Speaker numbers apply only to this recording. Names come from transcript evidence. “Possibly” marks uncertain attribution.
The city council held its regular meeting on August 24, 2026, beginning with a 15-minute public comment period, followed by two public hearings, a museum update presentation, and several authorization items. The meeting saw significant public testimony regarding growth concerns and specific development proposals. The council voted 5-2 to deny the preliminary major subdivision for Cypress Hall Phase 4 and unanimously approved a conditional use for a short-term rental on North Washington Street.
This application sought preliminary approval for 64 single-family detached and 30 semi-detached dwellings as part of the existing Cypress Hall PUD. Planning Director Rob Pierce reviewed the project history and noted that the planning commission had recommended approval (4-0). Applicant engineer Tim Metzner stated the plans comply with the 2025 PUD approval and that infrastructure (water, sewer, stormwater) was designed for the full buildout. Public comments included concerns about on-street parking, street width (28 feet under a waiver), stormwater approval from Sussex Conservation District, and the use of older code standards. Council debate focused on parking adequacy and the long-term implications of waivers granted years ago. Vote: 5-2 against approval (Katrina and Jason voted yes; Perez, Dan, Medulla, Nadia, and Nina voted no). Mayor commented that the denial could trigger SB23 consequences.
This request was to allow the existing second-floor apartment to be used as a short-term rental (Airbnb/VRBO). The property is in the C2 Central Business District; staff treated it as a motel/hotel use requiring a conditional use permit. Applicant Hunter Emory described the unit (1,000 sq ft, two bedrooms, max 4 guests, one off-street parking space) and noted the potential to attract visitors to downtown and DE Turf. Public comments were mostly in favor, citing the walkable location and parking provision. One online speaker (Julie Morris) opposed, arguing that short-term rentals should not be squeezed into the hotel category and could create noise and nuisance issues. Council members expressed support and noted the need for a specific short-term rental ordinance in the future. Vote: 7-0 approved.
Curator Claudia Leicester and new Executive Director Larry Josephkowski presented the museum's relocation to 400A Northeast Front Street (former police station). They outlined a phased approach, with offices, a welcome center, and a main exhibit opening by year-end. Key initiatives include continued Saturday talks (funded through July 2027), a photo scavenger hunt, and a winter house tour. They requested clearer agreement terms with the city regarding maintenance responsibilities (e.g., parking lot) and additional financial support for exterior work. The museum is also seeking grants and volunteer assistance.
The following items were approved unanimously without substantive debate:
Um before each council meeting, um City of Milford does have a 15-minute public comment period, and I will ask the solicitor to provide the crown rules for the comment period. Thank you, sir. Uh good evening. This is a public comment period before the uh city council meeting in the city of Milford. City has set aside 15 minutes for public comment. We allow three minutes per person. If the mayor or vice mayor fears feels it is appropriate, he can extend that time. Anyone who has wish to speak should have signed up on the comment pad. We will also check uh with anyone online. When your name is called, please come to the podium, give your name, address, and the topic which you want to speak. Um looking at the list this evening, the first name I see is Andrea Nichols. My name's Andrea Nichols. I live at 13 General Torbert Drive, Milford, Delaware. I'm in Ward 3. I want to thank uh Councilman Perez uh for meeting with us on Saturday night and encouraging me to come tonight to um express my concerns about uh code violation. Um I have some concerns and questions for the council. The mayor is not here, um, and the city concerning a letter we received from the city of Milford. Um, after living in our home since 1998, on August 1st, we received a notice of violation that expected compliance by August 12th. The letter is aggressive and very upsetting for a family that has lived in the same home for 28 years. We never received any type of notice about this code. We purposely bought this home in 1998, knowing that my husband has and will continue to have a boat. His boat has been parked in the exact same spot for 28 years, right beside our driveway, except for when he uses it. We were never given any notice. There was no knock on the door, no phone call, no letter prior to the notice that we received on August 1st. My immediate response after talking with many neighbors to see if the boat was an issue for them, which it is not. Uh some of them are even here tonight to support us. Uh, I decided to consider an appeal, which is listed as an option on the notice that I received. But it's a very expensive option. The cost to apply for a hearing to appeal this code violation is excessive for most families at $300 just to appeal. Before spending $300, that is non-refundable to initiate my appeal. I wanted to be informed as to the names of the members of the Board of Appeals. To my surprise, I learned that there are no members comprising the Board of Appeals as listed on the notice because there actually is no Board of Appeals. With that background information, here are my questions for the council or the city or someone who could help me. When were these codes put in place? Again, we bought our home in 1998. It has been there the entire time. What precipitated this notice after 28 years of living in this home with a boat parked next to the driveway? Why are only certain areas or people receiving notices? It's our understanding that code enforcement drive-throughs are not completed very frequently. What's the difference between an appeal and a variance? As there's a stop sign that prevents us from legally parking on the street in front of our home. One of the solutions was to simply park on the street. We can't legally do that because there's a stop sign. Where does the $300 non-refundable application fee go? Is an aggressive letter that threatens fines and scares residents the best way for the city to communicate with long-term residents, especially since no prior notice was given. And how can you legally send a letter offering the right to go before the Board of Appeals, but there is no active Board of Appeals? I look forward to learning this.