For the record, attorney Jim Fuquay, representing Freeman Companies, told the Sussex County Council on Nov. 4 that his clients are seeking four interrelated approvals for a 637‑acre mixed‑use community called Cool Spring Crossing: an amendment to the county's future land use map from “low density” (rural) to “coastal area” (growth area), a change of zone to MRRPC (medium density residential, residential planned community) and two conditional uses for an educational facility and an assisted‑living/medical office campus.

The applications together would allow 1,922 residential units (534 single‑family and 1,388 multifamily), a town center with retail, cultural and recreational facilities, a 100‑bed assisted‑living campus and associated medical offices, and an educational component. Fuquay told the council that Village A would contain 700 multifamily units, with 175 units (25% of Village A) proposed to participate in the county's rental program (SCARP) to provide lower‑cost rental housing.

Why it matters: The hearing centered on whether the property should be reclassified from the comprehensive plan's low‑density rural designation to a growth designation that allows the MRRPC overlay and higher densities. Proponents argued the site is already surrounded by services and infrastructure — including the Bay Health emergency and urgent care facility, existing commercial corridors on Route 9, the Lewis–Georgetown bike trail and an Artesian water tower and mains — and that the project would add mixed housing types and capacity the county lacks. Opponents (in later speaking not included in this transcript excerpt) have emphasized scale, traffic and environmental concerns.

Key facts presented

- Site and scope: 637 acres at Cool Springs/Route 9 corridor; applicant proposes seven residential villages, a town center and recreational network. The applicant said it expects phased construction over roughly 20 years and estimated full buildout around 2048.

- Housing: 1,922 total units (534 single‑family, 1,388 multifamily). Village A would contain 700 multifamily units; 175 of those units are proposed under the county rental program (SCARP).

- Density and calculations: The applicant presented a net developable area of 515.6 acres after deductions for streets and the town center. Using the RPC ordinance minimum lot area, the applicant calculated a theoretical maximum RPC capacity of 2,245 units and said its 1,922 units equal about 3.01 units per acre, below that conservative maximum.

- Utilities: Applicant stated Artesian Resources holds certificates of public convenience and necessity to provide central water and sewer for the area and that a 1,000,000‑gallon elevated water storage tower (up to 150 feet) already exists adjacent to the property.

- Traffic and DelDOT review: The applicant submitted a traffic impact study (TIS) originally dated June 30, 2022; after plan changes (reduction of proposed units and access points from 10 to 6) DelDOT required an updated review and a supplemental sensitivity analysis. DelDOT's revised review letter (dated Jan. 14, 2025) is in the record and — according to the applicant's presentation — requires the applicant to construct or fund 22 specific roadway and intersection improvements and contribute to existing DelDOT projects. Century Engineering (applicant's traffic consultant) told council the study accounts for internal capture and pass‑by trips (existing trips that will be redirected to the new town center) and that, with the required improvements, intersections in the study area can operate at acceptable service levels for the projected buildout and background growth.

Direct quotes from the record

- Jim Fuquay (attorney for Freeman Companies): "The question before you is whether to amend the future land use map designation for the Cool Spring Crossing property from low density to coastal area."

- Drew Boyce (Century Engineering): "We were contracted by Freeman to do the traffic impact study. ... The recommendations from DelDOT were not changed from that initial more intense development."

- Pam Steinbach (DelDOT): "I'm the director of maintenance and operations for DelDOT, but I used to be the director of planning." (introducing DelDOT's independent findings)

What council pressed on

Council members repeatedly focused on traffic: how the applicant's estimated site ADT (applicant cited roughly 33,000 ADT) interacts with existing Route 9 counts (roughly 12,000–17,000 ADT in the corridor segments cited), whether DelDOT's independent review and the coastal corridor planning process support leaving the site at investment level 4 on the state's draft investment map, and whether Route 9 would need future dualization. DelDOT representatives explained the difference between ADT and peak‑hour analysis, described a segment analysis and a sensitivity analysis DelDOT conducted, and said DelDOT's review added some required improvements but did not trigger Route 9 dualization for the project's buildout when required mitigations and other committed projects are included.

Other points of record

- The Planning & Zoning Commission conducted hearings and recommended approval of the map amendment and zoning application at earlier meetings (motions and reasons are in the planning commission record, included in the county packet).

- Applicant materials in the record include conceptual master plans, traffic studies, drainage and environmental assessments, technical advisory committee comments, wellhead protection maps, staff review letters and recommended conditions.

Next steps

Council did not take final votes on the four Cool Spring Crossing applications in the transcript segment provided. The council process for map amendments and zoning changes remains governed by the county's hearing procedures; the applicants made their presentation and DelDOT and county staff answered questions. Additional public comment and deliberation are expected before any final action.

Ending

The hearing portion of the Nov. 4 meeting covered extensive technical testimony and cross examination on traffic, utilities and community impacts; the record will be used by council when it considers the separate and distinct votes on the future land use map amendment and on the MRRPC zoning and conditional uses.