerns were identified. Members requested that staff provide the list of Development Projects to members for their review and prioritization to be considered by the Committee during their next meeting.
Mr. Scott Koenig, Public Services Manager/Director of Public works, advised members that he, Mr. Ruane, Mr. McGiffin, Mrs. Townshend, and Mr. DePrima ranked the projects and written comments were submitted by Major Kosior. He stated that the highest-ranked projects are as follows:
1)Problem #2 - Some projects are partially built and theconstruction or the site work has been abandoned.
2)Problem #5 - Nuisance issues such as maintenance of buildable lots with homes, partially complete homes, partially complete subdivisions, roll-off trash containers for construction debris, soil stockpiles, and material storage areas are degrading the overall quality of various subdivisions (in both dedicated and undedicated subdivisions).
3)Problem #4 - Stormwater / Passive Open Space – Not Being Maintained.
Mr. Koenig stated that these three (3) problems ranked significantly higher than the others, based on the feedback received.
Staff recommended that a timeline be developed to begin resolving the three (3) highest-ranked problems and that recommendations be developed in the form of proposed ordinances or procedural amendments to be presented to the Committee for review.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Koenig advised members that administrative action is being taken on all problems and assured members that the goal is to resolve them. With regards to snow removal (Problem #7) at Nottingham Meadows, Mr. Koenig stated that the bank has hired a contractor to oversee both the “punch list items” and snow removal for this season at Nottingham Meadows. He stated that the developers or the banks are hiring contractors for removal of snow in other abandoned areas; therefore, he assured members that, to his knowledge, all undedicated developments have some method of snow removal in place during the current winter season.
At the request of Mr. Ruane, Mr. Koenig read the comments submitted by Major Kosior in response to Mr. Koenig’s memorandum of January 3, 2011, Subject: Development Projects - Performance and Maintenance Bonding Concerns.
Council President Hogan stated that he had prepared a ranking, apologized for not submitting it to staff, and noted that he also ranked Problem #2 as the top priority.
The Committee recommended acceptance of the designation of Problems #2, #5, and #4 as the highest-ranked concerns related to Development Projects - Performance and Maintenance Bonding, with the expectation that a timeline would be developed to begin resolving these problems, as recommended by staff.
By consent agenda, Mr. Leary moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Dr. McGlumphy and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Bonar absent).
Review of Utility Related Capital Investment Plan (CIP) (Electric and Water/Wastewater) (November) (Deferred by Committee on 1/10/2011)
Members were provided Project Tracking Reports, as of November 30, 2010, for the Utility (Electric and Water/Wastewater) Related Capital Investment Plan (CIP).
Mr. AnthonyDePrima, City Manager, advised members that the City has received permits from the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) to begin work in the Route 13 area. He noted that because the project involves Route 13, it will create significant problems; however, he assured members that actions will be taken to minimize the problems, such as conducting work during evening hours.
Responding to Mr. Ruane regarding the Bayard Avenue Project, Mr. Ron Lunt, Public Utilities Director, indicated that there has been no change on this project. He advised members that soil sampling at the location resulted in the discovery of contamination, which is currently being resolved with the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). He assured members that when the project begins, notification will be sent to the neighbors and that standard practice requires members of Council to be included in this notification.
Although not included on the CIP Report, Mr. Ruane requested that staff provide members with an update on the Garrison Tract. Mr. DePrima stated that the January 23, 2011 edition of the Delaware State News featured an article about the progress of the Garrison Tract. He noted that construction of the parking lot is underway and that the opening of the power plant, including the operation and generation of power supply, was anticipated by July 2011.
The Committee recommended acceptance of the Utility Related Capital Investment Plan (CIP) Reports for November 2010.
By consent agenda, Mr. Leary moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Dr. McGlumphy and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Bonar absent).
PACE/NAES Monthly Report (November 2010)
The PACE/NAES Monthly Report for November 2010 was provided to members to enable them to monitor electric sales and revenues received, which will provide a better understanding of any fluctuations that occur and allow the opportunity to make improvements if deemed necessary.
The Committee recommended acceptance of the PACE/NAES Monthly Report for November 2010.
By consent agenda, Mr. Leary moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Dr. McGlumphy and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Bonar absent).
Mrs. Williams moved for acceptance of the Utility Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried.
LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REPORT - JANUARY 24, 2011
The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met on January 24, 2011 with Chairman Leary presiding.
Review and Recommendation - Filling of Critical Positions
During their meeting of February 23, 2009, members recommended approval of a Hiring Freeze for Fiscal Year 2008-2009, but to allow the hiring of critical positions through the review and approval of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee and City Council. It was suggested that there be a “standing” agenda item to consider the filling of critical positions and, if there were no positions to consider, the item could be removed.
Mr. Leary noted that there were no critical positions to be considered; therefore, no further action was required.
Review of Council Memberships (Tabled by Committee on 12/13/2010)
During their meeting of December 13, 2010, members reviewed Council Memberships. After much discussion, members tabled the matter to allow the opportunity for the Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce and other organizations to address members regarding this issue.
The Committee removed the matter from the table.
Mr. McGiffin reiterated his concerns regarding utilizing tax dollars for membership dues to organizations that engage in overtly political activity. He reminded members that, during the budget and election seasons, he received communications that were clearly political in nature. As a result, Mr. McGiffin felt that members should be thoughtful and deliberative in determining which organizations the City should become involved with as a “dues paying member.” He indicated he believed that the relationships between the City of Dover and the local and State Chambers of Commerce are positive. However, he stated he was not convinced that these relationships require the City to be a dues paying member and restated his concerns regarding paying dues to organizations that engage in overtly political activity.
Mr. Bonar stated that, although he understood some of the concerns relayed by Mr. McGiffin, he felt confident that the benefits of being a dues paying member of these organizations far outweigh the inconvenience of receiving political notifications. As mentioned during the previous meeting, Mr. Bonar reminded members that the City receives far more benefits from being a member of these organizations than the cost of the membership dues. As an example, he stated that the membership dues, in the amount of $875 per year for the Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce, are minimal compared to the untold thousands of tax dollars and revenues that the businesses associated with this organization have contributed to the community over past years. It was his recollection that the late Mayor Crawford Carroll initiated the City’s membership with the support of previous Councils. It was Mr. Bonar’s hope that the organizations would consider the concerns relayed by Mr. McGiffin, should the City continue its memberships, and limit Council’s involvement and/or exposure to any type of political efforts in the future.
Mr. Ruane noted the receipt of information from the Chamber of Commerce outlining the efforts made by the Chamber that correspond and coincide with the City’s purposes. He advised members of his participation with the Chamber as a member of its Transportation Committee and the benefits that this has provided to the City of Dover, as well as to other municipalities. Mr. Ruane relayed support for the City continuing its memberships.
Dr. McGlumphy indicated his opposition to discussing this matter; however, since the issue was presented, he suggested that there be a review of all memberships throughout the City, including all 35 City departments, to determine if they were political in nature. He noted that the memberships being considered are only those included in the City Council’s budget. Dr. McGlumphy stated that he preferred overt political activity to covert political activity and indicated his support for continuing the memberships.
Mrs. Williams indicated she shared the concerns and dismay of Dr. McGlumphy and suggested that members of Council should receive such political information and viewpoints.
Council President Hogan stated that the concerns expressed are not related to the amount of dues. He relayed concern with utilizing taxpayer money for issues that involve political campaigning. He stated he wished the City to continue with the Chamber membership; however, he requested that the Chamber distance the City from political issues.
Mr. Charles “Chuck” James, 1212 Fawn Road, Wilmington, Representative of the State Chamber of Commerce, advised members that the Chamber is an organization of community businesses throughout the State whose primary purpose is to represent and promote businesses. Mr. James assured members that the Chamber values the opportunity to connect the City with businesses statewide and noted that there are 88 businesses located in Kent County, which employ approximately 9,000 individuals. Mr. James reviewed the various functions, events, and meetings held by the Chamber. He explained that the Chamber represents the interests of diverse businesses that vary in their political affiliations, and it was his opinion that there is very little overtly political communication from the State Chamber; however, he stated that there is communication advocating for business.
Ms. Judy Diogo, Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce, 435 N. DuPont Highway, explained that the common goals of all the organizations are to develop and maintain a healthy environment, to help businesses grow, and develop new businesses. She also felt that another shared goal is to assure good employment for the residents of Kent County. Mrs. Diogo reviewed several joint projects shared by the Chamber and the City. In regards to political messages, she stated that those who do not wish to receive broadcast e-mails can simply “click” on the small button located on the bottom of the screen to unsubscribe.
Mr. James Hutchison, 15 Gleneagles Court, felt that memberships in the Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce and State Chamber of Commerce were some of the most important affiliations of the City. He explained their important role in assisting the City in making major decisions regarding businesses. Mr. Hutchison noted that the Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce plays an important role in maintaining the relationship between the City and the Dover Air Force Base. He urged members to continue memberships with these organizations.
At the request of Mr. Bonar, Mayor George Wright, 31 Locust Street, Smyrna, Representative of the Delaware League of Local Governments, explained the benefits of membership with the League of Local Governments. He noted that the League serves as an advocate for legislation submitted to State legislators and assisting municipalities with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding, the Community Oriented Policing Service (COPS) program, etc. Mayor Wright stated that much of the League’s work is “behind the scenes,” noting that the League has a full-time lobbyist. Responding to Mr. Bonar, Mayor Wright stated that if the City were to engage a full-time lobbyist, the cost would be approximately $20,000.
Mayor Carey relayed his support for memberships in all the organizations, explaining the importance of communication between the City and its customers, such as businesses, to keep costs at a minimum, to offer services, and to promote the expansion of jobs and businesses. He noted that the memberships under discussion are of great value in assisting the City with these endeavors.
Mr. Bonar stated that a veteran legislator once confided to him that, whether one wishes to admit it or not, all actions taken at Legislative Hall and in Council Chambers throughout the State, are political.
Mr. McGiffin indicated that he did not intend to offend other members and assured them that he had no secret motives for raising this issue. He noted he was not disturbed by the receipt of emails with which he did not necessarily agree; however, he was concerned that the City belongs to organizations engaging in overtly partisan political activity, which he felt was wrong. Noting that a majority of Council supports these organizations, Mr. McGiffin stated that he would not suggest the elimination of the membership dues from Council’s budget.
The Committee recommended that the City Clerk be authorized to include membership dues in City Council’s budget, as follows: 1) League of Local Governments - Annual Membership Renewal - $6,000; 2) National League of Cities - Annual Membership Renewal - $3,258; 3) Delaware State Chamber of Commerce - $856; 4) Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce $875; and 5) Miscellaneous (magazine subscriptions, etc.) - $200, totaling $11,198.
By consent agenda, Mr. Leary moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Dr. McGlumphy and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Bonar absent).
Statistics on Residency of City of Dover Employees
During their meeting of October 25, 2010, members felt that it was critical to obtain statistics relating to the residency of current employees and requested that staff provide this information at a future meeting. Mr. Anthony DePrima, City Manager, provided members with the residency statistics for City of Dover employees and noted that 88 employees (24%) reside within City limits and 284 employees (76%) live outside City limits.
Responding to Mr. Salters, Mr. DePrima stated that the main consideration with regards to employees who reside outside of the City limits would be the difficulty of getting to work during a large storm; however, this has never impeded the City in providing services. To his knowledge, the only municipality in Delaware that requires residency is Wilmington, where employees are required to move within City limits within seven (7) years of employment.
Mr. Ruane stated that this is a “hot” topic and very controversial on a national level. He indicated that, in researching this matter, he discovered a recent trend to reverse residency requirements for those municipalities that have them; however, noted that the requirements continue to prevail in many jurisdictions. Mr. Ruane stated that there are arguments for the continuation of residency requirements. He explained it has been suggested that if an employee serves as an administrator or inspector who imposes regulations, the employee should be subject to the regulations which they enforce. In addition, Mr. Ruane advised members that resident employees might have a better understanding of neighborhood problems. He stated that off-duty police officers living within City limits would be better able to confront crime and provide neighborhood security, although he noted that, nationally, police organizations are opposed to this requirement.
Mr. Ruane indicated that, although he did not propose any action at this time, he was surprised by the number of City employees who reside outside City limits and requested that they consider the benefits of living in the City.
Mrs. Williams stated that, although she concurred with many of the comments made by Mr. Ruane, one of the benefits of living outside City limits is avoiding double taxation (paying both City and County property taxes).
The Committee recommended acceptance of the Statistics on Residency of City of Dover Employees Report, as presented.
By consent agenda, Mr. Leary moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Dr. McGlumphy and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Bonar absent).
Review of City Reserves and Policy Requirements
Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, reviewed the schedule of City Reserve Account Balances as of December 31, 2010. She noted that the schedule reflects budget balances, as included in the most recent budget amendment, for the operating and capital project funds. Mrs. Mitchell advised members that some of the estimated budget balances for the utility capital project funds are higher than the policy requirement; however, in most instances, this is a result of having a five (5) year Capital Investment Plan (CIP) and multiple year projects. Therefore, she stated, the funds may be planned for use next year for a multi-year project.
Mrs. Mitchell relayed concern regarding the calculation of the budget balance requirement for the Electric Revenue Fund. She reminded members that the policy requires the budget balance to equal at least 8% and no greater than 12% of operating revenues. Mrs. Mitchell stated that since the City is now utilizing the Power Cost Adjustment to increase/decrease the base revenue, the increase or reduction will be included in the budget balance calculation, which would have the potential to create substantial increases or decreases in the budget balance requirement from year to year. She indicated that staff prefers to keep the City’s cash flow balances levelized for paying vendors. Mrs. Mitchell stated that this would also assist the City in managing funds in years in which the power cost adjustment (PCA) may not match the year in which the power supply cost was incurred. For example, she stated that if last year’s power supply came in lower than budgeted and those funds were put in the reserve for the following year’s PCA, yet the following year, the power supply was higher than the prior year, City’s cash flow requirements might be impacted.
Staff recommended acceptance of the reserve analysis.
Responding to Mr. Bonar regarding reimbursement from the Federal Government for the snowstorm that occurred in February 2010, Mr. Scott Koenig, Public Services Manager/Director of Public Works, indicated that the second reimbursement request, in the amount of $196,000, was signed last week. He stated that the City has signed its portion of the agreement, which then will go through the accounting system with the Delaware Emergency Management Agency (DEMA) for issuance of the disbursement. He advised members that there are a total of four (4) to five (5) disbursements, totaling $250,000 and that the City has received approximately $1,400 to date.
In response to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Mitchell explained that if a budget balance exceeds the maximum amount according to City policy, the excess is to be used at the discretion of Council. She concurred that the use of excess funds must be approved by Council; however, she noted that there have been emergency situations involving City operations when the use of funds has been accomplished and then submitted to Council as a budget amendment.
The Committee recommended acceptance of the reserve analysis, as presented by staff, and that with respect to the Electric Revenue Fund, the reserve calculation, based upon electric revenue, be done irrespective of the Power Cost Adjustment (PCA).
By consent agenda, Mr. Leary moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Dr. McGlumphy and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Bonar absent).
By consent agenda, Mr. Leary moved for acceptance of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report, seconded by Dr. McGlumphy and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Bonar absent).
MONTHLY REPORTS - DECEMBER 2010
By motion of Mr. Leary, seconded by Dr. McGlumphy, the following monthly reports were accepted by consent agenda:
Chief of Police Report
City Assessor’s Report
City Manager's Report
City Planner's Report
Dover Fire Department Report
Capital Investment Plan (CIP) Report
Referring to the Budget Report, Mrs. Mitchell noted the addition of the Community Transportation Improvement Fund (bottom of Page 8) and Special Revenue Funds (Page 9).
Mr. Ruane moved for acceptance of the Budget Report, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried (Mr. Bonar absent).
EVALUATION OF BIDS - 69kV SUBSTATION SWITCH REPLACEMENT
Mr. Anthony DePrima, City Manager, advised members that over the past two (2) years, four (4) substation switches have failed due to overheating contacts, which is an extraordinarily high failure rate. He stated that replacing these switches proactively will minimize the potential of outages due to switch failure. Mr. DePrima reminded members that staff recommended that this project be accelerated (originally scheduled to start in FY 2013) and funded for FY 2011 and that City Council approved this CIP modification request on November 8, 2010. He stated that this project will begin with the replacement of obsolete 69kV switches at the North Street and McKee Run substations.
Staff recommended awarding the bid for the 69kV substation switch replacement to the low bidder, Tecot/Rumsey, for a total amount of $144,593.
Mr. Ruane moved for approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mrs. Williams and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Bonar absent).
HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS
Members were presented with the following appointments to the Human Relations Commission for consideration:
Reappointments Recommended by Council President Hogan
Dawn Allen-Pyne - Three (3) Year Term Expiring February 2014
Anlee Baccio-Walker - Three (3) Year Term Expiring February 2014
Reappointment Recommended by Mayor Carey
Roy Sudler, Jr. - Three (3) Year Term Expiring February 2014
By consent agenda, Mr. Leary moved for approval of the reappointments to the Human Relations Commission, as recommended by Council President Hogan and Mayor Carey. The motion was seconded by Dr. McGlumphy and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Bonar absent).
FIRST READING - PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS - PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2011-01
Council President Hogan reminded the public that copies of proposed ordinances are available at the entrance of the Council Chambers or can be obtained from the City Clerk's Office. Since the ordinances are amendments to the Zoning Code, a public hearing is required. Staff recommended referral of the amendments to the Planning Commission on March 21, 2011 and that a public hearing take place during the Council Meeting of April 11, 2011, at 7:30 p.m., at which time, final action by Council will take place.
Mr. McGiffin moved to refer the amendments to the Planning Commission and set a public hearing before City Council for April 11, 2011 at 7:30 p.m., as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried (Mr. Bonar absent).
In accordance with Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of the Zoning Ordinance Amendments as read by the City Clerk, by title only, as follows:
>Proposed Ordinance #2011-01 - Amendment to Appendix B - Zoning, Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, (New) Section 20 - Solar and Small Wind Energy Systems (Utility Committee)
FINAL READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCES
The First Readings of the following proposed ordinances were accomplished during the Council Meeting of January 24, 2011.
Ordinance #2010-01 - Chapter 102 - Taxation, Article I - In General, Section 102-1 - Annual Valuation and Assessment
Mr. Salters moved that the Final Reading of the proposed ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and unanimously carried (Mr. Bonar absent).
Mr. Ruane moved for adoption of the proposed ordinance, seconded by Mr. Salters. By unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Bonar absent), Council adopted Ordinance #2010-01, as follows:
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:
That Chapter 102 – Taxation, Article I - In General, Section 102-1 - Valuation and Assessment, be amended to read as follows:
Sec. 102-1. Valuation and assessment.
Section 47 of the Charter provides that an impartial valuation and assessment of all real property within the city shall be conducted by the city assessor every third year. The council may also direct that in lieu of the reassessment and valuation by the city assessor, such reassessment and valuation may be done by an outside appraiser chosen by the council. Pursuant to section 47 of the Charter, commencing with the year 2010 and every ninth year thereafter, the valuation and assessment of all real property shall be conducted by an outside appraiser chosen by the council. All property shall be valued as to its status; as of its ownership; and as of its current market value as of the January 1st assessment date.
ADOPTED: FEBRUARY 14, 2011
Ordinance #2010-02 - Chapter 102 - Taxation, Article IV - Abatement of Real Estate Taxes, (New) Section 102-117 - Construction of New Facility
Mr. Salters moved that the Final Reading of the proposed ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and unanimously carried (Mr. Bonar absent).
Mr. Salters moved for adoption of Proposed Ordinance #2011-02, seconded by Mr. Leary.
Mr. Ruane stated his reservations, explaining that the ordinance provides the Tax Assessor with significant power for tax abatement. Noting that he previously mentioned these concerns, it was his hope that the City Solicitor would have provided an opinion regarding the delegation of power in this manner. Responding, Deputy City Solicitor Pepper stated that he has not had the opportunity to review the matter since he was just provided the information; therefore, he was not in a position to provide an opinion at this time.
Mr. Ruane noted that, although City Council is designated as an appeal body, the proposed ordinance gives the power of tax abatement to the Tax Assessor for two (2) 12-month periods. It was his opinion that such power should rest with City Council. Responding, Mr. DePrima stated that, since this is a very restrictive tax abatement with very restrictive guidelines, the Tax Assessor would simply be acting on behalf of Council to make sure guidelines are met. He explained that the purpose is to refrain from taxing property that is under construction and from violating any provisions of the “clean hands” ordinance. Mr. DePrima noted that the second 12-month period would allow time for the Tax Assessor to determine if there is a legitimate reason why the construction was not completed. He stated that this authority is not unusual, noting that there are several tax abatements authorized by the Tax Assessor under strict guidelines.
At the request of Mr. Ruane, Ms. Russell assured members that any tax abatements will be reported to City Council in the Tax Assessor’s Monthly Report.
The motion for adoption of Ordinance #2011-02 was carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Bonar absent):
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:
That Chapter 102 - Taxation, Article IV - Abatement of Real Estate Taxes, be amended by inserting a new Section 102-117 - Construction of new facility, as follows:
Sec. 102-117. Construction of new facility.
(a)Tax abatement benefit. During the construction of a new facility or an expanded facility, meaning after the issuance of a building permit and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, improvements less than one hundred percent (100%) complete by January 1 shall be eligible for an abatement of City real estate taxes.
(b)Application. Eligibility.
(1)Separate application under this subsection shall be submitted to the Office of the Assessor pursuant to the requirements of section 102-114 (a) no later than thirty days after notice of eligibility is issued.
(2)Applicants must certify that they are in good standing pursuant to section 1-13 of the City Code. All construction must be active at the time of application.
(c) Limitation on applicability.
(1)Abatement under this subsection may not exceed a period of 12 months.
(2) Notwithstanding other provisions of this subsection, the abatement period may, at the discretion of the Assessor, be extended for a period not to exceed an additional 12 months for good cause shown. Good cause includes, but is not limited to, increase in the scope of the project, acts of nature, and, as long as no party with control of the new facility is at fault, fire or vandalism. Abandonment of a project shall not be considered good cause.
(d) Right to appeal. Any aggrieved taxpayer shall have the right to appeal the decision of the Assessor to the City Council. Appeals must be filed with the Council not more than ten (10) days after the date the written decision of the Assessor is issued.
ADOPTED: FEBRUARY 14, 2011
COUNCIL MEMBERS ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr. McGiffin reminded members to mark their calendars for June 25, 2011 for the next African American Festival.
Council President Hogan noted that the filing deadline for City Council has passed and that there are 14 candidates for five (5) open positions on City Council. He stated that the Municipal Election will be held on April 19, 2011 and wished all candidates the best of luck.
Mr. Salters moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 9:16 P.M.
TRACI A. McDOWELL
CITY CLERK
All orders, ordinances, and resolutions adopted by City Council during their Regular Meeting of February 14, 2011, are hereby approved.
CARLETON E. CAREY, SR.
MAYOR
/TM/jg
S:AGENDAS & MINUTESCouncil-Minutes20112-14-2011 COUNCIL.wpd
Exhibits Attached to Original Minutes and File Copy
Exhibit #1 - Presentation - Violation of Dangerous Building Ordinance - 106 S. New Street - House of Pride
Exhibit #2 - Presentation - Dover Transit Center Neighborhood Plan and Design Book