OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Milford, Delaware/Board of Adjustment
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Milford Board of Adjustment Meeting: April 9, 2026 - Multiple Variance Approvals for Commercial Projects

Board of Adjustment — Thursday, April 9, 2026
BodyMilford, Delaware
SessionBoard of Adjustment
DateThursday, April 9, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:45:39

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

Speaker numbers apply only to this recording. Names come from transcript evidence. “Possibly” marks uncertain attribution.

Speaker 1

0:22

Next, we'll do the uh roll call, and we have uh two uh members are absent.

0:27

The

Speaker 2

0:28

uh chairman brand warplex.

Speaker 3

5:27

I

Speaker 4

5:27

do.

5:28

You

Speaker 3

5:28

may

Speaker 4

5:28

proceed.

Speaker 3

5:29

So I first want to apologize because I had intended to use the little display, didn't realize that I couldn't do that.

5:36

So I will have to uh try to just explain a little bit more on uh some additional work that we did um in the in the last um week and a half or so uh but uh I guess just to further explain what the sign um the part of the part of the reason this is critical for us is that

Unassigned speaker

6:00

uh

Speaker 3

6:00

the top of our sign

Unassigned speaker

6:02

uh

Speaker 3

6:02

will be at elevation sixty-eight and a half and uh the part of the reason we need it high is because we're trying to make sure that people coming you know on route one can see the sign.

6:15

The overpass, you know, that's right there um that is just slightly north there that comes the 113 overpass is at elevation 51.

6:27

So if we had a 28 foot sign, only part of our sign is even higher than the overpass.

6:35

And so then uh uh we we just feel like then the people on route one are just not even gonna be able to see the sign.

6:42

Um and so that's that's part of why we we've just feel like this is this is critical.

6:48

Um, you know, because we're this is highway commercial, but I'm not really on the highway uh because of the you know, because the access is off of um Carpenter's Carpenter's uh pit there.

7:02

Uh but

Unassigned speaker

7:04

you

Speaker 3

7:04

know, with with the service road, but uh m my intent or intent is for the people on Route One to be able to see us.

7:11

And so that's that that's just part of why we feel like we we've gotta be able to get sign up so that it can be seen from the road.

7:20

Um and so um the other I guess the I mean the I guess uh addressing another concern.

7:31

I know the the residents were concerned about well, how bright is this sign, and you know, we're we're projecting we expect it to be in the twelve, you know, twelve fifty um knit.

7:45

This is this is not this super bright sign, it's it's a knit of twelve fifty where eight to ten thousand is what's allowable.

7:53

So this is this is not this sign that's just gonna be pow, you know, out there.

8:00

Um and and so it's it's but it's it's bright enough that people can see it as they're going by, but this is not this this sign where you just like you look outside out your window and you're going, good gracious, it's you know, it's it's daytime out there.

8:16

So um and we're also you know, it it's only a hundred and sixty square foot sign, um which is which is thirty-eight percent smaller than than what it could be.

8:29

Uh we're we're not looking to have this this massive thing.

8:33

And and it's also a relatively dark sign, so that uh you you're seeing the Ashley part of it, but not the whole this is not just one big white sign that is is blasting out there.

8:45

It it should just i it it we do not feel it's gonna be this intrusive um you know uh sign, but but bright enough that people going down Route One can see it as they go by.

8:59

Um and so the we'd also done um and this was part of where my display was was gonna somewhat show a a good chunk of the subdivision.

9:12

Um probably a quarter of it won't even see the sign at all because it'll be behind the the main portion of this stu there or that high the high parapet of the of the store is is technically um

Unassigned speaker

9:28

uh uh

Speaker 3

9:28

another foot higher than what our s than what our sign is, and so people behind that parapet won't see it be able to see it at their house at all.

9:37

Uh and then uh about half of this uh the subdivision would um only see the upper upper two or three feet because of the that's uh semi-obstructed from the lower parapet wall there.

Unassigned speaker

9:55

Uh and so we feel like um w we're trying to address the concerns um of the of the neighborhood.

Unassigned speaker

10:00

than what our than what our sign is and so people behind that parapet won't see it be able to see it at their house at all uh and then uh about half of this uh this subdivision would um only see the upper upper two or three feet because of the that's uh semi-obstructed from the lower parapet wall there uh and so we feel like um we're trying to address the concerns um of the of the neighborhood we I mean obviously we're not looking to just say well tough we we need it you know it but what we're trying to be aware of what what you know their concerns are but at the same time it's a business that needs to attract the customers or it doesn't remain a business for very long so um that that is kind of the that's it in a nutshell the I guess the just one other minor point there too is the rotation of the sign it's not for the most part most people are just seeing it on a slight angle you know so it's like you're not it's not like the sign is facing this way it's it's at an angle so at most people are seeing just a foot or two probably I mean I'm my guess is that most would not be able to read the sign from the subdivision because of the angle of rotation just because that is uh it's not facing the subdivision it is facing route one and so um it's it's just a tight angle there uh going back towards the subdivision so uh with that I don't know if anyone has any questions uh Joe Wiley I have a question about so uh looking at the sign here um basically it the light emits forward is that right or is there another sign on the back of it it says Ashy furniture also no it's it's interior lit so it's it it is I mean it's coming sorry it's coming you know it would be lit from inside so it it'll be on both sides yes it it'll but there's not there's not an exterior there's no exterior lighting on it I don't I did I answered well I was just curious you had mentioned that the uh some of the people in development might see part of the sign I was just curious if they were just going to see the physical sign or if the sign was actually emitting light backwards towards the development no no like my my uh if I could so the top of my sign is elevation 65 the top of my lower parapet wall is um 62 so I'm an eight foot sign and so like the bottom two feet of it are even you know so if you're in upstairs window looking out you could technically see that top six feet but again it's you're looking at it from an angle of you know if the sign is like this you're kind of seeing it here where you're really not seeing you're only seeing it only looks like a sign that's a couple feet wide because it's not spun around facing you if that makes sense um but but on top of that from just a perspective of I've got the sign here my wall is here so when you're down here looking at it you're you're really gonna see very little of it because most of it is going to be blocked by that parapet wall.

Unassigned speaker

13:18

So

Speaker 3

13:18

it would

Speaker 5

13:19

be fair to say that the sign's really not emitting light backwards.

13:22

It's

Speaker 3

13:22

no that's correct it's it's emitting north and south not it is not emitting light east west when the subdivision is to the what I mean to the east of it.

Unassigned speaker

13:34

So it is it no it is not emitting light to the east it would be going more north south and and there the bulk of the subdivision is roughly a thousand feet away um you know 1400 feet at the furthest part and I think about 850 uh the closest part but the closest part there's a hedgerow there um that it's they're mature Leland Cypress so uh they block a lot of a lot of view okay but thank you for that clarification yes uh Ron Rizel um uh what would be the detriment of uh lowering the sign to the just the height of the building um down to the 33 feet um or from I mean I guess uh again it's the the purpose is and I want to make sure that I'm I'm able to be seen over um if I drop it um sixty if I dropped it six feet I'm at sixty two I mean then I'm I'm just barely above the overpass.

Unassigned speaker

15:00

I mean, then I'm I'm just barely above the overpass.

Speaker 3

15:02

I guess that's that's my biggest concern is that you know, I'm just my sign is then just barely

Unassigned speaker

15:10

uh

Speaker 3

15:10

higher than the overpass.

15:12

And so just

Unassigned speaker

15:14

then

Speaker 3

15:14

I'm losing my southbound traffic.

15:16

I guess is kind of what I'm that's that's the concern is that we want

Unassigned speaker

15:21

to

Speaker 3

15:23

we want to be able to be seen from southbound lane.

Speaker 1

15:26

Okay, thank

Unassigned speaker

15:27

you.

Speaker 1

15:31

Any other questions on the board?

Speaker 3

15:34

Thank

Unassigned speaker

15:35

you.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Planning and Zoning███████████████████████████████████████39%
Land Use Regulation████████████████████████████████32%
Procedural██████████████14%
Community Engagement██████6%
Transportation Safety████4%
Public Engagement████4%
Public Works█1%
Summary of Proceedings

Milford Board of Adjustment Meeting: April 9, 2026 - Multiple Variance Approvals for Commercial Projects

The Milford Board of Adjustment held a meeting on April 9, 2026 to consider six variance applications related to commercial development. The board approved all requests, including modifications to signage height, building parapet walls, parking lot landscaping, side yard setbacks, minimum lot area, and interior parking lot landscaping requirements. Public testimony was heard on several items, with residents expressing concerns about visual intrusion, light pollution, and impact on neighborhood character.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Rachel Melton (113 Starlight Lane, Milford): Opposed the 40-foot sign height for Ashley Furniture, arguing that customers use GPS and online searches and that the sign would make the neighborhood feel like a shopping district. She also expressed concern about truck traffic near a school bus stop.
  • Justin Barnes (on behalf of Ashley Furniture): Defended the sign height, stating the proposed sign is 33% smaller than code allows, uses a darker aesthetic, and emits 400% fewer nits than an electronic message center. He argued the sign is necessary for visibility from Route 1 and that the design minimizes impact on the subdivision.
  • Allison May (371 Shore Lane, Lighthouse Estates): In a letter read into the record, oppo sed the40-foot sign, stating it exceeds the height limit by 12 feet and that the company should have considered visibility before selecting the location. She raised concerns about light intrusion and visual impact.
  • Greg Socora (334 Shore Lane, President of Lighthouse Estates HOA): Oppo sed the sign height, stating online searches negate the need for such a tall sign and that the 28-foot allowence is sufficient. He also requested that a fence around a retention pond be replaced with trees for aesthetics.
  • Julie Morris (2142 Cedar Beach Road): Oppo sed the Ashley sign, calling the applicant's mention of a brighter alternative "threatening." She argued that light travels and would intrude into homes at 40 feet. She also opposed the building parapet height variance, stating the applicant failed to demonstrate a land-based hardship. She later opposed the MLTJ parking landscape exemption, calling it a full exemption from city standards and questioning the applicant's track record at other properties (Airport Plaza and Big Oyster).
  • Other: No comment on Bay Health or Miss Pillion Holdings; Greg Socora requested information about trees vs. fence at MLTJ (deferred to site plan review).

Discussion Items

Ashley Furniture Sign Height Variance (BOA-290-2026)

  • Request: Variance from Milford City Code §230-24.16.B.1.b to permit a freestanding sign 40 feet in height (code allows 28 feet) at Kent County tax parcel MD-16-174.18-02.57.00. The applicant (Justin Barnes, Ashley Furniture) argued the height is needed for visibility from Route 1 over an overpass (elevation 51 feet). The sign would be 160 sq. ft. (38% smaller than allowed), 1,250 nits (far below the 8,000-10,000 nits allowable), interior-lit, and oriented north-south to minimize light toward the subdivision. The applicant also stated that the lower parapet wall (33 feet) and distance (850-1,400 feet) would further reduce visibility from the neighborhood.
  • Board Discussion: Board member Joe Wiley proposed amending the height to 35 feet, suggesting that would be level with the lower parapet and avoid piercing the line of sight from the development. The motion was seconded and passed 3-0.

Ashley Furniture Parapet Wall Height Variance (BOA-292-2026)

  • Request: Variance from §230-40.A to permit a parapet wall of 40.7 feet (code permits 39 feet, as building height limit in C3 is 35 feet plus 4 feet parap et) to highlight the building entrance. The applicant (Justin Barnes) cited the presence of a 60-foot hotel (Hampton Inn) nearby, arguing the extra 1.7 feet is needed for the entrance to not be lost in the skyline.
  • Board Discussion: Board members cited the hardship presented by the adjacent hotel height and the aesthetic need. The motion was approved 3-0.

Bay Health Sussex Campus Parking Landscape Islands Variance (BOA-289-2026)

  • Request: Variance from §230-20.L.2.B to permit landscaped islands every 33 parking spaces instead of every 12 spaces in a parking lot with more than 100 spaces in the IS zone. The applicant (John Falkowski, Becker Morgan Group) argued that the existing parking lot design on the campus uses a radial layout with few islands, and requiring additional islands would disrupt emergency vehicle access, snow removal, and storm sew er infrastructure. The applicant noted that longitudinal islands are already provided and that the total landscape area is still met.
  • Board Discussion: The board discussed that the building will house doctor's offices (Bay Health programs) and that the parking meets requirements. The motion was approved 3-0.

Miss Pillion Holdings Awning Side Yard Setback Variance (BOA-293-2026)

  • Request: Variance from §230-14.D.6 to reduce the northern side yard setback from 20 feet to 15 feet to allow construction of a 3-foot awning along three sides of an existing commercial building at 280 North Rehoboth Boulevard. The applicant (Travis Mick) stated the existing building is 18.4 feet from the property line, and the awning would improve aesthetics and drinage.
  • Board Discussion: No public opposition. The board noted no objection from neighboring properites. Motion approved 3-0.

Miller Investments Minimum Lot Area Variance (BOA-294-2026)

  • Request: Variance from §230-14.D.1 to reduce the minimum lot area from 1 acre to 0.859 acres for property at 908 North Church Street, zoned R2 but proposed for rezonning to C3 for future flex development. The applicant (David Miller) stated the property was purchased adjacent to his existing C3 lots and that the change is necessary to proceed with the rezonning process.
  • Board Discussion: Public commenter Julie Morris questioned the timing, asking why the variance was sought before a specific plan was in place. Applicant responded that the process takes time and that the property would remain a group home until approvals are obtained. Board approved 3-0, noting other C3 parcels are smaller.

MLTJ LLC Parking Lot Interior Landscaping Exemption (BOA-281-2026)

  • Request: Variance from §230-20.L.1 to waive all interior parking lot landscape islands (required for lots with less than 100 spaces in C3) at 250 North Rehoboth Boulevard. The applicant (Alan Dector, Pennoni Associates) argued that the existing site is 95% impervious and will be reduced to 76-77%. The three new buildings are located similarly to the existing ones, and parking is already broken up by buildings. Requiring islands next to buildings would create maintenance issues (tree damage, roots). The applicant will plant all 26 required trees (code requires one per 5,000 sq. ft.) around the perimeter instea d of in islands.
  • Board Discussion: Public commenter Julie Morris opposed, stating the request is a full exemption and that maintenance is not a legal hardship. Board member Rob Pierce noted that the required trees are still provided. Motion approved 3-0.

Key Outcomes

  • Ashley Furniture Sign Height Variance: Approved as amended to a sign height of 35 feet. Motion by Joe Wiley, seconded, vote 3-0.
  • Ashley Furniture Parapet Wall Height Variance: Approved as requested (40.7 feet). Motion by Joe Wiley, second ed, vote 3-0.
  • Bay Health Sussex Campus Parking Landscape Islands Variance: Approved (every 33 spaces). Motion by Joe Wiley, seconded, vote 3-0.
  • Miss Pillion Holdings Awning Side Yard Setback Variance: Approved (15 feet north side). Motion by Joe Wiley, seconded, vote 3-0.
  • Miller Investments Minimum Lot Area Variance: Approved (0.859 acres). Motion by Joe Wiley, seconded, vote 3-0.
  • MLTJ LLC Parking Lot Interor Landscaping Exemption: Approved (no interor islands). Motion by Joe Wiley, seconded, vote 3-0.
  • Appoval of Findings of Fact: Approved for seven previous applications (lands of Amy Perfetti; Sussex County Habitat for Humanity (two applications); lands of Thadeus Frost; CCGTL Properties LLC; lands of David Carr; lands of Milord Historical Society). All motions approved unanimously.

Meeting Transcript

Next, we'll do the uh roll call, and we have uh two uh members are absent. The uh chairman brand warplex. I do. You may proceed. So I first want to apologize because I had intended to use the little display, didn't realize that I couldn't do that. So I will have to uh try to just explain a little bit more on uh some additional work that we did um in the in the last um week and a half or so uh but uh I guess just to further explain what the sign um the part of the part of the reason this is critical for us is that uh the top of our sign uh will be at elevation sixty-eight and a half and uh the part of the reason we need it high is because we're trying to make sure that people coming you know on route one can see the sign. The overpass, you know, that's right there um that is just slightly north there that comes the 113 overpass is at elevation 51. So if we had a 28 foot sign, only part of our sign is even higher than the overpass. And so then uh uh we we just feel like then the people on route one are just not even gonna be able to see the sign. Um and so that's that's part of why we we've just feel like this is this is critical. Um, you know, because we're this is highway commercial, but I'm not really on the highway uh because of the you know, because the access is off of um Carpenter's Carpenter's uh pit there. Uh but you know, with with the service road, but uh m my intent or intent is for the people on Route One to be able to see us. And so that's that that's just part of why we feel like we we've gotta be able to get sign up so that it can be seen from the road. Um and so um the other I guess the I mean the I guess uh addressing another concern. I know the the residents were concerned about well, how bright is this sign, and you know, we're we're projecting we expect it to be in the twelve, you know, twelve fifty um knit. This is this is not this super bright sign, it's it's a knit of twelve fifty where eight to ten thousand is what's allowable. So this is this is not this sign that's just gonna be pow, you know, out there. Um and and so it's it's but it's it's bright enough that people can see it as they're going by, but this is not this this sign where you just like you look outside out your window and you're going, good gracious, it's you know, it's it's daytime out there. So um and we're also you know, it it's only a hundred and sixty square foot sign, um which is which is thirty-eight percent smaller than than what it could be. Uh we're we're not looking to have this this massive thing. And and it's also a relatively dark sign, so that uh you you're seeing the Ashley part of it, but not the whole this is not just one big white sign that is is blasting out there. It it should just i it it we do not feel it's gonna be this intrusive um you know uh sign, but but bright enough that people going down Route One can see it as they go by. Um and so the we'd also done um and this was part of where my display was was gonna somewhat show a a good chunk of the subdivision. Um probably a quarter of it won't even see the sign at all because it'll be behind the the main portion of this stu there or that high the high parapet of the of the store is is technically um uh uh another foot higher than what our s than what our sign is, and so people behind that parapet won't see it be able to see it at their house at all. Uh and then uh about half of this uh the subdivision would um only see the upper upper two or three feet because of the that's uh semi-obstructed from the lower parapet wall there. Uh and so we feel like um w we're trying to address the concerns um of the of the neighborhood. than what our than what our sign is and so people behind that parapet won't see it be able to see it at their house at all uh and then uh about half of this uh this subdivision would um only see the upper upper two or three feet because of the that's uh semi-obstructed from the lower parapet wall there uh and so we feel like um we're trying to address the concerns um of the of the neighborhood we I mean obviously we're not looking to just say well tough we we need it you know it but what we're trying to be aware of what what you know their concerns are but at the same time it's a business that needs to attract the customers or it doesn't remain a business for very long so um that that is kind of the that's it in a nutshell the I guess the just one other minor point there too is the rotation of the sign it's not for the most part most people are just seeing it on a slight angle you know so it's like you're not it's not like the sign is facing this way it's it's at an angle so at most people are seeing just a foot or two probably I mean I'm my guess is that most would not be able to read the sign from the subdivision because of the angle of rotation just because that is uh it's not facing the subdivision it is facing route one and so um it's it's just a tight angle there uh going back towards the subdivision so uh with that I don't know if anyone has any questions uh Joe Wiley I have a question about so uh looking at the sign here um basically it the light emits forward is that right or is there another sign on the back of it it says Ashy furniture also no it's it's interior lit so it's it it is I mean it's coming sorry it's coming you know it would be lit from inside so it it'll be on both sides yes it it'll but there's not there's not an exterior there's no exterior lighting on it I don't I did I answered well I was just curious you had mentioned that the uh some of the people in development might see part of the sign I was just curious if they were just going to see the physical sign or if the sign was actually emitting light backwards towards the development no no like my my uh if I could so the top of my sign is elevation 65 the top of my lower parapet wall is um 62 so I'm an eight foot sign and so like the bottom two feet of it are even you know so if you're in upstairs window looking out you could technically see that top six feet but again it's you're looking at it from an angle of you know if the sign is like this you're kind of seeing it here where you're really not seeing you're only seeing it only looks like a sign that's a couple feet wide because it's not spun around facing you if that makes sense um but but on top of that from just a perspective of I've got the sign here my wall is here so when you're down here looking at it you're you're really gonna see very little of it because most of it is going to be blocked by that parapet wall. So it would be fair to say that the sign's really not emitting light backwards. It's no that's correct it's it's emitting north and south not it is not emitting light east west when the subdivision is to the what I mean to the east of it. So it is it no it is not emitting light to the east it would be going more north south and and there the bulk of the subdivision is roughly a thousand feet away um you know 1400 feet at the furthest part and I think about 850 uh the closest part but the closest part there's a hedgerow there um that it's they're mature Leland Cypress so uh they block a lot of a lot of view okay but thank you for that clarification yes uh Ron Rizel um uh what would be the detriment of uh lowering the sign to the just the height of the building um down to the 33 feet um or from I mean I guess uh again it's the the purpose is and I want to make sure that I'm I'm able to be seen over um if I drop it um sixty if I dropped it six feet I'm at sixty two I mean then I'm I'm just barely above the overpass. I mean, then I'm I'm just barely above the overpass. I guess that's that's my biggest concern is that you know, I'm just my sign is then just barely uh higher than the overpass. And so just

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com