Council members on Oct. 7 were sharply divided over Ordinance 25025, a proposed amendment to New Castle County Code Chapter 40 that would extend the review period for record plans from seven to 28 days to give council members more time to review technical plans before a vote.

Councilman Kevin Koneko, a sponsor, said the change would give members "3 more weeks so we can review plans" and talk to constituents on complex developments that can take years to prepare. Councilman Carter, co‑sponsor, said additional time would help catch technical problems—he cited prior examples in which council review identified issues others had missed—and suggested a waiver or faster track could be used when developers have resolved community concerns in advance.

David Culver, general manager of the Department of Land Use, said the department's written recommendation argued the existing seven‑day provision had functioned well for years and warned the draft ordinance as written could create multiple 28‑day pauses. Culver explained that under the draft a referral back to the department would trigger another 28‑day waiting period and that multiple referrals could extend the timeline substantially. He said the department posts plan submissions online and notifies council when a submission is complete and that earlier engagement during the plan development process is the most effective way to address community concerns.

Several council members, including Carter and Koneko, pushed back and said recent litigation and experience—several council members referenced the Logistics Center review and other contested matters—showed need for more time. Council members offered potential compromise language, including a shorter extension or allowing council to waive the waiting period if they have reviewed materials and agree the matter can proceed earlier.

Rob Bullock, president of the Route 913 Civic Association, told the committee he supported giving council "more than one week" to examine plans and said greater transparency and a UDC town hall would help communities understand development rules. No final vote on Ordinance 25025 was recorded; the committee discussion indicated sponsors and staff could seek revised language.