The document provides information about a University of Delaware team that used a land use modeling approach to help with community planning in Sussex County, Delaware. It summarizes the context of Delaware and Sussex County, including population density and rural land percentages. It then describes the team's principles of prioritizing community and public input. The document outlines the land use "crayons" or categories used in the model, from rural to urban land uses. It provides examples of modeling scenarios for a Cape Region study area, comparing existing land use to a comprehensive plan scenario. It discusses benefits and challenges of the modeling approach and examples of public workshops where community members provided input on land use maps.

1. University of Delaware Team
Bill McGowan, Ed.D, County Agent, Community Development
Carol Bason, Program Manager, CommunityViz®
Richard Kautz, Land Use Planner
Chuck Donley – Donley Associates

2. Context (Delaware/Sussex County)
 2nd smallest state, 3 counPes
 Top 10 people per square mile
 Top 10 percent rural land area
 Within 4 hour drive of 45 million people
 Sussex County 48% of land area
 25 towns
 Largest broiler producing county in the country!
 Ag/residenPal zoning allows 2 DU’s per acre
 Town and county interface is where we work

3. Principles
 Community First
 Public Talk, Real Choices
 Benefits, costs, consequences, tradeoffs
 Elephants in the room
 People can figure it out
 Public Work
 The visible, creaPve efforts of a mix of people that produces
things of last importance to our communiPes and Society.
S. Peters

4. Process

5. Partners
 Office of State Planning CoordinaPon
 Local Government
 County Government
 Community

6. The Land Use “Crayons”

7. Land Use: Rural
T100A‐Rural: 1 DU
T20A‐Rural: 5 DU
T5A‐Rural: 20 DU
T1‐Village: 100 DU; Mixed

8. Land Use: SubUrban and Urban Mixed
T2‐ SubUrban: 200 DU
T4‐ SubUrban: 400 DU
T4‐Mixed SubUrban: 400 DU/Mixed Use
T6‐Urban Mixed: 600 DU/Mixed Use
T8‐Town Center: 800 DU/Mixed Use
T16‐High Density Mixed: 1600 DU/Mixed

9. Land Use: Non‐ResidenPal
TM: Highway Commercial/Mixed Use
T30: Employment Centers/ InsPtuPonal
T200: Retail/Shopping Centers

10. The 100 Acre Grid

11. Land Use Model Parameters/Analysis
• ResidenPal Dwelling Units
• NonresidenPal Floor Area and Employees
• ResidenPal and NonresidenPal Demographics
• “Out‐of‐Play” Unbuildable Areas from State Policies
• “Build” Efficiency Factors
NOTE: Model unit sta:s:cs are derived from Sussex County‐specific tax, engineering, and Census data

12. Cape Region Study Area Scenarios
ExisPng Use & Comprehensive Plan
Example

13. The Cape Region Study Area
Demo Boundary on Google Earth
The GIS RepresentaPon
The 100A Grid ExtracPon

14. Cape Region Study Area Grid

15. ExisPng Land Use
Dwelling Units 27,000
Residents 67,000
NonresidenPal
Floor Area
9,800,000
Employees 14,400
Profile:
• Predominantly rural with
agricultural land use to south
and west; coastal natural
preserves and state park to
north
• Four characterisPc ,
seasonally acPve coastal towns
• Major N‐S highway corridor
with associated Mixed Use ‐‐
Retail, Business, Commercial &
MulP‐family units
• Scanered single‐family
subdivisions off
highway corridor DRAFT Build‐out May 25, 2010

16. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Scenario
Dwelling Units 55,500
Residents 135,800
NonresidenPal
Floor Area
28,300,000
Employees 45,000
Profile:
• Predominantly Suburban
Mixed land use ‐‐ mulP‐family
residenPal and nonresidenPal
• Western edge of study area
mainly single family suburban
• Coastal natural preserves and
state park to north remain
• Four seasonally acPve
coastal towns add density
• Dwelling units and number
of residents more than
double across study
area
DRAFT Build‐out May 25, 2010

18. Benefits of the UD‐SCC Land Use Model
 Stakeholder interests  visualized and analyzed
 Public  deliberates and makes land use choices
 “On‐the‐fly” impact analysis  idenPfies consequences
 “What‐if” process  provides implementaPon opPons
 IteraPve tradeoff & visualizaPon process  leads to consensus
 Ready‐to‐go Model  at State, Local, and Regional Planning

19. Challenges
 Visual
 Heart & Soul Versus Hammer & Tongs
 IniPal setup

20. Public Work
Milford, Del. – “Southeast residents speak out on planning”
ARer hours of hearing professional planners talk about
the op:ons for development in their neighborhood,
residents of southeast Milford got a chance to draw their
own vision of the future on Oct. 15. “We’re having our
vote now,” neighborhood resident Wesley Barrows said.
ARer state planner David Edgell and Milford City Planner
Gary Norris spoke on the op:ons they’d come up with for
zoning and development southeast of town, almost 50 local
residents, farmers and businesspeople took their turn as
planners, laying out their own maps of the southeast
neighborhood in 100‐acre blocks. Each group of five got a
set of :les, color‐coded from green for the lowest density to
red for the highest, to arrange however they liked.
Bill Pfaffenhauser said he’d like to see more areas
like the mix of stores and housing in downtown
Milford, rather than blocks designated for nothing but
housing or nothing but commercial. . “I like the idea of
small business with apartments upstairs,” he said.
Apartments, to me, provide not low‐income housing but
more reasonable housing.”
SE Neighborhood Public Workshops
Source: David Ross, Milford Beacon, October 22, 2009

21. Why?
 Why grids?
 Why a 100 acres?

22. Milton Bradley ‐ 1962

23. My Wayward Youth….