Sussex County council defers decision on rezoning for 210‑unit New Road MR/RPC development

Sussex County Council members on an evening agenda voted to defer a final decision on Change Zone No. 2052, a requested rezoning of roughly 60.84 acres on New Road (County Route 391) near Lighthouse Road (Route 54) from AR‑1 (agricultural residential) to MR‑RPC (medium‑density residential, residential planned community) that would allow up to 210 housing units.

The applicant’s attorney, Tim Willard of Fuquay, Willard & Schaub, described the proposal and submitted materials including a preliminary subdivision plan, an environmental assessment, drainage and forest assessment reports, a DelDOT service‑level/traffic operational analysis, proposed homeowners association covenants and a resource management plan. Willard said the proposed density is 3.45 units per acre and that the plan proposes 210 lots, compared with a calculated permitted density of 230 units. He said the project provides about 36.5% open space, above the plan’s 30% standard.

Planning staff and the record show the application was the subject of a public hearing before the Planning & Zoning Commission and that, at its Oct. 1 meeting, the commission recommended approval, listing eight reasons supporting the rezoning and attaching 18 conditions. Willard said the applicant has included the commission’s motion and the commission’s draft minutes in the council packet.

Why it matters: The change would alter the county’s comprehensive zoning map and enable a mixed housing project near an established commercial intersection (Route 20/Route 54), with traffic and utility implications for the surrounding neighborhood. The council’s deferral delays any formal map amendment and allows time for follow‑up on conditions, right‑of‑way impacts and technical questions.

Key proposal details and dependencies - Site and parcels: approximately 60.84 acres comprised of Tax District 533, Map 19, Parcels 7, 8.01 and 9; 911 address not specified in the record. - Proposed build: 210 total units (single‑family and duplexes), including 104 duplex fee‑simple lots; overall density stated as 3.45 units per acre; permitted density calculation cited as 230 units. - Lot sizes and open space: single‑family lots minimum ~7,500 sq. ft.; duplex lots minimum ~3,800 sq. ft.; applicant reports 36.5% of the site in open space (above a 30% target). - Utilities: Artesian Water service (12‑inch main), central sewer with an 8‑inch stub (parcel 9 proposed to annex into the sewer district), Chesapeake natural gas (8‑inch main), electric service available; correspondence from utility providers included in the application packet. - Environmental and buffers: applicant presented forest assessment and resource buffer plans preserving forested perimeter buffers (described in the packet as a 30‑foot retained buffer plus an additional 20‑foot protection area where forest exists, and a 30‑foot landscaped perimeter buffer where no forest exists). The site includes a creek with federal wetlands; the applicant proposed preservation zones labeled “Zone A” and “Zone B.” - Transportation: DelDOT’s traffic operational assessment recommended developer‑funded frontage improvements across the project’s full New Road frontage, including two 11‑foot travel lanes, bike lanes/5‑foot shoulders and an asphalt shared‑use path, plus a right‑turn lane at the Route 54 intersection; DelDOT comments and the traffic study are in the record. In public remarks, Vista Design principal Rich Polk said, “DelDOT has asked us to ... install a right turn lane from Westbound 54 onto Northbound New Road,” and that the frontage improvements would be constructed by the developer and extend the entire project frontage. - Amenities and design: applicant materials include proposed common amenities (pool, community rooms, bike racks, an EV charger), interior sidewalks and shared multimodal connections to New Road; the applicant said a pickleball court is optional per a recommended condition because of potential noise concerns.

Public comment and local concerns - Ellen McGee (3857 Lighthouse Road), whose family farm borders the site, opposed the rezoning and said, “They are entitled to 2 units to the acre, and I think that's what they should get,” citing impacts to ongoing farming operations, hunting leases, early‑morning farm work, and financial consequences for her business. She also noted possible proximity limits on hunting when dwellings are nearby. - Rebecca Snyder (38229 New Road), a longtime neighbor, said she is “definitely not opposed to this project” but urged the council to require that road‑widening impacts fall on the developer’s side of New Road and raised safety concerns about increased traffic during summer weekends. Snyder also said her private wellhead is located near the proposed right‑of‑way area and asked how right‑of‑way acquisition or future safety improvements (signalization/roundabouts) could affect long‑standing private property interests. - Applicant and project representatives said they had engaged adjacent owners and would work to resolve corner/driveway impacts; applicant Russ Garufi, who said he lives across New Road and has owned portions of the parcels, told the council he preferred a dog park rather than a pickleball court for the amenity area.

Council action and next steps - The council closed the public hearing on the ordinance. Council member Wright moved to defer consideration of the ordinance (Change Zone No. 2052); the motion was seconded by Council member Grenoble. The motion to defer carried. Recorded spoken votes on the motion included Council member Lloyd saying “Yes to defer,” Council member Grenoble saying “Yes to defer,” and Council member Riley saying, “I vote yes to defer as well.” The public record was closed with no final rezoning decision taken.

What the deferral means: Deferral halts immediate action on the map amendment; it does not approve or deny the rezoning. The planning commission’s recommendation and the packet materials remain part of the record. The application depends on satisfying conditions noted by the commission and on technical work (DelDOT frontage improvements, sewer annexation, and any required landowner agreements for right‑of‑way or construction that may affect adjacent properties). No return date for further council consideration was specified in the public record included in the hearing.

Provenance: Presentation, staff materials and public testimony appear in the council packet and in the meeting public hearing transcript; the Planning & Zoning Commission hearings (Sept. 17 public hearing and Oct. 1 recommendation) are cited by staff and included in the submitted materials.

Ending: With the council’s vote to defer, the application remains pending. The council did not adopt an ordinance nor set a final action date during the meeting.