Resident urges Sussex County to require council review of large 'major subdivision' approvals

A resident told the Sussex County Council on Aug. 12 that the county’s Planning and Zoning (PNZ) process allows major subdivisions with large infrastructure impacts to be approved without review by elected council members and asked the council to change county code so major subdivisions pass from PNZ to the council for final action.

Allison White, a Lewes resident, detailed a specific project she said is in the PNZ queue and described why she believes county council should have a role. “These developments make extensive demands on our infrastructure and resources, and non elected officials should not have the exclusive power to make these decisions that so significantly affect on daily life of Sussex County residents,” White said.

White described the project she called “4 Corners,” a 450‑acre parcel on Harbison Road (Route 5) about one mile south of the Route 9 intersection and one mile southwest of the proposed Cool Spring Crossing development. She said the developer proposes 902 single‑family homes; that 377 acres are forested and that 60% of the forested area would be clear cut; and that the land is designated at state investment level 4. She said a DelDOT evaluation noted the development would have a major impact on local roadways and that the Route 9/Route 5 intersection currently operates at a Level of Service D and could be at Level of Service E by 2050 if no improvements are made. White also noted physical constraints to intersection improvements including a cemetery on one corner.

White said county zoning code requires regulations to “promote the present and future needs and general welfare of county residents by addressing traffic congestion, land and resource use, public safety, and population distribution,” and she proposed that council require PNZ to forward major subdivision recommendations to the county council for final review and the ability to attach conditions. “What the code does say is that the zoning regulations are to promote the present and future needs and general welfare of county residents,” she said, and she suggested the council and PNZ voluntarily apply that review process to proposals already in the pipeline until a formal code change is adopted.

The remarks were made during the public comment period; no vote, motion, or commitment by the council to change code appeared on the Aug. 12 agenda. Council members did not respond with a council action on the proposal during the meeting.

The matter described by White — a project she named “4 Corners” — remains a public comment and proposal from a resident. Any change to county code or to PNZ practice would require formal action by the council at a later meeting.

For now, the council record shows the remarks were public comment only and not an agenda item that produced a council directive or ordinance introduction.