So we're not sure if it's a good idea.

I'm not trying to be first there and we're here in a kind of like so you can hear it.

This is one of the twenty four.

She can sell shirt on piece of you.

I like she can sell because I can do it while I want to be watching.

Yeah, we'll do that.

And then they go to these twenty four meters.

I think we got three prices.

Yeah, of course I do.

Yes.

I think we're all sorry.

Oh, we've told us.

I don't see where it works.

Yeah, right.

Yeah, you can want to be like this.

Today we want to put a lot of meeting.

Well, two shots.

So then on eight.

Yeah, so we call off the firewall.

This meeting is being transcribed and summarized.

It's now six PM.

I like to call it order the Kent County Regional Planning Commission public hearing for May the seventh.

And as customary, we'll start with the pledge, and I'll ask Mr.

Servant if he'll leave and pledge allegiance.

Mr.

Peterman.

Present.

Mr.

Sarvan.

Present.

Mrs.

Carcher is absent.

Mr.

Coffery.

Here.

Mr.

Mills.

Here.

Mr.

Davis absent.

Mr.

Jester.

Here.

So you have five members present.

You do have a quorum.

Thank you very much.

You now have in front of you the agenda for tonight.

As you can see, our first project Cash 2603 comic is now off the agenda.

So would that change how I'd ask for a motion to approve and second?

Motion to approve.

I have a motion and a second, Sarah, call the commission.

Mr.

Peterman.

Mr.

Servan.

Yes to approve.

Mr.

Crawford.

Yes to approve.

Mr.

Mills.

Yes, to approve.

Mr.

Jester.

Yes to approve.

Sir, you have five years in favor of approving tonight's agenda.

Thank you very much.

We'll now go back to Sarah for the introduction and public hearing instructions.

And because of the large crowd tonight, and I know a lot of people will like to speak.

Please pay attention to the times that you're allowed at the mic.

Sarah, go ahead.

Thank you.

This public hearing is being conducted for the purpose of giving the citizens of the county the opportunity to present testimony on the applications before the Regional Planning Commission.

Everyone will have an opportunity to speak.

All statements are to be made from the podium at the front of the room.

All testimony given shall be sworn or affirmed.

For the record, please give your name and address.

Copies of any written statements or exhibits used during the hearing should be presented for identification and inclusion in the record.

The record will remain open for two business days following tonight's hearing.

For each application before the commission, the chairman will introduce the application.

Following that, the applicant or representative will be given 15 minutes to present the application.

Following that, those in favor of the application will be allotted five minutes each to speak.

Then those opposed to the application will be allotted five minutes each to speak.

When everyone has had an opportunity to give testimony, the hearing on the application will be closed.

No decision will be made by the commission tonight.

The commission will hold a public business meeting next Thursday at 6 p.m.

At which time it will make a decision on the public hearing applications heard tonight.

All information of record will be considered.

A common vote of four members of the commission is required to make a decision.

Anyone may attend the business meeting, but no new testimony will be received.

The public notice of this hearing was published on April 15th, 2026 in the Delaware State News.

And the Kent County Levy Court will hear these applications with the exception of the subdivisions on Tuesday, May 26, 2026 at 7 p.m.

Unless tabled by the commission or withdrawn prior to the levy court hearing.

The levy court also meets in this room.

Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you very much.

First is application CS 26-23.

Tidewater Utilities, Gerald Ridge.

Owner is Barum holding LLC 77 Case Ridge Road, Dover, Delaware.

Applicant is Tidewater Utilities, 1100 South Little Creek Road, Dover, Delaware.

Engineer is Morris and Richie Associates.

111 Ruther Drive, Newark, Delaware.

Zoning District is AR, comprehensive plan map designation is low density.

Relation to growth zone is inside.

Present use is vacant.

Proposed use is same with a water tower.

Levy court is with Mr.

Swainy.

Lake Forest.

Fire District is Felton Station 48.

And total 57.85 acres on the new side fire power route.

You can go right there.

Okay, you can go.

Yep.

Yes, thank you, sir.

You're good.

You can be sworn or affirmed unless you're an attorney.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Charlie Barnett.

I'm with Morrison Richie Associates at 111 Ruth R Drive, Newark, Delaware.

And sir, do you swear affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth?

I do.

Thank you.

Go right ahead.

Thank you very much.

Good evening, everybody.

I'll listen to clicker one second, please.

Maybe sound below.

Good evening.

Um again here for the Tidewater Utilities Elevator Storage Tank Project.

If you remember, um I was here September of last year to present the to present the major subdivision of Gerald Ridge to this same uh planning commission, which consisted of 85 single family lots.

Um it was approved in September of last year, the preliminary plan, and is currently under design.

At that time, we showed the plan that is also on the screen here before you and pointed out that this square area in the back was being reserved for a future elevated water tank for tidewater utilities as the code requires.

That is allowable through a conditional use application, which is uh why we're here tonight.

So to fresh your memory, uh Jarr Road subdivision is on the north side of Fire Tower Road.

Um it's bordered by Countryside Mobile Estates here to the west, and also Riverdale States here right next to it.

Uh the northern property line is Hudson Branch defined by that uh water body.

There is a uh solar facility currently under construction uh right across the way from it.

Uh most of this area here is wooded on the other side of the water body.

Uh and uh then there is another subdivision uh Summerfield Village across the street on the south side of Fire Tower Road.

Thank you.

Um as required by the code, any uh facility like this, a tower is required to be uh have a setback from the nearest property lines at least equal to or greater than the height of the tower.

We are proposing uh this facility to be 137 feet high.

Um the nearest proposed lot line is right there.

That's uh has a setback of 140 feet, so we meet that requirement.

The next closest lot is 142 feet there.

Um the property line uh to the east, which is uh again Hudson branch, the stream that is 208 feet away from the tower, and then the umdivision to the west of us is 357 feet away.

So we meet all the requirements for the code there.

We've also put together a rendering here of about what that tower would look like from Fire Tower Road.

If you were to look back, um obviously this there's going to be a subdivision in front of it with um single family homes on it, but as far as where it would be positioned and how far away that's what we put together for you there.

There are several other water towers within the county's purview, and we've just kind of placed some of them here on this map.

Um all the existing ones are here in red, garrisons, fossil sweet, uh middle school, uh Woodfield there.

Also, there's currently being one under construction right now by Tidewater Utilities called Carpenter's Bridge.

That facility is right down here.

Um there are two others uh here and here that have been proposed, have been approved, and uh just haven't quite started construction yet.

And then the Gerald Ridge facility here, just outside of OLA.

There's a picture showing some of the other water towers within the county, just to show that it's not unlike many other facilities that have already been approved and constructed throughout the county.

And then some other photographs of um similar water towers that uh may not be within the counties uh but are also within the jurisdictions throughout Kent County.

Uh also this project went before the uh Board of Adjustments last month uh where we uh were granted three variances that had to deal with the signage on the um uh facility and the height of those signs, and all those were approved at that time.

That's the general presentation for the project.

If anybody has any questions, I'd be glad to answer them.

There's also uh gentlemen here from Tidewater Utilities in case you have specifics, but um the towers basically needed for their overall infrastructure.

It is to help bolster that uh portion of the county and their existing facilities to make sure that they have adequate operating pressures within their system so that they can provide drinking water to the residents of the area, not just the Gerald Bridge subdivision.

This goes towards their entire network and all their customers, as well as making sure that they can provide proper fire protection pressure for when those needs arise.

Having said that, I see when we we approved the application.

You were actually taking two acres of woodland down out of the 22 total down to around 20.

Does this two acres involved in where this water tower is going?

The those numbers included what would need to be cleared for the water tower, correct.

So there isn't any additional damage to the woodlands.

Correct.

Okay, I'll now open it up to commissioners.

Anybody have any questions about the water tower?

Mr.

Garvey.

So this will actually be fed through a well on understanding, correct?

I beg your pardon?

This will actually be fed through a well.

Tidewater actually has Tidewater house um a water main right down there by the railroad crossing of Fire Tower Road.

And that water system will be extended up into the site, feed the tower, and then it'll help increase the pressure to be pushed back out through the system.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yep.

Any other questions?

Seeing none, I thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Is there anyone else here that supports this project and would like to speak?

Anyone else here supports this project would like to speak?

Seeing none.

We'll be taking this project up next week.

Excuse me, we're going to the negative side.

I forgot.

You all scared me now, so I'm not the negativity of mean, I guess.

So we're going to go to the negative side for the water tower.

Is there anybody online that wants to speak in favor or against this project?

For our guests joining us online, if you would like to speak in favor or in opposition to this project, please indicate by raising electronic hand or pressing star three if you're joining us by phone.

I see no hands raised online at this time, Mr.

Chair.

Then I'll ask the floor.

Is there anyone here that's opposed to this project?

Anyone here?

And we'll be taking this project up next week.

Thank you all.

Next on the agenda tonight is project number SL-2602, pintail crossing, located on the east side of McGuinness Pond Road and the north side of Barrett's Chapel Road.

Owner is Joe.

It is Ashley Corporate with the same address.

Engineer is Panani Associates.

Levy Court District is Mr.

Scott.

School district is Levy Court.

Fire district is Magnoe and Federica.

That's station 55 and 49.

Size of site is 15.58 acres.

Relation to the gross zone is inside.

Water will be supplied by Artesian Water Company, and the sewer will be Kent County Sewer.

Is there someone here representing this application and can speak?

And if you're not an attorney, please give us your name and address, and you can be sworn or affirmed.

Hello.

Doug Barry, PE Pannonius Associates 121 Continental Drive in New York.

And do you swear affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth?

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

So again, thank you for hearing this application tonight.

Uh, as stated by Mr.

Jester, uh Pinsail Crossing consists of a 52-lot duplex development uh with one existing single family home at the northeast intersection of Barrett's Chapel and McGuinness Pond Road.

Um at the site is zone AC, it's within the designated growth zone of the county, and it's uh a use that is proposed by right and permitted by right, I should say.

Also, the project is in conformance with the comprehensive plan of the county.

It has been successfully annexed into the uh sanitary sewer district by Levy Court uh six weeks ago, I believe.

And public works is actually issued conditional approval of the of the um of the plans.

We received the staff recommended recommendation report.

We agree to comply with the requirements set forth, including the following, and I'll note um five of them.

So the site will be designed in conformance with the recently adopted drainage code.

I saw that in the staff recommendation report a couple times.

So uh that's that's not a problem.

Um the pump station that's currently positioned adjacent to Barrett's Chapel Road will be relocated slightly to the east, closer to the farm field, as suggested by both planning and public works.

Um the active rec area will be relocated as suggested.

Uh, there was a mention to keep it a little bit farther away from the stormwater ponds.

We'll work in concert with the planning department with that.

Um we will propose an active trail to meander around the stormwater pond, so that'll be a nice feature.

Uh, and we also agree to complete a lot line adjustment plan for the existing single family home uh prior to uh final approval of the major subdivision.

Uh there is a request from MPO and Kent County to connect the subdivision street to Barrett's Chapel, and I just wanted to note that we met with Deltot about this issue, and they've indicated that they will require site access from McGuinness Pond Road.

Whenever a property abuts two different state roads, they always require you to take access from the one that's least traveled.

Um Parrots Chapel is a major collector.

McGinnis Pond is a local road.

So in compliance with the with the state's requirements, we're we're proposing a sole access adjacent to McGuinness Pond Road.

There's also an interconnection to Pin Tail Point to the north.

That's been recommended for approval by MPO.

Um the Lake Forest School District Superintendent has issued an email in support of the development.

And we've also met with KCD and Deltad and working through final approvals with that office.

There are two waiver requests for the application I'm on the note.

Uh first, we are asking that the existing single family home adjacent to McGuinness Pond Road continue to take access off that road.

Uh there was a comment to connect that single family dwelling to the new proposed subdivision street.

Dell dot has um indicated that they would require that to take sole access to you know to continue to take access off McGinnis Pond Road.

So we're respectfully requesting that we don't um connect the call-de-sac to Barrett's Chapel Road.

Uh secondly, um there is a waiver from the requirement to maintain stormwater ponds 100 feet from residential setback lines.

While the project will be designed in conforms to the Kent County drainage code, we agreed to comply with the 30-foot offset from property lines.

We do want to maximize that stormwater management area to get the post-development discharge rates and the volumes down as much as possible prior to discharge into state right away.

Um so those are the two waiver requests that we are asking for, and and I should say that Kent County Planning has recommended approval of both of those waiver requests.

Uh with that, I'll thank you for your time.

I'm happy to ask answer any questions.

The developer Jordan Ashburn is here as well.

Thank you.

It looks like by your plans, you actually got the bus stop designed out during McGinnis Pond Road.

Yes, subject to final DART and Deltot approval.

Is there any parking around the bus stop itself if necessary?

If they bring kids up there and they want to drop off or wait for them, there's a dedicated right turn lane into the entrance, so that could help facilitate drop-off to the bus shelter, but there's not a designated parking area for it.

Now, if Dart or Dell Dot asked for that, and my client wants to do that, then I'm sure we'll be happy to do that.

Mr.

Mills.

Okay, I've been in the bus business for 40 some years.

Ran this rare area right here for 30 years.

No longer in the bus business no more.

Uh but I am driving the bus.

Now I know the Lake Forest School District approved of the bus stops along that road, which that is the state state's regulation that they can be picked up along the road, which has become one of the most dangerous places to pick up kids.

And that road right there, that uh uh Barrish Chapel Road is cars pretty near are bumpered above.

No signs.

If you put up signs, I'm not gonna talk.

But the dangerous areas is where we're picking these kids up along these roads.

Now all we got to do is design that development so that that bus can go in, loop around and come back out, and they can have a place for cars to park.

That is happening on some others that we've got through in the last few months, and this is no problem with this.

Uh, like I go back and I'll say yes, the Lake Forest School District did approve, approve those kids getting picked up along the road.

And it is it is becoming dangerous, dangerous, dangerous to get kids up on these buses and off these buses and cross those roads when these developments can be redesigned.

Now, here's another thing.

I go in and develop this myself right now.

What is trash day?

All the trash cans are at the end of the driveway.

Those trucks go in there and they pick up every trash can there is, but the poor little kids have to walk out to the road and hey kids get across the road best you can if a car don't hit you.

I'm just saying we've got to have some different designs on these developments.

Look at these kids getting on and off these buses about what we're presenting here now.

And I know it's going to take legislative action to change the Department of Education to uh uh come up with an effort plan.

But right now uh the it's up to the developer and the engineers to develop a place that can be more efficient.

Sure.

Thank you.

Did you mention that that could possibly be redesigned out there along the road and maybe inside or something?

It's subject to final Dart and Delt out approval.

But I do want to help.

A concern of yours is duly noted.

What helped what might help mitigate that is there's going to be sidewalks on both sides of the streets.

There's going to be crosswalks, ADA ramps, signage.

And just based on the amount of units proposed, the type of units and where we are, we're only anticipating 16 to 20 students.

So in talking to uh Lake Forest School District, he did not want the buses coming into that.

He thought it would be uh more safe to have a designated bus pickup adjacent to the road when we have all these sidewalks internal to the subdivision streets that we could use to get them there safely.

Because you're going to have a connection to the north to the to that next development, correct?

That's correct.

So that pin cell point was that was a planned connection to this.

The bus could actually come in and go up there and actually go out that way.

It could.

Now our bus stop is gonna it isn't gonna be within the community, so the buses should not be coming into the subdivision.

Okay.

We'll see what happens.

Mr.

Peterman.

You said there's going to be a pull off there.

Yes.

Where the bus stop.

How long how many foot is that pool?

How long a distance is it?

And how many buses would it take to fill that spot up to where a car that's taking children to school couldn't pool off there?

Right.

Yeah, I know there's a requirement to have it 90 feet in length right now, or um our D cell lien is 95 feet.

So we're we're very sensitive to the bus issue.

And when we submit to DART and Dell DOT, we will make sure that we have that shelter in there.

There's proper channelization and ways to get into it with signage so they know what's there.

Um so yeah, that's what we'll be submitting to to Dell Dot and Dart soon after preliminary approval.

The houses that's being built in there, are they crawl spaced or are they concrete slab or how are they constructed?

I will ask Mr.

Ashburn to answer that right now.

And I wanted to know how many stories there were.

Two.

Two stories.

Excuse me, duplexes will be one.

Okay.

Yeah.

Do you want to comment on the Jordan Ashburn, 106 Port Rush Court, Dover, Delaware, 10904.

Um before you begin, do you swear affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth?

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Jester, what was the question again?

This construction of the houses in the curl space.

Is it a curl space concrete slab or what are they constructed on?

Um at that point would probably be market-based.

Um I would probably offer both.

And of course, obviously there is the new um stormwater ordinance, so anything that would be there would have to be two foot elevated above the benchline.

Okay, I understand.

Thank you for answering the question.

And then as far as the number of stories, um, my intention is to offer ranch master down and also master up units for to um cover the large segment of buyers.

Anyone else have any questions for this gentleman?

Mr.

Gauvery.

Actually, just clarification on the waivers that you had asked for.

On the on the first one that I'm I'm looking that the staff recommends that a lot line adjustment be uh submitted.

Um is that something that you uh entertain in terms of that waiver?

Yeah, it's not a problem.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much.

Is there anyone else here that supports this project and would like to speak?

Third and final call.

Is there anyone else here that supports this project and likes to speak?

Anyone online, Mark, that supports the project and would like to speak?

For our guests to join us online, if you would like to speak in favor of application SL 2602, please indicate by raising electronic handle pressing star three if you're joining us by phone.

I see no hands raised online in favor, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you very much.

We'll now go over to the ones that are against.

Is there anybody here?

I remind you you have five minutes to do yours, and you'll be either sworn or affirmed by our attorney with a name and address.

I'm Shannon Ritter.

I'm at 275 Waterfowl Drive.

And I am person one of the slides.

And do you swear affirm that the testimony you're about to do will be the truth?

Correct.

I do.

Thank you.

Go right ahead.

You may have guessed that this crowd is here in opposition of this project.

Let me be clear that this situation is not about affordable housing.

We have had many community conversations about the significance of affordable housing.

Our opposition to this project is about ensuring a bunch of self-serving home builders and developers are not bullying and tricking their way into running rough sod over the agricultural nature of our community and neighborhood.

This is not allowing Jordan Ashburn to use sneaky techniques and undermine the levy court's intent to speed and encourage affordable housing by using the by-right zoning provisions.

Ashburn Home wants to profit off the health, welfare, and agricultural neighborhood of rural Delaware, but has no intent of creating affordable housing or even allowing the dream of hone ownership as the comprehensive plan calls for of these proposed 52 families.

I would like to explain to everyone that the Planning Commission authority and obligation to disapprove this proposal under Delaware state law court case and Kent County Law.

Slide one, section 4956 calls zoning to strictly by category or so-called by right.

The levy court revises the Kent County Code in December of 2024 to allow by-right zoning.

The intent was to make buildings affordable housing in the Kent County easier and more likely.

Zoning is not only the requirement for planning under Delaware law and in Kent County.

Delaware Code states subdividing is a separate set of criteria.

Board's obligation is to ensure subdivision one complies with the zoning ordinance, as well as complies with the 2018 Comprehensive Plan.

Just for the understanding of the people in the audience, an overview of what the comprehensive plan is.

Slide two.

Slide three, please.

Delaware Code Title IX, Chapter 49, Section 4959.

The legal status of the comprehensive plan, the land use map shall have the force of law, and no development shall be permitted except in conformity.

If the proposed plan does not comply with a comprehensive plan, it is a violation of Delaware law to approve the application.

You can see in slide four that this subdividing plan violates the map 7B of the comprehensive plan.

Therefore, it's violation of Delaware law under Section 4959 to approve this subdivision.

In addition to this subdividing, may be a violation of map 7C of the Comprehensive Plan.

And if so, it would also be a violation of the law to propose the plan.

Side five, please.

The low density residential states that it's single family detached residential homes.

The medium density residential in the comprehensive plan says that it's the single family detached and attached homes.

Slide six, please.

As part of the legally required process for a county developing a comprehensive plan, Kent County submitted the draft of the comprehensive plan to this state.

They received the following feedback from those.

It is re recommended that the land use chapter contain a summary of what is intended in each land use category on map 7B.

The state said that the plan should be specific in what was allowed in each category.

In response to the state letter, the comprehensive plan committee added specific information about these permitted uses in each category.

The chart is very specific and about what applies for the purposes of subdividing.

This chart is different than the zoning chart.

This chart applies in addition to the zoning chart about permitted and conditional districts.

Remember that any plan must comply with the zoning and subdividing provisions of the Delaware Code, Kent County Code, and the Comprehensive Plan.

The response from Kent County was a summary of land use categories and uses has been included.

The chart is very specific about what's permitted.

There are different requirements for zoning, subdividing, and the comprehensive plan, which uses the density zoning categories like agricultural and residential.

The comprehensive plan does not designate or control the property's acre ratio.

In the comprehensive plan, density controls what types of buildings can be placed.

Ashburn is proposing to subdivide and build a low density area under the comprehensive plan.

To comply, Ashburn would have to build single family manufacturing homes.

Thank you.

Okay, your five minutes is up, I was going to say.

I'll ask questions now if they have any commissioners have any questions?

Mr.

Garvey?

Is your primary concern that these that this development is not affordable housing?

Our concern that it doesn't match the rural character of the neighborhood, and that the Planning Commission's mission statement says that that is their obligation as well as that it doesn't meet the medium density requirement.

I live next door to the nearly 15-foot sign.

I bought my house in 2020.

I knew that there was going to be development through that.

I was counting on the commission to build responsibly and uphold the rural community that is in conformity with our neighborhood.

I would not be here tonight if they were proposing single-family homes.

That would fit the commission's comprehensive.

So this so everything that you were just talking about boils down to being in character with the rural environment that is surrounds it and whether it whether it is can be construed as being meaning low density housing and affordability.

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

We live on half-acre lots.

These are going to be less than 0.09 acres to .11 acres.

That's not in conformity, and seven of us bought homes since the comprehensive plan that all back to this property.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

So basically, your your worst complaint is the duplexes.

Absolutely.

When I moved there, the comprehensive plan said that it would be a future development in conformity with what is there, protecting the rural nature of our community.

Okay.

You did a very good presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here against this application would like to speak?

Yes.

Please give us your name and address.

You can be sworn or affirmed by our attorney.

My name is Joy Roanard.

I live at 51 Marganser Drive in Pintail Point.

And do you swear affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth?

I do.

Thank you.

I'm Joy.

I live in Pintail Point.

I've lived there now for three years.

We moved from Florida to get away from high density and small property zero lot lines.

I was a nurse in schools in Atlantic County in New Jersey for many years.

I see children getting on and off buses and the accidents that can happen to them when there isn't adequate planning or safety in the consideration.

The other thing I'm concerned about is we moved there three years ago.

My property is on a half acre lot.

I uh pay for HOA dues every year.

I am concerned about the three retention detention ponds, the open space and snow removal.

And the concern is these pay these homeowners will be coming through our community, probably on their way to work at high speeds, putting our children in danger.

We have several children who stop for the buses, get on and get off.

And you have to be very careful.

I do not support this proposed development, and I have an interest in the quality of life here.

When I bought here three years ago, I was also hoping that the quality of the construction that might come would also be half acre lots, single family homes.

I acknowledge that we do have an affordable housing crisis in Delaware, and I understand the urgency for getting a lot of the affordable housing, but I do not want the character of our neighborhood to change.

The proposed development will do not any of the things that are intended with affordable housing.

In fact, the development will probably make the affordable housing crisis worse because it's planned that there may be rentals in this area.

Ashburn wants to think that their proposal is going to create affordable housing opportunities for 52 families.

Our HOA has 56 families on half-acre lots.

Perhaps Ashburn is less than honest or transparent.

Ashburn Homes tells people they are building affordable homes, but they rent many of the homes in their previously built areas.

He's a major landlord.

He builds the homes, affordable, sells some to himself, and then rents these affordable homes at prices that he controls.

He owns eight companies that we know of.

And I think that you can see on the slide the eight listed companies.

I would like that entered into the record.

The part that Ashburn does not tell you is that he also sells homes to himself under the names of all these LLCs and then makes them rental properties.

Mr.

Barry, thank you for posting the list.

You can see five pages of properties that Ashburn built and sold to his company, 85 properties so far.

Ashburn has approved to build another six.

They sold to the company themselves.

It is on Lexington Place and was rented to someone for $1,850.

There is currently a comparable 1,400 square foot duplex under contract on Lexington Place for $289,000.

And a private individual is selling that.

A new owner's mortgage payment on that house would be 1,726, including everything, taxes, insurance, and HOA fee.

The mortgage is cheaper.

The annual mortgage payments on the house is 2,0600 and less than the cost of an Ashburn rental if they used an USDA home loan.

For military families, I'm a veteran.

I care about those military families.

Ma'am, are you about done?

Almost.

Thank you for answering.

You're at your no, you're at the end of your time.

Okay.

Thank you.

Unless you have that if you have another one, if you have something else very important at the end, you'd like to.

I just would also like to say sometimes he also charges the homeowners in addition to the rent that they have to pay the HOA fees, and he's the HOA manager.

So thank you for listening.

Thank you for your attention.

Wait right there a minute.

Thank you very much.

Is there anybody here that has a question, Mr.

Gauvery?

The development that you said that you live in, um, would you constitute that as low-income housing?

No.

And so I guess I paid over 500,000 for mine.

So three years ago.

One of the questions that I'm trying to wrap my mind around is quite often what would constitute low-income housing when architecturally be considered necessarily in keeping with your rural community area.

So push comes to shove.

Is it architecturally in keeping with the rural area or is it low-income housing or is it a combination of both that is the primary concern?

I'm more concerned with rental properties.

I'm more concerned with if they have low income and they sell the homes, that's wonderful.

But I don't want to see, you know, rentals and high turnovers.

And I don't want to see high density on those properties.

Will he guarantee that that won't add to the water that comes into our retention and detention ponds that we are responsible under the state law for maintaining?

I'm not sure.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, ma'am.

I appreciate your presentation.

Is there anyone else here that?

What do you have, Mark?

Or you got something, Sarah?

I wanted to offer a quick clarification, if you wouldn't mind, Mr.

Chairman.

I understand the concern about rental, but it's very important to keep in mind that is not something the county governs.

Architecture is not something the county governs.

The use itself, the levy court has determined, is permitted by right.

So I just want to make sure the commission doesn't go down a path where it doesn't actually have any legislative control.

Thank you.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

I'm glad you made that clear.

Somebody else, anybody else here would like to speak and oppose this application?

Please give us your name and your address.

And remember you have five minutes.

Jennifer Lynch, 215 Waterfowl Drive, Magnolia.

Can you swear affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth?

I do.

Thank you.

Good evening, everybody.

I'm here tonight to speak about traffic.

Specifically the very real and measurable impact that the proposed 52 unit development will have on our existing streets of our neighborhood.

Let me start out with something simple, something that may seem small, but it's anything but the mailbox.

Ashburn Homes has a well-documented building pattern.

Yet they consistently construct community mailbox clusters in their developments.

And yet, if you look at the plan submitted for this project, you will find something notable by its absence.

There is no mailbox location shown anywhere on the plans.

That's not a minor oversight.

That is a critical missing piece of the infrastructure, and it has direct consequences for our neighborhood.

Here's the math.

52 families conservatively, two vehicles per household.

That's 104 cars that will need to navigate in and out of the development every single day.

So we're talking about over 200 vehicle trips per day in this development, and that's before taking into account school tri school run uh school runs, errands, visitors, and deliveries.

I want to be clear, uh, that number is not ours alone.

The trip generation diagram submitted with this application project, uh application project 288, uh projects 288 additional trips on McGuinness Pond Road.

That is in the staff report.

Staff found that 143 of those trips, that's about 60 percent, would be left turns towards Barrett's Chapel Road.

These are not our estimates, these are the developers' own numbers reviewed and cited by county staff.

This development connects this development connects with our neighborhood via the Bufflehead Drive that's right next to Shannon's um address.

Without the without a mailbox cited for this development's own entrance, those 52 families will do what every family's do.

They will drive to get their mail from their mailbox.

And the most logical, most convenient place for Ashburn homes to place a community mailbox cluster based on their standard building practices is inside our existing neighborhood that's accessible by Buffalo Head Drive.

That means every single afternoon when with when the mail runs, residents of this new development will be driving through the streets of Pintel Point to collect their mail.

Our streets, past our homes, past our children, playing outside.

We move to this neighborhood so that our children and grandchildren have a safe community, a place where they can get on and off the bus each day without navigating a bunch of congestion.

Our roads currently have no more than 10 cars passing our bus stops during the morning commute.

We are asking that the board uh ensure that all children for both subdivisions can get on and off their buses safely.

This cannot be left to the discretion to the discretion of the developer.

Now staff has already recognized this traffic problem.

Their own recommendation calls for relocating the pump station so that a second entrance can be added on Barracks Chapel Road.

Staff sites can't county code, the MPO, Kent County uh public works, all supporting this change.

The MPO has specifically identified future capacity issues on McGuinness Pond Road, that this project will make uh make worse.

We agree with staff on this point.

A second entrance on Barrett's Chapel Road is not optional, it's necessary.

We want to we want this board to understand that a second entrance alone does not resolve the mailbox problem.

Those are two separate issues, and both must be addressed as explicit conditions for any approval.

We are asking the board to require these two things as conditions for approval.

First, that the community mailbox cluster for this new development be cited at the Lexington Mill entrance.

The development's own entrance shown explicitly explicitly on the approval plans before any vote is taken.

Second, that the second entrance on Barracks Chapel Road as recommended by staff be required and not left as a suggestion.

Keep their traffic at their entrance, both of them.

If these plans cannot tell us where the residents will pick up their mail, and if a second entrance supported by staff by public works and the MPO and the Kent County Code is still not guaranteed, then these plans are not complete and they're not ready for approval.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, ma'am.

And we've been historically talking how far Dell DOT is behind on upgrading the road system.

But you do as voters for your legislators and all to see whether they can start addressing this.

So I'll now open to commissioners.

Anybody have any questions for this lady?

Once again, thank you for your comments.

Thank you all.

Anyone else here would like to make comment against this project?

Would like to speak?

Please give us your name and address.

You could be sworn or affirmed by our attorney.

Paul Fisher 231 Waterfall Drive.

And do you swear affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth?

I do.

Thank you.

Your master we can hear you.

So tonight I'd like to discuss uh privacy concerns.

Um with the proposed development and the existing development of Pintail Point.

I'm here to discuss and specifically request the need uh for a meaningful uh buffer to be constructed between the two developments.

Referencing the architectural documents and is currently planned, Ashburn Homes has made zero effort to mitigate light and sound pollution from the proposed development.

52 units built in close proximity to our backyards will undoubtedly affect the tranquility our neighborhood has enjoyed for the past 18 years.

Furthermore, the lack of like clearly defined property boundary will likely create confusion and potentially lead to trespassing scenarios inside the existing pintail point landscaping buffer.

I'd like to reference the staff recommendation uh from the report dated 7 May 2026 on page three.

And I quote, active open space pedestrian paths that abut lot lines should be clearly demarcated so that lot owners do not mistake these strips of land as private property.

Staff recommended using split rail fencing or distinctive landscaping for this purpose, which should be shown on the landscaping plan.

Now I acknowledge that this requirement is something that is for internal use within that community, but the point is that they are pointing out uh using a tool for demarcation so the residents won't mistake private property for community property.

We think that there should also be a recommendation made to differentiate between the physical property lines of the proposed development and pintail point.

The intent of this recommendation provides clarity in distinguishing private property from common space.

As residents who live adjacent to the proposed development, it's our recommendation to mandate a 50-foot landscaping buffer to clearly demarcate property lines.

Additionally, a property plan buff a properly planned buffer should limit both light and noise pollution.

Due to the close proximity of this project, the Pintail Point HOA recommends that the buffer zone be comprised of an earthen burn, staggered evergreen plantings, such as green giant Arbovida, a privacy wall, or a combination thereof.

A buffer of this nature would not only benefit current and future residents, but also confirm standards already implemented by this very committee.

On September 4th, 2025, the Gerald Ridge application pitted residents against the builder in a similar situation where the proposed site was adjacent to existing homes.

As a result, the board mandated additional buffer requirements to better protect the privacy of surrounding neighbors.

These are the standards behind responsible development.

Developers who engage neighbors, developers implementing buffers.

Developers coming to the table before construction begins, not after.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Anybody have any questions?

Actually, it's a question for staff.

Sarah, my understanding is that the buffers that are that have been proposed with this project are in keeping with the codes, and that changing buffer requirements would actually require a change to the code.

Or is that not correct?

It certainly the buffers being requested tonight are not a requirement of the code.

It's possible to have a conversation with the developer or his representative to see if they would be willing to accommodate something.

But yeah, there's a fine line between what's a what's a code requirement and then what is a nexus between the development and the impact the development might have and a reasonable condition to try to address that impact.

It's short of an understanding between the community here and the developer who then comes to us and says I'd like to make these changes because the community would like to have them done.

We're not we have we're not actually legally able to go in and make those arbitrary changes on ourselves if they if they go against the code as it's written.

I am not your attorney, I'm your planning director, so I can't give the attorneys online.

I I think it is it there's a reason we have two business days after the hearing.

Correct.

And the commission could certainly ask if the developer would be willing to install some kind of buffer.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

And Sarah and I'll be happy to look into that and connect with you tomorrow too to see exactly what the legal requirements are.

Thank you.

Any other commissioners have any questions?

Comments or anyone else here would like to speak against this project and come to the mic.

Your name and address, and you'll be sworn or affirmed by our attorney.

Courtney Thompson, um 133 Mergancer Drive.

And do you swear affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth?

I do.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Courtney.

I live in the Pintail Point community directly adjacent to the proposed development site connected to our neighborhood.

First, I want to make it clear that our community supports reasonable growth and supports affordable homeownerships throughout Kent County.

We understand growth is coming and we are not opposed to the development itself.

However, we strongly believe that this specific proposal for duplexes is not appropriate for the location and does not fit the character planning or long-term interests of the area.

Pin Tel Point is a rural low density community made up entirely of single-family homes on larger lots.

The homes in our neighborhood were built and purchased with the understanding that the surrounding area would maintain the same rural residential character.

The proposed duplex development would introduce a housing style that is inconsistent with the immediate area and inconsistent with the established identity of the surrounding communities.

In reviewing nearby neighborhoods and developments, there are no duplex style communities in the immediate surrounding area of Pintel Point.

The surrounding homes are detached to single family residences on sizable lots, many between one half acre and larger.

This proposal would create a community different, a completely different type of density and land use directly connected to our neighborhood without blending into the existing community design.

This area raises concerns from both an investment and planning standpoint.

Buyers looking in this area are specifically seeking rural character, privacy, larger lots, and single family neighborhoods within the Caesar Rodney school district.

Introducing duplexes directly adjacent to our community does not align with the market identity that has that has historically supported property values and stable long-term investment in this area.

Additionally, there is concern regarding the school district boundaries.

Families viewing properties marketed under the pin tail crossing name could reasonably assume there is a connection or shared identity with Pin Tell Point, especially since the roads would connect directly into our neighborhood.

That creates unnecessary confusion for home buyers regarding community identity and school district expectations.

The developer has made it clear that they do not intend for this project to truly be part of our neighborhood.

Yet they still intend to use the pin tail name and physically connect the roads into our community.

If the development is separate in identity and vision, then it should not rely on the established reputation and recognition of our neighborhood to market the project.

From a county planning perspective, this proposal also raises broader concerns about consistency in land use.

Kent County has long valued balanced growth that respects existing rural communities.

Duplexes may be appropriate in areas already designed for higher density housing near commercial corridors or within more urbanized growth centers, but placing them in the middle of a low density rural residential area creates a transition that simply does not make planning sense.

This is not about opposing new neighbors.

It is about ensuring that development is compatible, thoughtful, and consistent with the existing community fabric.

Once this type of density change occurs, it permanently alters the character of the area and sets a precedent for future development decisions.

Our community has invested heavily in maintaining the quality, appearance, and rural nature of this neighborhood.

Families chose this area because it offered something different from the more densely developed communities.

We respectfully ask the committee to consider whether this proposal truly represents the best long-term outcome for the surrounding residents for Kent County planning goals and the integrity of this rural area.

We ask that you deny this proposal in its current form and encourage development that is more consistent with the surrounding community and land use patterns.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I'll ask any of the commissioners have any questions.

Fine presentation.

Thank you very much.

What else here would like to speak in opposition to this application?

And come to the mic.

Good evening, Dewey Barish, 203 Waterfowl Drive, Pintel Point.

And sir, do you swear affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth?

I do.

Thank you.

Good evening, and thank you for your attention tonight.

My name is Dewey Barrish.

I'm the president of the Pentail Point Homeowners Association.

I'm here tonight to express our association's common concerns about the proposed development named Pintail Crossing.

As you've heard from some of our homeowners this evening, multiple issues and concerns exist in our established community.

These range from safety concerns from significantly increased vehicular traffic, decreased tranquility, loss of privacy, strained EMS services, you haven't heard that part yet, and negatively impacted property values just after a reassessment was finalized.

These concerns arise largely from the density of the proposed new housing.

Fifty-two homes squeezed into less than 15 acres in a subdivision that is then connected to an existing subdivision with 38 homes in about 35 acres is simply not in character with the existing community.

As I've spoken to many members of our community since we learned of this proposal for pin tail crossing, there have been several common and strongly held objections.

The most notable objection has not been that this land is being developed, but that it is being developed as proposed in a manner that is not consistent with the character of the existing subdivision, yet will be attached to our wonderful community and negatively impact many of the attributes that make this community so attractive.

The second most common objection encompasses safety.

The traffic increase is particularly concerning.

Many of our homeowners walk their dogs on our streets multiple times a day and/or walk or bike for their own enjoyment and exercise.

Even though they are doing so on our streets, since we do not have sidewalks in our subdivision.

They can still enjoy these activities with little concern for safety given the absence of through traffic combined with the low traffic that is almost entirely homeowners as currently exists.

This tranquility has been a key motivator in many of our homeowners' decision to purchase a home here.

Increased vehicular traffic from a newly connected subdivision and delivery vehicles increases these safety concerns permanently.

The proposal for this new development has wider streets than our subdivision and includes sidewalks.

Those sidewalks are shown on the plans to come into our community and terminate at the edge of existing driveways, which introduces an inconsistency in pedestrian access routes because our subdivision does not have sidewalks, which might create issues with Dell Dot's pedestrian access routes program.

We've heard as well tonight about the strained emergency services.

Apologies that one hasn't come yet within our area.

First responders are an incredibly important part of our society, but like all institutions, their resources are limited, which is a circumstance that only worsens as their service demands grow faster than their resources.

This concern I've heard repeatedly from many of the homeowners in our community.

Property values are an inevitable issue here as well.

The addition of so many homes nearby is densely packed as proposed will assuredly lower property values of our homes.

The addition of so many homes nearby, as densely packed as proposed, will assuredly lower property values of our homes, a troubling issue by itself, but also happening right after a lengthy reassessment of all properties in Kent County that could leave many of our homeowners upside down on property tax costs until and unless those homes are reassessed.

The asks that our community have made are driven by the strong desire to help this area and our subdivision in particular maintain its rural character.

We are not against development.

We simply want it to be in character with what is present and are concerned about any number of factors that such densely packed housing will introduce into our community.

We would strongly prefer that this area be developed as single family detached homes on lot sizes similar to our half acre lots.

Barring that, we would prefer this new development not connect to Bufflehead Drive and instead allow it to utilize the McGuinness Pond entrance and the proposed added entrance on Barrett's Chapel that was suggested with relocation of the sewer pumping station.

Given the difference of character of the proposed community in ours, we would also ask for increased buffer space and vegetation along the border with Pentail Point to help separate these two subdivisions with very different character to help preserve the tranquil community that we enjoy so much.

Thank you again for your time and attention this evening.

Thank you, sir.

I'll ask Commissioners.

Does anyone have any questions?

Seeing none, I thank you for your presentation.

Thank you.

Is there anyone out here would like to come to the Mike and get a lady in the back to come in?

Lady in the back.

Good evening.

I'm Mary Finn and I live at 27 Mergancer Drive in Pentail Point.

And do you swear affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth?

I do.

Thank you.

So good evening, Mr.

Chairman and members of the Levy Court.

As I said, I'm Mary Finn and I've been a resident of Pentel Point for almost seven years.

I'm here tonight to speak about water, standing water, stormwater management, and the documented impact that this proposed development will have on an already saturated piece of land that's home to a protected wildlife species.

So let me start with the land itself.

The proposed development includes, as you've heard, a five-acre parcel located at 1008 McGuinness Pond Road.

This is not simply an undeveloped land.

This is land with a well-documented history of severe water accumulation.

In 2020, the previous property owner was forced to remove horses and cattle from this property, not because of neglect, but because of standing water on the ground that was persistent and so deep that the animals' hooves were literally rotting.

Livestock had to be relocated because the land could not adequately drain.

This isn't a drainage inconvenience.

This is documented, verifiable flooding problem on the ground where Ashburn homes are proposed to be built.

So we asked this board if that land couldn't support hooves of two horses and a cow.

How is it going to support the foundation driveways and stormwater system of 52 homes?

Now I want to turn to what's living on that land and why its protection matters under Delaware state law.

On March 4th of this year, a resident of Pentail Point recorded video footage of an American woodcock in the existing Pentail Point stormwater retention pond off of Waterfowl Drive.

That video is available and it can be provided to the board if you would be interested.

This is not a casual bird sighting.

The American Woodcock is formally designated by Delaware Wildlife Action Plan, Denbreck's own legally recognized conservation blueprint as a tier two species of greatest conservation need.

The Delaware Wildlife Action Plan assigns tier two to species of greatest conservation need.

These include species that have rare to uncommon breeding populations in the state, species with broad distributions that are threatened by climate change, which Delaware has a responsibility to protect.

This is not a fringe classification.

The 2025 Delaware Wildlife Action Plan has received formal approval from the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service and Services as the state's conservation blueprint for wildlife diversity for the next decade through 2035.

It's federally reviewed state adopted document and identifies the American woodcock as a species the state has a specific responsibility to protect.

So what makes this more significant is that the retention pond off waterfowl drive is not an accidental habitat.

Residents have observed this bird on more than one occasion, and this bird comes back every year.

So we're asking this board to not halt the development entirely on these grounds, of course, but we're asking something specific, reasonable, and achievable that the proposed community retention pond for the new development be sited as close as possible to the existing retention pond, consolidating the water management infrastructure in an area that would minimize disturbance of the surrounding habitat, reduce the footprint of grading and landscape disruption across the rest of the site, and give the existing breeding pair of American woodcock best possible chance to continue in that habitat.

So to summarize, our request on the water issue is first and foremost, we ask that you require an independent third-party geotechnical and hydrological assessment of 1008 McGuinness Pond Road parcel before an approval is granted, giving its documented history of severe standing water and demonstrated inability to drain adequately even under natural conditions.

Second, we ask that the proposed community retention pond be sited adjacent to the existing waterfowl drive retention pond.

And third, we're happy to submit to you documentation of that March 4th sighting of the woodcock bird.

But most importantly, the land is telling us something.

The animals that live there in 2020 told us something.

And the woodcock returns there to breed every year.

So we ask that respectfully that you listen.

Thank you for your attention this evening.

And we appreciate your time.

Thank you very much, ma'am.

Anyone here have any questions for this young lady?

Seeing none, I opened it up again.

Is there anyone else here like to speak in opposition to this application and like to come to the mic?

Teresa Pepper, 2031.

Ma'ammy, I have to pull the mic up to you.

Oh to you.

203 Waterfowl Drive, Teresa Pepper is my name.

And do you swear affirm that the excuse me?

Testimony are about to get will be the truth.

I do.

Thank you, ma'am.

Good evening.

I'm sorry, I was not actually planning on uh speaking here tonight, so my words are not going to be as polished as the others.

Um I'd like to give you a little more understanding of our current pin tail point and some of the aspects that have been previously spoken of.

Uh one of the things that was mentioned was lack of sidewalks.

So basically, our roadways have no sidewalks, and they're only 20 feet wide.

I do believe that current roads are coated at 25 feet.

So we already have a smaller ribbon of roadway with no sidewalks.

So when the school bus comes into our development, they come in, they stop at an intersection.

I believe it's uh McGuinness and Waterfowl, and let the children off.

So the families, when they're picking up their children, are walking their children home in the middle of the street.

We don't have enough traffic to worry about cars zipping through.

We're okay.

We we realize that we don't have sidewalks.

There are people going to be in the roads.

So this new development, pentail crossing.

You're having 25-foot roads, double sidewalks, you're connecting to Bufflehead, which comes into ours, no sidewalks, smaller ribbon of asphalt.

And we're scared.

We're scared those people are going to be buzzing through because we're different aspects.

It's two different ways of driving.

And if you look at our location on the map, we're going to be a major cut through from everybody in pintail crossing going northbound.

They're not going to go out to McGuinness, cut over to Lexington Mill, and continue on to Route 1.

We are the shortcut right through there.

And so that traffic's going to be coming through us.

And we're scared.

So another question I have.

Oh, and on the school bus, somebody asked about school bus pads earlier in the other development.

We don't have a designated school bus pad.

Like I said, the school bus comes in and just drops the children at an intersection.

And then they walk home.

So it's not like there's a safe place to unload and load the children.

That's out of the way of traffic.

It is right in traffic.

And so that is my biggest concern is them connecting to us.

I would respectfully ask that they not connect to our Buffalohead Drive.

And if they could then use McGuinness and Barrett's Chapel, they have their two entrances and exits.

But they wouldn't be cutting through us and endangering our runners, our families, our dog walkers, our children.

I also have a question for the developer.

They came up with the number of 16 to 20 students estimated to be coming from Pentail Crossing.

Out of 52 homes.

I would ask how that number was estimated because personally common sense doesn't add up to me.

So thank you for listening.

Thank you.

You did a great job.

You didn't have to have any preparation.

My knees are shaking.

Very good.

Does anybody have any questions for this young lady?

Saying none, once again, I thank you.

Is there anyone else here who'd like to speak in opposition to this application?

Please come up and give us your name and address.

So you can be either sworn or affirmed.

My name is Richard Thompson.

I live at 133 Merganzer Drive in Magnolia.

And Mr.

Thompson, do you swear affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth?

I do.

Thank you.

Good evening.

I am in a homeowner and an HOA board member in the Pentail Point community.

I'm also a proud member of the Magnolia Volunteer Fire Company Station 55.

I'm here today because of the growing concerns about the rapid residential development increase in the very concentrated area between Magnolia and Frederica.

The development is in both Magnolia and Frederica's fire districts.

Magnolia has around 20 active responders, and Frederica has around 15 active responders.

This means that both communities are relying on a very small number of people to reliably be available at a moment's notice as we respond from home or wherever we are at the time.

In 2025, Magnolia responded to 425 runs, which was a 21% increase from the year prior.

Our fire departments respond to every emergency you can think of, motor vehicle collisions, house fires, wildfires, car fires, hazmat incidents, lift assists for EMTs, we worked sports games, we were everywhere.

We are also in all of the local waterways, including the bay.

While demand is rising, recruit is not keeping pace.

Are we fully considering response times, staffing levels, and the availability of volunteers when these developments are approved?

Because from what we are seeing, even the fire departments themselves are not closely involved in these broader conversations.

This leads to a question of what happens when multiple emergencies occur at the same time, which is not really a hypothetical.

This happens every single day.

Most recently the Harrington chicken house fire on April 15th that I myself responded to provides an excellent example of strained resources.

Two chicken houses became engulfed, and out of the 60 departments in the state, 17 departments responded, including both Magnolia and Frederica.

The Magnolia Fire Protection District was then supported by the Citizens Hose Company, who are also all volunteers who sent us a fire engine and a crew while Magnolia's resources were supporting Harrington.

The scene got even worse, so they sent the Citizen Sales Company from our firehouse to the scene as well.

So then we had a gap in coverage while we waited for the Creswell volunteer fire company to come back us up.

There is a deeper problem here too, where during the instance now Magnolia and the Citizens Hose Company and Cheswold are all short staffed and short apparatus that are short on people and equipment.

Magnolia has around 10 neighborhoods that do not have fire agrants.

Magnolia's tanker was in Harrington, and even the backup crews did not were not able to bring a tanker for us.

So we if a fire were to happen in any of those neighborhoods, we would have to wait until one was available in the local area.

Most were in Harrington.

I don't have the exact numbers.

Turning back to focus on this proposal, we understand that the current plan for Pintail Crossing includes 52 duplex units, potentially bringing more than 100 residents and vehicles, all within a tighter and higher density layout than the neighborhood it's attaching to ours.

The proposed neighborhood also lies near the Cattail Creek and proposed Barrett Landing developments.

Although the other two developments are outside the scope of this meeting, their developments and proximity is currently expected to bring 471 new homes within a roughly three mile radius, doubling the current home count of Frederico, and leading to a severe need for emergency support from surrounding cities like Magnolia.

We feel our request is simple.

We are asking this development be reduced to 21 single family homes instead of 52 duplexes.

In addition, we're also requesting that the neighborhood not connect to ours because of all of the issues everyone else brought up.

I'm here to mostly talk about safety.

This would alleviate most of our concerns about the project.

These changes will reduce density and strain on the surrounding emergency services.

It will also better align with the existing neighborhood, help preserve property values, and can lead to a safer, more sustainable integration into the community.

We are not asking you to stop development.

A few years ago, my wife and I separated from the military and returned to her home state of Delaware with the goal of purchasing our first home in a safe, quiet and affordable area.

Our entire home buying journey took us seven years, 13 home offers, five states, and two failed contracts to get here.

And we ended up with Magnolia.

Out of all of the places that we picked, we looked at Magnolia was our favorite.

We understand the housing challenges and have empathy for those still trying to find a home.

We simply ask that when people do find their home, it be in a safe, intelligently designed neighborhood that can be supported by the local emergency services.

They deserve the same as us.

Once these homes are built, the demand is permanent, but the resources to support them are not guaranteed.

In closing, we love our community and value the closest nature of Magnolia and Frederica.

We deeply respect the men and women who volunteer to keep us safe.

We owe it to them and to every current and future resident to make sure that the gross does not outpace our ability to respond when it matters most.

Again, my name is Richard Thompson.

I'm a board member for Pentail Point.

Um I'm a veteran and a volunteer firefighter.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much for your comments.

I was also at Dead Chicken Has Fire.

I'm a volunteer in Felton.

And we have the same concerns that you do.

Absolutely.

They're all sent these plans every month.

And we say we see very little comments from any of the fire companies or any of the little any of the chiefs.

I've actually took that to county meetings before.

That's really it really needs to be, they really start start commenting on these developments one way or the other, like location of hydrant sisters or anything.

I know the fire marshal evaluate evaluates all these, but we're not getting enough input from the volunteer fire company.

Like I said, I've been in Felton for 56 years, so I've seen quite a few changes myself.

I do not help hold a leadership role with the company just yet, but I have the same concerns as you.

I wish more things were brought up.

Correct.

Anybody here have any questions?

Seeing none, once again, thank you, and thank you for your service.

Thank you.

Anyone else here against this project and Mike?

Give us your name and address.

You can be sworn or affirm, and you have five minutes.

Hi, uh, my name's Steve Cannon.

I live in Pintail Point at 163 Waterfowl Drive.

And do you swear affirm that the testimony you're about to give would be the truth?

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um I did a quick Google search to start all this, and I said, what is the purpose of planning and zoning?

Uh, what's the commission?

What's the purpose?

Um the search came back real simple with the purpose of planning and zoning is to manage community growth, protect property values, and ensure orderly development by regulating the land use, um, density and building design.

It separates incompatible activities, um, industrial from residential, for example, um, to enhance public safety, health, and quality of life and planning long-term plans.

So with that being said, obviously I have some concerns with some of the things here that's gonna possibly affect our current community.

Some of the things density, property values, and I'm sure you've heard a lot of this already from people.

And I feel like we just want to echo that again.

For example, density, um it's probably one of the biggest things.

So currently Pintail Point, we have 38 houses and about 36 acres, so we're about one acre per house.

So that's the current density.

If you look at this plan here uh for Pintail Crossing, it's really 52 units on 40 14.75 acres.

Because even though they do have that single um existing single family home, it is being cordoned off.

It is being blocked out as its own unit.

It has its own driveway out to McGinnis Pond, it's not part of the neighborhood.

If you do the math on that, you wind up with about 3.5 units per acre.

So that's a drastic change in density in the two adjacent properties.

Um so it's a really big concern there.

Uh we've been aware of the future development possibilities in our neighborhood.

Obviously, there's two potential tie-ins out there, but I think everyone that lives in the community expect it to be similar to the region, similar in character.

Um, right now there's no nothing like this.

No, no duplexes in the area.

The nearest ones probably out on where there's townhouses and duplexes out on State Street.

Um, so I don't know where that would be, like as far as you know, character of the area.

I know when I came here, well not to for the variance, um, for a variance from my putting a pool in my backyard, even.

Um the big concern was impervious surface.

Um they looked at the fact that my impervious surface from my lot as I bought it was like 28%.

I'm only allowed to have 25.

They gave me the variance.

I would I appreciate that, so I can get my um pool put in.

But I looked at the sample plan on the bottom of the one sheet that shows the housing and the um paving in front.

It looks when I do the math on that.

Uh my background is in architecture, so I was able to go back and pull scale off the plans and everything.

Um it looks like 38% on the proposed plan.

So even on that proposed plan, they exceed the 35%, which is allowed based on having the public utilities.

So that becomes a concern there as well.

Um this area is under high growth, and I understand that.

We're not trying to stop development.

I understand what's going on.

Um, you know, Irish Hill has major development um or re-re remodeling done, planned for Delbot.

They're working on trying to put some roundabouts, I believe, is planned out there and stuff like that.

Obviously, the concern here is what happens to Barrett's Chapel.

Um, right now, there you I know last committee meeting you there was an approval for a 210 unit um single family homes, again, single family homes, key there, um being put in out there, pass on the other side of Cattail Creek.

And that we already had to put a roundabout out there to handle the Cattail Creek um project that's out there.

So I think there's a big concern there with what's going to happen going up and down Barrett's Chapel in that area.

And beside that, what happens here right now in this proposed plan, it's gonna be exiting out onto McGuinness Pond and then entering also into our current neighborhood.

Um so with that being said, um when I look at it, 52 duplexes.

If you do two cars per house, you're looking at 104 cars, 104 cars, even if half of them decide to exit up Buffalo Head and out waterfowl, that's 52 additional cars that will be exiting out the exit waterfowl onto Lexington Mill Road.

I don't know what the ADT calculations were when they designed that intersection, but I'm pretty sure it did not account for this.

So I've had high concerns with what's gonna happen down waterfowl road waterfowl drive out to Lexington Mill and that current intersection.

Uh that area I feel if it if it is uh if it's different options here as far as I can see.

Um, do they uh I know the planning commission recommended the tying into Barrett's Chapel Road.

Um so is it possible to do the entrance on the Barrett Chapel and potentially give a waiver?

I've seen that, I've Googled it, there's lots of waivers that have been given, not say not lots, but there's plenty of waivers that have been given of not tying into existing neighborhoods.

I understand that the intent of tying in neighborhoods and tying in the traffic ways, but is that possibility there?

Um so but if they are going to tie in, I'm I would request that we do a traffic study and the developers responsible for improving that entrance off of Waterfowl Drive into Lexington Mill.

I've already seen many opportunities where there's almost been accidents there with the narrow width.

So I think that's something that should be considered that if they are gonna move forward with this project, it's something that should be looked at.

Um so in general, our neighborhood is pretty open, pretty spacious.

Like I said, one acre per per house, which is pretty nice.

Um's up now, are you about done?

What's that?

Your time's up.

Okay, sorry, I got like one more.

Just the fact that we we are a walkable community, our community likes to walk around, and I just think it's great.

My my family and my grandkids, I just would hate to lose that if the traffic picked up in there and made it difficult.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Anybody here have any questions?

Seeing none, thank you again.

Anyone else here in opposition to this project and would like to speak?

Third and final call.

Anyone else here would like to speak in opposition to this project?

For our guests joining us online, if you would like to speak in opposition to this application, please indicate by raising electronic hand or pressing star through if you're joining us by phone.

Mr.

Chair, I see one hand raised online.

Uh Jalen Tiffany, you may uh unmute your line, give us your name and address and be sworn or affirmed.

Hi, I'm Jalen Tiffany.

As of February of this year, I am a Delaware business owner.

I am still at my address through the end of the school year for my kids at 6806 Lumsden Street, McLean, Virginia.

And do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth?

Yes, I do.

Thank you.

Um as I've been listening to this, I had um a couple of things that I haven't heard that I wanted to state um for consideration.

First is I've heard reference to buy right zoning or buy right development.

Um I understand that with regard to section 205 of the Kent County Code, but there's also the requirements under Section 187 and the comprehensive plan, um, which has the force of Delaware law.

And so I haven't heard anyone explain how this proposal is consistent with map 7B.

Map 7B clearly says the area that's green can only have single family detached homes.

And so I don't see how this complies.

Like black and white, that doesn't fit this.

In Section 205, where the buy right zoning is, Section 205 clearly says if there are stricter requirements elsewhere in the law, then those stricter requirements apply.

So even if we're looking at Section 205 saying they have buy right zoning based on what they put forward, the comprehensive plan is stricter and I think is what controls here.

Um I just heard the builder say it complies, um, but maybe there's an explanation I'm not seeing.

Um the second thing, I also heard because of by right, that um it can't be considered whether these may or may not be rentals or what impact this has on potential for affordable housing or if it's um potentially taking away affordable housing um things.

I also disagree with that.

It is absolutely this um planning commission and the levy court's responsibility under section 187 to consider whether things comply with the comprehensive plan and to consider whether they're consistent with this the comprehensive plan and consider the health and welfare of the entire community.

If you're allowing or you know it's likely that somebody is going to buy up all these properties, then that is not consistent with the priority of um affordable home ownership uh that is described in the comprehensive plan.

It's also not in the interest of um the community for one person to control so much real estate.

That's what's created the nationwide housing shortage um for affordable housing.

It's large companies owning large amounts of homes that then they are able to rent out instead of individuals owning them.

Um the third thing I'm thinking about.

I noticed on the plan that there's two sections of land that are being proposed in as part of the development.

And um I didn't see anywhere that makes the whole thing one decision.

And this is what I mean by it.

When I'm looking at two pieces of land, each with their own part of development, one of them does not even meet one section.

I believe the 10-acre section does not meet the density requirement of 3.5.

The other side does.

I don't see where anyone has a right to necessarily combine the two parcels without a decision by the um by the planning commission or levy court.

If you think about this, right?

A developer could buy, let's say, five acres of land, right?

Then he could buy a one-foot wide strip that goes out 2,000 yards, right?

Or 2000 2000, like across 2,000 acres, let's say, and then buys another 20 acres of land.

If there's no consideration of land being joined, section 205 means that the developer could jam everything onto the first lot.

And that he that would be right by right zoning.

Ma'am, you're five minutes.

Are you about done?

Yeah.

Basically, what I'm saying is there has to be some discretion about or some approval process for joining up land together as part of the buy right zoning.

Or you can use a one-foot wide strip and do whatever you want.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Very much appreciated.

Anyone have any questions?

Seeing none, I'll open it up.

Does anyone else here have any would like to speak at the mic in opposition?

Um Mr.

Chair, we have one more hand raised online.

Umona Reese, you may uh unmute your line, give us your name and address and be sworn in.

Mona Reese, um, I see you have your hand raised online.

You can use the unmute button, which should be at the bottom of your screen, and uh give us your name and address.

Um if you look at the bottom of your screen, you should see a hand icon.

I mean um a microphone icon in which says connect audio next to the start video.

Evidently she doesn't know how to do it.

Is that what you're saying, Mark?

So uh yeah, I I can see I can see you.

Um do you can you see the bottom of your screen?

If um Mona, you're your Mona, your line is still muted.

You're on a cell phone.

Evidently, if she come through, we'll just have to not be able to listen to her, I guess.

So uh Mona, uh I've been at um can you uh ask ask or two.

Ms.

Reese, if if you're not able to connect tonight, please keep in mind that the record stays open for two business days, and I would invite you to send us written comments for the commission to consider if you'd like.

Okay, we're gonna move forward.

Once again, I'll ask is anybody here in opposition would like to speak, either online or in the audience.

This is his last call.

I see no more hands raised online at this time, Mr.

Chair.

And just remind everybody if they do have those questions, they can submit them to planning department by is it the end of Tuesday?

Uh it'll be close of business Monday, so 5 p.m.

Monday.

Just keep that in mind.

We thank you all for your presentation for your opposition remarks.

You did a spectacular job, and thank you for working along with us.

We'll be taking this up next week.

I'm gonna hold up a minute until everybody empties out because we got more, we got more on our agenda tonight, so try to exit peacefully and quietly.

While everybody's leaving, I'm gonna read the next one into the record.

Our next application is SL-26-04, Hampton Ridge, located on east side of Canterbury Road, north of Waterside Drive.

Owner is Canterbury Farms Holding LLC, 8800 North Granary Center Drive, suite 345, Scottsdale, Arizona.

Applicant is DR Horton, care of Matt Connolly.

Smyrna Delaware engineer is Morris Richie.

Zoning District is AC.

Levitt Court District is Mr.

Scott.

School district is Lake Forest.

Fire District is Federica Station 49.

This is a 175 single family lot proposal.

It is inside the gross zone.

It has also had water supplied by Artesian Water Company and sewer by Kent County Sewer.

Someone here to represent application.

Gentleman up there I reckon not.

Still need his name and address and be sworn in.

Good evening again.

Charlie Barnett with Morrison Richie Associates.

I believe am I still sworn in from before?

You are.

You're good.

Thank you.

Fantastic.

Thank you so much.

Look how you drove everybody out.

See what they think of you now, right?

Cleared the room.

Thank you very much.

Here the second time to speak to the Hampton Ridge subdivision, as you said.

Project is proposing 175 single-family lots.

It is a by-right subdivision off of Canterbury Road, just outside of Felton.

Clickers here.

Gentleman is here with Dear Horton.

If there's any specific questions I can't answer for you later on, but I'll see what I can do to try to get through the bulk of them myself.

The subject property is uh 69.91 acres.

It is owned to AC inside the growth zone.

As I said before, we're proposing 175 all single family detached lots.

That brings the density to two and a half units per acre, which is well below the maximum uh allotta by code, which is three and a half.

Our average lot size we're proposing is 9,518 square feet, which again is well over the 5,000 square foot minimum requirement.

Uh we're proposing 1.85 acres of active open space, which is one and a half times the uh minimum requirement.

And then uh proposing another 15 almost 15 and a half acres of uh passive open space, bringing the total to just under 18 acres.

Is going to be served by uh Kent County Public Sewer, is within Artesian Water Company's CPCN uh rights.

And all of the internal streets are being designed by, will be reviewed and approved by Dell Dot and maintained by Dell Dot.

So again, the project is uh located outside of Felton along the east side of Canterbury Road, um, just north of the intersection with Carpenters Bridge Road, and just below uh Roseville Road and Midstate Road.

And while you're getting into that, you agree with all of our requirements and staff recommendations?

I agree with all the requirements.

Yes.

Uh we can get into some of the recommendations uh in a moment.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh the project is uh bordered to uh the so the here's a detailed plan you're looking at here.

North uh the project has been rotated a little bit for clarity, so north is to your left of the page.

So here we're bordered by the Murtico River on the south.

Uh the existing uh Roseville Estates subdivision to the east side of the project.

There's one large agricultural property to the north, and then some uh single family lots that separate us from Canterbury Road.

We have one small actual connectivity to Canterbury Road, um, where we are proposing our single entrance to the subdivision.

Unfortunately, it's the only uh connectivity to a Del Dot Street that we have that we can have an entrance on.

Um we are also proposing two connections to the existing Roseville State subdivision, uh, where they have proposed their um internal subdivision streets up against the property line.

And then we are proposing three more future connections in case that uh agricultural property to the north is ever developed.

We have also talked to Lake Forest School District and the transportation technician there and have uh tried to discuss a plan for bus stops within the subdivision.

We've come up with uh at their guidance, come with come up with an initial bus stop right here by this open space area, so that uh in the beginning early phases of construction, this will be one of the first areas open.

So school bus can come in, go around the loop, stop and pick up kids and get right back out.

As the uh development of the project further goes on, uh we've identified this intersection here as a secondary location for bus stops.

Uh, you'll see that there's an open space area adjacent to it, just like the first area we picked down here.

That way buses can come in, pick up kids at the first stop, circle around, pick up kids at a second stop, and easily get out.

Um there's also other ways that they could easily come around and hit them if they were going into Roseville estates, uh, but most likely due to Roseville Estate subdivision being a um age-restricted subdivision.

I don't think many school buses will be going in there.

So we've come up with that path for them to easily circle um circulate through the subdivision and pick up children as they move along.

Also, I want to point out here that um as I said before about the active open space.

There are three main areas we're proposing active open space, one right here, one a little bit further along in the middle, and then another one down here at the bottom.

Uh this kind of distributed distributes those areas around the subdivision, gives people closeness.

Um, it also kind of gives you a nice long spine to go through the subdivision.

Um it allows for people to get from sidewalks uh through, you know, any long blocks or um a nice spine area to traverse through here.

We have a walking path that'll go around the back of that stormwater facility there as well.

One of the things we've requested as part of this application is uh one waiver, and that is a um to eliminate the sidewalk along one side of the proposed entrance road, and that would be only from the very beginning of the entrance to this intersection right here.

Um there are no houses, no lots along that portion of the entrance road.

There's really uh other than to get down to Carpenters Bridge or down to uh Canterbury Road, I'm sorry, there's really no um reason you would need a sidewalk on both sides of the street for there.

So uh to minimize our impact grading and those things.

We're asking that we will have sidewalks on both sides of all the internal subdivision streets up until this point.

We will have a crosswalk here.

That was a great recommendation by planning staff to actually uh stripe a crosswalk here so that anyone coming down this um active open space trail can get across anybody on one side of the road of the entrance road, which is called Shakespeare Way.

Um any any time they would want to get to the other side, uh, there's a good crossing right there.

And then it would just be for this stretch right here, a sidewalk on one side of the road.

Um you wanted to discuss uh you brought up before that there are some recommendations on oh, sorry if I could back up real quick.

Uh, just want to point out that planning staff did recommend approval of that waiver request that we had put in four.

There are five recommendations that the um staff report proposed as part of this.

Um we have no problem and and we'll be glad to agree to three of those five right off the bat.

Um numbers two, three, and five.

Uh we're completely uh in agreement with you know removing an open space buffer here behind these lots, um, putting that uh crosswalk here, as I suggested before.

Fantastic idea.

And then the timing of the street trees being planted along with certificates of focus.

We we have no issues with uh any of those.

Be glad to agree to those.

The two that uh I would like to discuss a little further and just kind of point out some of the um concerns we have the the very first recommendation is that uh there we are proposing a buffer here along the northern property line, which is an agricultural.

So part of the code um an agricultural buffer is required there.

The code does not state that that buffer needs to be in open space.

Um it appears to be optional whether that's open space or can be done on the proposed residential lots in this case.

Uh there is a significant um tree line on the neighboring property.

The agricultural uh um property has a nice uh tree line along that property.

Uh it has been there for many decades and doesn't uh uh appear to be going anywhere or or have any reason to um be eliminated anytime soon.

Um we have no interest in touching any of the trees that happen to be bordering our property or hanging over.

We're not proposing to take any of those down.

So we'll leave all those trees in place.

And on top of that, we are proposing to install a uh a six-foot high fence, which is one of the options in the code to satisfy that buffer requirement along that entire property line.

Um to make that uh an open space uh option instead of having the lots up against that property line would require by code a a minimum of 20 foot wide space uh that would uh greatly impact uh at least these four lots there and there um and would make it um a little difficult to get the proposed products that uh uh DR Horton is hoping to put on these lots.

So for those reasons, um we would respectfully request that we just do it the way the code allows and have that uh fence on those lots.

The other recommendation that I'd like to talk about a little bit more is uh item number four about tree clearing.

Um we are protecting a significant amount of the trees along um along the edge of the Murder Curl River.

However, uh the recommendation that we not touch trees um within a certain time period, uh April through July could be problematic, not knowing when we would get our approvals and be able to go to construction.

Uh the only way, as I said before, to get in and out of the subdivision is along this proposed entrance road, um, which is wooded at the uh at now currently.

Um so there could be a circumstance where if we agreed to that um we could get approvals and uh my client could be ready to go to construction and then everything would halt for a quarter of the year.

Um, you know, some of the other impacts and other areas we probably could um you know, time construction to um not impact trees any more than necessary, but uh for that item alone, I think that would be very impactful and and and would be a detriment to the potential development construction of the project.

So to touch on a couple of those active open space areas, I'll go through them from uh east to west or from the top of the page to the bottom.

So here is uh the easternmost one.

This road here is what connects to uh Roseville estates.

Uh we have a potential area for uh mailbox kiosk to be put in this, um walking trail, so people can cut through the block if they want to.

And this is one of the proposed school bus locations that was proposed to us by the school district.

In the middle, this is our uh um kind of grand open space uh area as as people come straight into the neighborhood.

This is the first thing they'll see.

Uh this is a nice big uh feature that will hopefully bring people into the neighborhood, uh give a good uh sense of community.

Um we're planning on having the bulk of the mailbox kiosks there, they could all be there.

We'll talk them over with the uh the post office, but they we there could be other areas to put them, but we could also put a lot of them here.

We do have the room to put some good pull-off parking spaces here.

So um if folks want to come and visit the tot lot or do some other things there, there's some um some of that being proposed in this area.

And then lastly, we're proposing a multi-purpose uh court uh to be constructed on the uh westernmost uh active open space area.

And then again, this is the um would be the initial first bus stop proposed as the subdivision is constructed.

I do have a question on removal of the forests.

Most of them are on your entrance road coming in and on the southern line of the property back by where the storm water is.

Correct.

Uh correct.

This the portions of these stormwater facilities are within uh the existing wooded area and they would have to be cleared for it.

But yes, this entire uh most of this entire entrance road is within the woods.

Yeah, because I saw it was a little over 11 acres.

Correct.

On the forestry commission, and I try to always fight for all the trees to stay if they could.

So I will say that oftentimes um what we do is we we try to come to you with a preliminary plan.

You know, all the final engineering hasn't been done yet.

So we'll come to you with what we believe will be the worst case scenario.

These are probably the largest we will have to make these stormwater facilities in order to do that.

It is in our best interest to make the um to allow as much woods to remain as possible.

It's actually makes the site easier to engineer to leave these things as woods than to uh disrupt them and especially put uh a stormwater facility there.

So as we get into the final engineering, if there's a way we can make those stormwater facilities smaller and still achieve the requirements by the Kent Conservation District, by all means um it's it it's in our interest to do that as well.

Um one of the the examples of that is the uh Gerald Ridge subdivision I was talking about earlier tonight with that with that water tower.

Um we are in the process of that final design right now, and the stormwater facility that's near that uh that water tower is going to be uh significantly smaller than we originally had anticipated, and we're able to save a good amount of trees as we work towards that.

And um I would expect So when you do remove these, you'd stay away from the nesting and the birthing season as much as you could.

We we can we can try to do that as much as possible.

I just think that for the entrance area alone, it would be very hard for us to you know agree to that outright.

Yeah, but that'd be like from March through June.

You know, that when you get into the nesting and the birthing season for all the rabbits and the birds and everything.

I think it says April to July, but um yeah, that's our concern is that if it that would be the only time we you know we'd be ready to start, it'd be very difficult to get underway.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mm-hmm.

Does that conclude your presentation?

Uh that I believe that does wrap up the presentation.

I'd be glad to answer any other questions you may have.

Any of the commissioners have any questions, Mr.

Garvey?

Just two.

Um you had mentioned the the tree line um that is on the adjacent property that's been there for a long time, and you were hoping to use that or have that considered as part of a buffer zone.

And um so my question is is that um just because they've been there a long time doesn't mean they'll continue to be there a long time, being that it's on somebody else's property.

So do you intend to get an easement um or some sort of uh guarantee that you that those trees will be there in the future because if they're not you don't have the property to put a buffer up on because you're going right up to the property line.

Correct.

That's question one.

Yep, no, that's a good point.

Um I guess what I was getting to with um the point I was making there didn't explain it very well.

Was that you know that both of these properties have been under agricultural for a considerable amount of time.

Um, typically that would be a reason to take down a stand of trees would be to increase your agricultural use.

Obviously that hasn't been done by either property owner, specifically the one to the north since it appears to be there, the ones that own the trees.

So in my mind, the theory would be that the reason to take those trees down by that person would be to develop the property.

Um would be the most likely reason.

And if that was the case, then an agriculture buffer is no longer pertinent or relevant because it's no longer gonna be used for agriculture, it's probably gonna be used for some kind of a development.

So we we don't need those trees to meet the requirement for the landscape buffer.

Like I said, we're we have uh we are proposing landscaping trees as well as that fence along that property line.

They just happen to be on the backs of the lots instead of in open space.

Okay.

The other question that I had had regarding um uh looking over the comments from uh from MPO, um, and you've throughout your presentation several times said, well, it would be difficult because the only entrance in and out is Canterbury, the only entrance in and out is Canterbury, and uh one of the concerns that MPO has at the very beginning is the only entrance being Canterbury.

And it goes on several, you know, actually they they go on in several places throughout their comments, uh giving concerns about um uh about egress in and out.

Um also uh making sure that they make note that you work with Dell DOT, which you already said that you wouldn't be, but I'm just wondering how much of the comments um from MPO are being taken to heart in terms of the planning here.

I I don't have the the knowledge that you have of the overall project and and the other spurs that you mentioned that could be used down the road.

Um maybe they answer MPO's questions, and I'm just kind of overlooking it.

But MPO is rather insistent in several places of their comments about their concerns.

So I'm just wondering whether we're addressing any of them.

Unfortunately, I think this project sits in a situation where I mean it has a very limited opportunity for an entrance.

I mean, this is the only the only location on the entire um 69-acre parcel where it actually touches a Dell Dot street that's already been constructed.

Um again, we are proposing to interconnect with the existing Roseville State subdivision.

That way, if there are emergency vehicles that need access to it, they can use those for um circulation and access.

But um, you know, the the the entrance will be designed to Dell Dot standards.

Delta will review the entrance as well as the internal streets.

Dell dot has no issue with there being only one entrance there.

This project was also proposed as a as a subdivision back in 2007 and recorded in Kent County.

For single-family lots, the layout was very similar to the layout we have here.

There was one entrance off of Canterbury Road, two interconnecting streets into the Roseville Estate subdivision.

It has been since uh expunged since 2007.

But uh all those things were um were vetted with Dell Data at that time, and um you know the entrance had no issues and was fully designed and approved by them at that time, and um we have no doubt that they will be again.

Okay, thank you.

Um Dell Dot doesn't have the greatest record um on dealing with a lot of these issues, so even though they said everything is okay, um, I tend to listen to MPO a little bit more because they tend to be uh seem to be a little bit more thorough.

But uh thank you.

Thank you for your answers.

Mr.

Mills.

Yeah, I want to thank you and your developer for considering how these kids should be getting picked up and and exited buses.

Now, what I do understand is that only buses can go in on a road that is a finished blacktop.

Now, from the entrance all the way up to that first circle where the bus stop is, will that be a finished completed road in order for them to travel on?

And what I'm getting at is the number of houses in here, there are definitely going to be some kids starting before the whole development is finished, and you're not going to be able to usually when the developments are finished, is when the last layer of blacktop goes on the streets.

Uh this section, this first section would be completed so that the bus can travel on, picking up the early kids that are uh homes that are sold.

Yes, that is our intent is to be able to uh finish off this first section.

That's why we have one very near the the end, the the beginning of the project, so that um we can complete that phase and get that road turned over as quickly as possible so that the school buses can come in.

Yes.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Yep.

You're welcome.

I've had many presentations and um always welcome your comments about the school buses, and we've tried to take those to heart.

So appreciate your concerns.

You're probably going to be limited out on Canterbury Road about turn lanes and all that kind.

Are you fairly close to the guardrail?

There's uh the the guardrail um I don't think is going to come into play.

There's a considerable amount of right-of-way out there.

It's actually pretty wide right there in that location.

So as Dell DOT requires us to put turn lanes in, I uh we are pretty confident we're going to have plenty of room to do that.

Yeah, I wonder because like Southbound, you'd have to have move the road over to get that like they do up by River Riverview Estates and all so yeah, there's a lot of points, a lot of uh uh locations across the state where you know you you really need some room and you don't have it, but unfortunately for us, this is one of those locations where they they got pretty good right away to start with.

So we we have room to do what we need to.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Any other commissioners have any comments?

Seeing none, I thank you very much.

Thank you, everybody.

Great presentation.

I'm glad you got rid of all the people in the audience, right?

I still see a few though.

So we'll see.

Is there anyone else here in favor of this project would like to speak?

Anyone else here in favor of this project would like to speak?

Anyone on Park in favor of this project would like to speak?

We have no members from the general public online at this time, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you very much.

So we'll turn in.

Is there anyone in the audience that's against this project?

Anyone against this project would like to speak.

Give us your name and address.

You could be sworn or affirmed to make sure you pull the microphone down to you.

There you go.

My name is Mike Ratcliffe, and I live at 5578 Canterbury Road, Felton, Delaware.

And do you swear affirm that the testimony you're about to get will be the truth?

Yes, I do.

Thank you, sir.

Um guess which homeowner I am.

I'm the one that is located right there in Mr.

Corsey's house.

I'm happy to say that um I purchased the home a little over ten years ago.

Now retired and living there full time, always knowing that the prior project that was slated for that area was getting close to expiring.

I purchased the home in March of that year, and that project expired in April.

Always knew that somewhere along the line, that additional growth expansion and things like that were going to happen.

The other two areas that were referred to on the buffer side for both sides of the road had been slated for projects a long, long time ago.

Being that was part of Mr.

Corsey's original land, which I believe he had over a thousand acres back when the home that's there, the part of the house's original part was built in 1760, which was the original home that he purchased, and then when he made his money from the sale of the grist mill and the sawmill that's located along that was located along right there by the river, um that's when he added on to the main part of the house is when he made his money and was sharing his wealth.

He did run for governor, of course, but that didn't go through.

But the majority of the property itself from a historical value, and knowing that this is now only going to have this single entrance from Canterbury Road, of course, it encompasses more than 80% on three sides of my property.

So the fact that knowing that if there was some type of plantings of a berm, trees and things like that, that I can understand to help preserve, you know, and protect what's there.

What's very upsetting to me is where the road is going in, I know what appears to be my front yard is not my front yard, of which I've maintained because of the the way that it was before the prior owners sold the house.

They subdivided that, leaving that access road there.

But I also believe that there is another piece of property that was owned by the original owner between the homes that are on Canterbury Road that was left there on purpose for an additional access.

And the reason why I point that out is that that would be a much safer way in by having to obtain that lot than where it would be on that curve where there it's a blind spot, and it also is cornered by two other well, another two other driveways on the right hand side of the road.

One goes to our home that's up in the woods, the other goes into the public access on the left side of the pond, and then the directly across from that is the access for the pond on the right hand side.

So I don't visually see how there's enough space to allow for a hundred and seventy-five homes, meaning that there is close to even at 1.8 cars for per house, having over 300 cars coming through and coming through that area out onto Canterbury Road, and even right now, living there full time, the amount of traffic that's on the road just for regular traffic triples beach time because of the people that cut across from 13 through Canterbury Road to get over to 113 to cut through Route 1.

Um it's very unsafe, and I choose for my own safety to have to cross the road until 7, 7.30 at night to get to my mailbox, which is on the opposite side to get my mail.

Sometimes I leave it for a week before I'll go down and get it out.

The other concerns that I, you know, picking up on this this evening was the fact that the number of homes that were proposed here, not only that, but in Corsi's point, the housing that's already there, there's at least 100 plus.

The next one up at um Fork Landing, there's at least another 150 to 175 homes in there.

Waterside across the road on the other side of the pond has at least 65 to 70, and there's still vacant lots in there that have not finished.

And then the new one that's also uh going in right now at Pond's Edge.

Not sure how many houses are going in there.

They're they're building, but that actually will connect into Waterview.

But on the other side of that, that other other whole corner that goes all the way down to Carpenter Bridge Road, I believe that property was sold, and it was closer to I want to say it was closer to 100 acres.

You're at your five minute marks.

Yeah.

My concern is the number of houses within less than one mile radius to has to that's going through that road along with the individuals that are there having to come across and want to go to the traffic or go across the road over to the pond, even with the sidewalk is not safe.

Thank you, sir.

Did you buy the house where Carl June used to be the pharmacist?

Yes.

Yes.

Yeah, he's a great pharmacist.

And Carl still owns, I believe, that empty lot.

Yeah, I know Carl very well from Harrington.

So thank you very much for your presentation.

Is anyone here have any questions?

Thanks again, sir.

Not being prepared.

I'll send you some more.

You can have it in by Monday.

By the end of the day, Monday, sir.

Sarah can distribute it to us.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Is there anyone else here in opposition to this project or online that would like to speak?

This is the third and final call.

Still no members from the general public online at this time, Mr.

Chair.

Seeing nobody else here, and a gentleman shaking his head no, so we're going to move on and we'll be taking this project up next week.

Thank you all for your patience and your presentations.

Final thing on our agenda tonight is ordinance LC-2603, water supply and facilities.

Thanks very much, Mr.

Chairman.

Ordinance LC2603 is primarily a housekeeping measure in uh the subdivision and land development code.

When that code was originally adopted in 2003 by the levy court, table 10-1 addressed water supply facilities and table 10 2 addresses facilities.

And when it was originally adopted, those two tables matched.

Then in 2008, uh the levy court on Table 102 eliminated that third row of outside the growth zone, low density, and at the time it allowed for community wastewater systems.

Levy Court eliminated that.

When Levy Court did that, we did not think to address water because the primary concern at the time was wastewater.

And then as we've seen some more interest developing outside the growth zone in particular.

The goal was not to make it easier outside the growth zone.

So what this does is outside the growth zone, it has the minimum density that matches what we use for wastewater, and it simply requires that you have to use central water with fire protection, meaning hydrants.

So again, more housekeeping than anything else.

I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

I have a question then.

Under this proposal, it says here if you have one to ten, and say you the developers is in place and you put your well in and all, and then central water comes in place.

Are you forced to then join the central water?

If you've already got uh a lot out, a developed lot around it.

Um because the county doesn't run water, I'm not familiar with what is required.

Because I've heard of people when their well went bad and they weren't attached that they've had to have hooked to the central water once it goes by them.

It would not surprise me that if a well goes bad, Denrec would require it, but that's outside of our purview.

Any commissioners have any questions?

I got comments.

Mr.

Peterman?

I I think it's like you had to be a hundred and fifty foot away from that main in order to have your own well.

But I wanted to ask Sarah, will anybody be grandfathered in with the old system?

Would it do I have to, if they're not within a range where that's required for that, would it be grandfather in because they were already there?

We're not talking about existing developed lots.

We are talking about prospective subdivision.

So whatever is out there in the world right now is not our concern.

Our concern is what could be developed later.

Any other commissioners have any questions?

Okay.

Then is is there anyone here or online that would like to speak in favor of this application?

Still no members from the general public online at this time, Mr.

Chair.

Well, I won't repeat that again then.

We'll go to the against and being you don't have anybody online, and I don't see anybody knowing it's we'll be taking this application up next week.

Thank you all.

Down to public comment.

You say nobody's online and there's nobody in the audience.

So we'll get down to commission comments.

Anybody have anything?

Mr.

Mills.

Nobody?

Other business?

Looks like we're good.

Entertain a motion and a second to adjourn.

Move to adjourn.

I have a motion and a second.

Sarah, call the commission.

Mr.

Peterman.

Yes to adjourn.

Mr.

Servan.

Yes to adjourn.

Mr.

Gaufrey?

Yes to adjourn.

Mr.

Mills.

Yes to adjourn.

Mr.

Jester.

Yes to adjourn.

Thank you all, and we made it through the night.

Oh, the charges.