Fly Away Farms MR/RPC proposal draws technical review and neighbor opposition; council defers

The Sussex County Council heard a lengthy presentation on Change of Zone No. 2024, a proposed MR (medium‑density residential) district with an RPC overlay for a 94.7‑acre site the applicant calls "Fly Away Farms." The presentation included site plans, an environmental assessment, an engineering review and a traffic impact study (TIS) reviewed by DelDOT.

David Hunt, the applicant's attorney, said the project proposes 320 units in a mix of housing types and highlighted design elements intended to protect environmental resources: 43.2 acres of the site (45.6 percent) would be set aside as open space, including a contiguous 19.6‑acre block of woods around delineated wetland areas. Hunt said Artesian Resources has provided a "willing and able" letter for central water and sewer and that the plan is consistent with state strategies and the county's 2045 future land‑use guidance.

Traffic engineer Troy Bridal summarized the TIS and DelDOT's review. Bridal said DelDOT found no level‑of‑service (LOS) deficiencies at the studied intersections in existing, no‑build and build scenarios and recommended improvements at the development frontage such as auxiliary turn lanes and standard pedestrian and bicycle accommodations. Bridal said the project would add about 2,722 vehicle trips per day and that, when modeled against planned and committed developments, the intersections and the studied two‑lane section would still meet acceptable LOS thresholds.

Council members and nearby residents challenged aspects of the traffic analysis and the extent of required roadway work. Neighbors said Burton Farm Road is a 20‑foot tar‑and‑chip rural roadway with sections lacking shoulders and said additional daily trips and construction traffic could degrade pavement and create safety hazards. One nearby property owner, Paul Skovicki, said DNREC drainage guidance and tax‑ditch rights‑of‑way create practical constraints and asked that the council deny or table the application until a route to Roxanna Road is available.

The applicant offered several proffers during the presentation: a per‑permit contribution of $2,250 to affordable‑housing programs (applicant stated a cumulative total of $720,000 if fully built out), a one‑time $250 per‑building‑permit impact contribution to the Roxanna Volunteer Fire Department (applicant stated a total of $80,000) and a proposed ongoing contribution of $10 per unit per month intended to support emergency services at full buildout.

After public comment and cross‑examination, the council voted to defer the application. Council members recorded a motion to defer, it was seconded and the roll‑call vote carried.

What happens next: the application is deferred for further review; staff will post agency responses and make materials available in the land use docket so council and the public can evaluate outstanding technical issues, particularly traffic mitigation, buffer compliance and drainage.