Milford Planning Commission Meeting Summary - August 18, 2026

The Milford Planning Commission held a regular meeting on August 18, 2026, starting at 6:00 PM. Four commissioners were present (Commissioners Redden, Deacon Stanzo, Purcell, and Wright); three were absent. The meeting included public comment, approval of previous minutes, four public hearings on development applications, a site plan extension request, and a comprehensive plan workshop session.

Consent Calendar

• Unanimously approved minutes from the January and February 2026 planning commission meetings.

Public Comments & Testimony

• General Public Comment (Pre-Meeting): A resident raised three issues: (1) Milford's development regulations and the commission's handling of documented public concerns, (2) the decision not to reappoint Shelby D. Costanza to the commission, and (3) downstream flooding concerns tied to the Misspillion Landing project. The resident stated that the Delaware Supreme Court has recognized that public health, safety, and welfare concerns can be investigated by the commission and that the commission can require additional investigation or conditional approval. They urged the commission to say publicly whether they valued Ms. Costanza's service.
• Cypress Hall Phase 4 (Objection): Julie Morris (21142 Cedar Beach Road) expressed concerns about stormwater management for Phase 4, noting that the city engineer's "general compliance" review was vague and that previous phases had stormwater issues. She argued that with pending issues for Phase 3, the commission should not give preliminary approval for Phase 4.
• Conditional Use – Short-Term Rental (General/Support): Jennifer Snelly Miller (715 New Street) spoke in favor of the application due to location and need, but urged the city to develop a clear policy for short-term rentals rather than relying on conditional use approvals. Julie Morris also spoke, questioning the legal basis for classifying a short-term rental as a hotel/motel under the code and warning that approving this on a case-by-case basis creates an unfair standard.
• Night Crossing PUD (Opposition): Multiple residents spoke in strong opposition:
  • Jennifer Snelly Miller: Called the project "inappropriate" for the area, citing floodplain risks, sea level rise, contamination concerns, traffic on Cedar Beach Road, a dangerous mid-block crossing on Route36, and the cumulative impact of multiple large PUDs. She urged the city to say no.
  • Resident (Maritime Court): Raised concerns about 48-foot building height, 26 units per building (over 24 limit), parking, 30-foot roads with on-street parking, school bus access, and the tacking-on of a new section.
  • Kirk Hamza (1855 Flying Geese Drive): Asked about electrical grid capacity, school capacity, road width for fire trucks, and the need for fire access from two directions.
  • Brenda Watson (35 Beaver Dam Drive): Opposed the change in character, increased traffic on an evacuation route, narrow roads, school strain, and the shift from 55+ housing to family units.
  • Julie Morris: Raised flooding/drainage concerns, noting that portions of the property are in floodzones and former borrow pits would require substantial grading, pushing water onto downstream properties. She also referenced $500,000 in outstanding fees owed to the city for the development.
• Misspillion Landing Extension (General): Cliff Mumfer, engineer for the applicant, explained the project has been difficult to make feasible due to high impact fees (~$1.2 million), building permit fees, and other costs. He noted the rental market in Milford has a 0.5% vacancy rate versus a healthy 7%, emphasizing a need for apartments.
• Comprehensive Plan Workshop: Superintendent Travis Mormon from Milford School District presented enrollment data and demographic trends. He noted current enrollment of 4,347 (Sept30 snapshot pending), a slight decline over recent years, but a shift from Kent to Sussex County students. Ross and Morris elementary schools are at capacity. He discussed school bus requirements for development (30 ft wide streets, 45-50 ft radius turnarounds for cul-de-sacs, gang stops at entrances). He said the district has not been commenting on development plans and will improve that collaboration.

Discussion Items

• Cypress Hall Residential Phase4 (Preliminary Major Subdivision): The applicant sought approval for 94 townhouses as part of the approved PUD. Staff noted the application was consistent with the PUD and met standards for general compliance. Commissioners asked about construction timeline (shovel-ready in ~6 months) and pricing (unknown). No public speakers in favor; one opposition (Julie Morris). Commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval to city council, noting that detailed agency reviews occur at final approval.

• Conditional Use – Central Sussex LLC (Short-Term Rental): The applicant proposed using an existing second-floor apartment as a short-term rental (Airbnb) in a mixed-use building in the C2 district. Staff treated the use as similar to a hotel/motel. The commission discussed tracking cumulative loss of long-term rentals and the need for a broader policy. The vote was 4-0 to recommend approval, citing the presence of similar uses and no neighbor objections.

• Night Crossing Planned Unit Development (PUD): The applicant proposed a revised PUD incorporating new lands, with 344 townhouse condominiums, 78 apartments, and 19,998 sq ft commercial. The application deviated from code on 12 items (1-7 carried over from prior approval, 8-12 new). After extensive debate and a public hearing, the commission voted on each deviation separately:

  • Items 1 (right-of-way reduction 60' to 50') – Denied (4-0)
  • Item2 (pavement width 36' to 30') – Denied (4-0)
  • Item3 (T-turnaround instead of cul-de-sac) – Failed (2-2, not passed; thus motion to deny T-turnaround passed? Actually motion to deny item3 was voted 4-0? Let's check: Transcript: "Motion to deny chapter 200-8... T-turnaround... I feel like a cul-de-sac is more appropriate." Vote: Commissioner DiContanza: deny; Redden: deny; Purcell: deny; Wright: deny. So motion to deny passed 4-0. So item3 is denied.
  • Item4 (dead end street length 400' to 630.7') – Approved (4-0)
  • Item5 (block width 275' to 241') – Approved (4-0)
  • Item6 (single front setback and two side setbacks for corner lots) – Failed (2-2, motion to approve fails? Actually motion to approve item6 was made, vote: DiContanza: approve; Purcell: approve; Redden: oppose; Wright: oppose; motion fails 2-2. So item6 denied.
  • Item7 (parking setback 15' to 0') – Approved (4-0)
  • Item8 (front yard setback 30' to 20' for townhouses) – Vote on motion to deny: DiContanza: deny; Redden: oppose (so vote to deny? Actually motion to deny item8 was made, vote: DiContanza: approve motion to deny; Redden: against motion to deny; Purcell: against; Wright: against. So motion to deny fails 1-3. Then motion to approve item8 likely passes? Need to clarify: After vote fails, chair says "So waiver granted 3-1" meaning item8 was approved. So item8 approved.
  • Item9 (side front yard setback to 15 ft for corner lot) – Approved (3-1, Redden opposed)
  • Item10 (lot coverage 60% to 70%) – Approved (4-0)
  • Item11 (building height 35' to 48' for apartments) – Motion to deny was made and seconded. Vote: DiContanza: deny; Redden: approve (so opposed to motion to deny); Purcell: approve (opposed to motion); Wright: approve (opposed to motion). So motion to deny fails 1-3; therefore item11 approved? Actually motion to deny fails, meaning waiver for 48' height is granted? But code says max 48' is allowed in PUD. The request was for 48' which is within code, but the existing district had 35' limit. The commission's vote on motion to deny failed, so the waiver is approved? However the transcript says: "I make a motion to deny... Is there a second?... Commissioner DeConstanzo: vote to deny; Redden: would vote to approve or deny the motion for approve the waiver as it is within our code; Purcell: would vote to permit the waiver and deny the motion; Wright: correct. Does not carry." So motion to deny fails, thus the waiver for 48' height is approved? The text says "Does not carry" meaning motion to deny does not carry. Then the chair proceeds to item12. It appears the waiver for item11 was approved because it was within code and motion to deny failed. However later in the summary I need to be clear.
  • Item12 (units per apartment building 24 to 26) – Approved (4-0)

After all waiver votes, the commission then made a motion to deny the overall PUD because the plan would need to be redesigned due to failed waivers (items1,2,3,6). The motion passed 4-0.

• Night Crossing Phase1 Preliminary Major Subdivision: Since the underlying PUD was denied, the phase1 plan was also inconsistent. The commission voted 4-0 to recommend denial.
• Misspillion Landing Site Plan Extension (Fourth Extension): The applicant requested a one-year extension from the August 2021 approval. Staff noted the entrance and utility work were done but buildings not started. Vote: 2-2 (Commissioners Redden and Wright in favor; DiContanzo and Purcell opposed). Motion fails, so extension is denied. Commissioner Purcell stated the plan needs updated with floodplain information and housing diversity.

Key Outcomes

• Cypress Hall Phase4 Preliminary Subdivision: Recommended approval (4-0) to city council.
• Conditional Use for Short-Term Rental (Washington Street): Recommended approval (4-0) to city council.
• Night Crossing PUD: Recommended denial (4-0) due to critical waivers not being granted; plan must be redesigned.
• Night Crossing Phase1 Preliminary Subdivision: Recommended denial (4-0) as inconsistent with the revised PUD.
• Misspillion Landing Site Plan Extension: Denied (2-2 tie); applicant may resubmit with updated plans.
• Comprehensive Plan Workshop: Continued discussion; commission will review draft position statements and goals; upcoming workshops on housing (with Housing Authority) and transportation (with DelDOT). Superintendent Mormon committed to improving school district comments on developments.