Kent County Regional Planning Commission Public Hearing - May 7, 2026

The Kent County Regional Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 7, 2026, at 6 PM to receive testimony on several applications. No decisions were made; the commission will deliberate at a business meeting on May 14, 2026. The record will remain open until 5 PM on Monday, May 11, 2026.

Consent Calendar

• The agenda was approved unanimously (5-0) after removing project CS 26-03 (Cash 2603).

Discussion Items

CS 26-23: Tidewater Utilities – Elevated Water Storage Tank (Gerald Ridge)

• Applicant presentation: Charlie Barnett (Morris and Ritchie Associates) presented a proposal for a 137-foot elevated water tower on a 57.85-acre parcel (AR zoning, inside growth zone). The tower is required for a previously approved 85-lot subdivision (Gerald Ridge). Setbacks exceed code (nearest lot line at 140 ft vs. 137 ft height). Three variances for signage were already approved by the Board of Adjustments. No members of the public spoke in favor or opposition. The commission will take up the application next week.

SL-26-02: Pintail Crossing – 52 Duplex Units

• Applicant presentation: Doug Barry (Pennoni Associates) presented a 52-lot duplex development with one existing single-family home on 15.58 acres (AC zoning, inside growth zone). Water by Artesian, sewer by Kent County. Two waiver requests: (1) allow the existing home to retain its direct access to McGuinness Pond Road; (2) allow stormwater ponds within 100 ft of residential setback lines. Staff recommended approval of both waivers. The applicant noted a connection to the existing Pintail Point subdivision and a second entrance on Barrett’s Chapel Road is recommended by staff and MPO but not yet required by DelDOT.
• Public testimony in favor: None.
• Public testimony in opposition (multiple speakers):
  • Shannon Ritter (275 Waterfowl Drive) argued the duplex use violates the 2018 Comprehensive Plan (Map 7B designates the area as low-density residential, permitting only single-family detached homes) and that the developer (Ashburn Homes) has no intent to create affordable housing, instead using by-right zoning for profit.
  • Joy Roanard (51 Merganser Drive) cited safety concerns for children at bus stops, potential increased traffic, and fear that the developer rents many of his properties (showing a list of 85 rental properties owned by Ashburn-related LLCs).
  • Jennifer Lynch (215 Waterfowl Drive) focused on traffic: the developer’s own trip generation report projects 288 additional daily trips, 60% left turns onto Barrett’s Chapel Road. She demanded a second entrance and that the community mailbox be placed at the development’s own entrance, not inside Pintail Point.
  • Paul Fisher (231 Waterfowl Drive) requested a 50-foot landscaped buffer between the developments to mitigate light, noise, and privacy concerns, citing a precedent from the Gerald Ridge approval.
  • Courtney Thompson (133 Merganser Drive) argued duplexes are inconsistent with the rural character of the area, where all surrounding homes are single-family on half-acre lots. She noted no duplex communities exist nearby.
  • Dewey Barish (203 Waterfowl Drive, HOA president) echoed density incompatibility and also raised concerns about emergency services capacity, property values after reassessment, and the lack of sidewalks in the existing neighborhood.
  • Mary Finn (27 Merganser Drive) described past flooding on the site (horses and cattle removed in 2020 due to standing water) and documented an American woodcock (a Tier 2 species of conservation concern) in the retention pond. She requested an independent geotechnical/hydrological assessment and that new retention ponds be sited adjacent to existing ones to minimize habitat disturbance.
  • Teresa Pepper (2031 Waterfowl Drive) pleaded that the new development not connect to Bufflehead Drive to avoid cut-through traffic and danger to pedestrians/children.
  • Richard Thompson (133 Merganser Drive, HOA board member and volunteer firefighter) provided data: Magnolia Fire Company had 425 runs in 2025 (21% increase), with 20 active responders; Frederica has 15. The 52 duplexes plus nearby approved developments (471 homes within 3 miles) will overwhelm volunteer services. He requested reduction to 21 single-family homes.
  • Steve Cannon (163 Waterfowl Drive) calculated density: existing Pintail Point = ~1 home/acre; proposed = 3.5 units/acre. He noted impervious surface exceeds 35% allowed, and requested a traffic study if the connection is permitted.
  • Online speaker Jalen Tiffany (Virginia, moving to DE) argued the comprehensive plan (Map 7B) explicitly limits the area to single-family detached homes, and that combining two parcels to meet density requirements should require commission approval.
  • A second online speaker (Mona Reese) was unable to unmute; invited to submit written comments.

SL-26-04: Hampton Ridge – 175 Single-Family Lots

• Applicant presentation: Charlie Barnett (Morris and Ritchie Associates) presented a 175-lot subdivision on 69.91 acres (AC, inside growth zone). Density 2.5 units/acre, average lot size 9,518 sq ft, 18 acres open space. One waiver request: eliminate sidewalk on one side of the entrance road (no lots along that segment). Staff recommended approval of the waiver. Two disputed recommendations: (1) requiring the agricultural buffer to be placed in open space (applicant wants buffer on lots with a 6-ft fence); (2) restricting tree clearing from April to July to protect nesting (applicant argued this could delay construction, especially for the entrance road).
• Public testimony in favor: None.
• Public testimony in opposition:
  • Mike Ratcliffe (5578 Canterbury Road) lives adjacent to the site. He cited traffic dangers on Canterbury Road (especially during beach season), noted the single entrance is on a curve with blind spots, and questioned the cumulative impact of multiple nearby developments (Fork Landing, Waterside, Ponds Edge, etc.). He requested written comments be accepted.

Ordinance LC-26-03: Water Supply and Facilities

• Staff presentation: Sarah (Planning Director) explained this is a housekeeping amendment to the Subdivision and Land Development Code to align Table 10-1 (water supply) with Table 10-2 (wastewater), which was revised in 2008. The amendment requires central water with fire hydrants for subdivisions outside the growth zone at the same density thresholds used for wastewater. No public comments were received. The commission will act next week.

Key Outcomes

• No decisions were made on any application. All will be voted on at the commission’s business meeting on Thursday, May 14, 2026, at 6 PM in the same location.
• The public hearing record remains open until 5 PM on Monday, May 11, 2026, for written comments.
• The Levy Court will hear these applications (except subdivisions) on May 26, 2026, at 7 PM, unless tabled or withdrawn.