The Not in My Backyard acronym has often been used to cavalierly discredit local opposition to development, to include, as described in a recently published letter to the editor, the genuine efforts of many citizens opposing the proposed Royal Farms at the corner of Route 24 and Angola Road. While the NIMBY label can sometimes be largely accurate, it is simply not with respect to the civic-minded opposition to this inappropriate proposal.
The reasons for opposing the Royal Farms are not limited to our backyard and extend to the proper application of the zoning code for all the AR-1/Coastal Area zoning districts in Sussex County, the prevention of the inevitable contamination of the drinking water source for over 12,000 residents, the prevention of additional pollution to the area wetlands and the inland bays, preventing further congestion on our surrounding road network, and the protection of the quality of life, to include the health, safety and welfare, of the citizens living in the numerous surrounding residential communities. You need not take my word for this. I invite you to see for yourself by visiting the county land-use docket established for this matter and review the many excellent and comprehensive public comments posted in opposition: https://connect.sussexcountyde.gov/PublicDocket/#/details/CU%202360.
In stark contrast to the fact-based reasons for opposition contained in the record for this matter, Royal Farms has recently undertaken a slick, albeit desperate, marketing campaign designed at this late stage to generate some support for its conditional-use permit application. If it truly wanted to know what the community thought about its project, it would have sought this information two years ago. Indeed, you may have been contacted by phone or text and encouraged to visit its website. This admittedly well-designed and flashy website contains several talking points with no substance whatsoever. It and other advertisements also make illusory (i.e., not enforceable) promises about protecting the environment, and it encourages those in support to sign a petition and send an email to each member of Sussex County Council. A sophisticated applicant like Royal Farms should know better. Council has been advised not to consider or comment on pending matters like this, and it must base its decision on the evidence of record. Attempts to contact and influence the ultimate decision-makers in this matter outside the record should not be rewarded.
The Royal Farms conditional-use permit application is not available by right, and its approval is within the discretion of council. Arguably, council has already effectively denied the application by not predetermining and listing this particular use in the code for the AR-1 zoning (agriculture and residential) district when it has legislatively done so in the business and commercial districts. See 3 Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning, § 61:8 (2023). In any event, the convenience for the few should not prevail over the health, safety and welfare of the many.
-
A letter to the editor expresses a reader's opinion and, as such, is not reflective of the editorial opinions of this newspaper.
To submit a letter to the editor for publishing, send an email to newsroom@capegazette.com. Letters must be signed and include a telephone number and address for verification. Please keep letters to 500 words or fewer. We reserve the right to edit for content and length. Letters should be responsive to issues addressed in the Cape Gazette rather than content from other publications or media. Only one letter per author will be published every 30 days. Letters restating information and opinions already offered by the same author will not be used. Letters must focus on issues of general, local concern, not personalities or specific businesses.
