Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Major Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sussex County council defers decision on 352‑unit 'Swan Lake' RPC after public questions on access, drainage and lake safety
Summary
Council deferred action on a proposed Residential Planned Community (RPC) called Swan Lake, a 352‑unit development on 183.19 acres, after the applicant presented technical reports and nearby residents raised concerns about a historic dirt access lane, drainage, and use of a deep borrow pit being converted to a recreational lake.
Sussex County Council on Thursday deferred action on Change Zone 2021 — an application to establish an AR‑1 RPC overlay for a 183.19‑acre property to accommodate 352 residential units (161 single‑family homes and 191 townhouses) to be called Swan Lake — to give council members time to review extensive technical materials and public comments.
The applicant team, represented by attorney Tim Willard of Fuqua, Willard & Shop, and project consultants, described a mixed‑residential RPC that would preserve roughly 114 acres of community open space, reclaim an existing 29‑acre borrow pit as a lake and amenity, preserve federally delineated non‑tidal wetlands (about 14 acres), and connect to Artesian Water and Sussex County sewer. The project team submitted an exhibit book that included an environmental assessment, a DelDOT traffic impact study, a stormwater/drainage review, and the applicant’s written responses to the county’s technical review.
Willard said the RPC density was calculated under the zoning ordinance’s RPC provisions, noting that after subtracting dedicated street right‑of‑way the proposed 352 units are below the permitted maximum for the site. Phil Tolliver of Morris Ritchie & Associates and representatives from Geotechnology and the Traffic Impact Group answered council questions about roads, stormwater management and construction standards; DelDOT’s required transportation improvements include dual‑lane entrance configurations and turn lanes on Route 54 and West Line Road and a shared‑use path along the site frontage.
Councilors and members of the public raised several issues for follow up: whether the long‑used dirt lane known as Chicken Farm Road constitutes an existing right‑of‑way or prescriptive easement for neighboring properties; whether drainage from adjacent properties could be affected; how the 29‑acre borrow pit (maximum depth discussed as roughly 50 feet) would be reclaimed and made safe for swimming and paddle‑craft use; and whether the project will include any affordable or workforce housing (the applicant said units will be market‑rate and did not commit to an affordable‑housing set‑aside).
A member of the public, Wendell Bunting, said the lane has been shown on deeds and has been maintained historically; the applicant responded by recording a 25‑foot access easement on a revised site plan and shifting some townhouse lots to preserve the path. The project team also described voluntary financial support to local emergency services: the applicant proposed that each occupied unit pay a $100 annual contribution to the Roxanna Fire Company, collected by the homeowners association; the applicant noted the contribution would not apply if a state or county mandatory payment requirement were enacted.
After discussion, council voted unanimously to defer the change‑of‑zone application so members could review the record and the planning and zoning recommendation and return the matter to a future council meeting.
