Council hears Gulfstream Glen Cove rezoning, conditional-use presentation; both items deferred

Sussex County Council heard a detailed presentation and public record on a proposed rezoning and conditional use for a 12.32‑acre property near Millville, then voted to defer both items for further consideration.

The applications — a change of zone from AR‑1 (agricultural residential) to MR (medium density residential) and a conditional use to allow 46 single‑family detached dwellings in a multifamily regime — were presented on behalf of Gulfstream Glen Cove LLC. The Planning & Zoning Commission had unanimously recommended approval at its March hearings; the developer accepted the commission's reasons and conditions during the county hearing.

Attorney Mackenzie Pete and the applicant's team described the site, ownership, and supporting studies, including drainage, environmental assessments and a public facilities evaluation. The applicant stated the site is located in the coastal area and within an Investment Level 2 growth area and that central water and sewer service would be available; "The project will benefit from central water and sewer," Pete said. Materials submitted included a conceptual site plan showing 46 detached units, two stormwater ponds, about 8.12 acres of open space (about 66% of the site, as presented by the applicant) and a resource buffer around a 0.2‑acre delineated wetland.

Councilors and staff questioned several technical points: whether the project's open-space calculation used the county's current code definition (an applicant representative said the application was submitted before December code changes that affect what can be counted as open space), the potential need for a tax ditch right‑of‑way amendment to install a culvert between a wetland and a stormwater pond, and the lack of a DelDOT‑permitted secondary entrance. DelDOT advised the applicant that an alternate entrance would violate spacing and deceleration-lane standards, and the applicant said DelDOT determined the project's traffic impact to be negligible and required an area‑wide study fee instead of a traffic-impact study.

Concerns were raised about tree removal within the tax ditch right‑of‑way during future maintenance and whether open space effectively counted areas adjacent to neighboring properties. The applicant's engineers said there would remain substantial tree separation between existing homes and the new units and that tax ditch maintenance could remove trees in the right‑of‑way when performed; the developer said it will clean the tax ditch as part of site construction.

Council members asked about wildlife, including reports of a great horned owl. The applicant said Watershed Eco did not identify listed endangered or threatened species in field investigations and that U.S. Fish and Wildlife advised following best management practices if a nest is encountered.

After discussion, a council member moved to defer the change-of-zone ordinance and the conditional-use ordinance for further consideration; both motions were seconded and carried by recorded votes. The council closed the public hearing and public record prior to the deferral votes. No members of the public spoke in favor or opposition during the county hearing; written public comments were included in the packet (seven comments for the rezoning and three for the conditional use) and technical advisory comments were noted in the record.