Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers present plan for Woodland Industrial Park: about 395,000 sq ft of warehouses, 15 acres preserved
Summary
Developers told New Castle County’s land use committee they plan roughly 395,000 square feet of warehouse space across four buildings on about 60.78 acres along Old Baltimore Pike and have recorded a 15‑acre conservation easement; council members pressed on traffic, end uses and property access.
Developers presented a plan Tuesday for Woodland Industrial Park, proposing roughly 395,000 square feet of warehouse space across four buildings on about 60.78 acres on the north side of Old Baltimore Pike in New Castle County.
Pete Yanks, representing the property owner and developer and identifying himself as with Terabicos Grosso, told the committee the project would include four warehouse buildings, with the largest at the northwest corner of the site at about 210,000 square feet and additional buildings of roughly 30,000 and 112,000 square feet. “It proposes to construct approximately 395,000 square feet across 4 warehouse buildings,” Yanks said, noting the site is zoned I (industrial) and that no rezoning is required.
Yanks said approximately 15 acres of the property were placed in a recorded conservation easement and “will be preserved in perpetuity,” and that the plan includes two separate entrance points, including access off Old Baltimore Pike and Brook Hill Drive. He said the project received a letter of no objection and entrance plan approvals from DelDOT and that a traffic impact study was performed to analyze the area’s capacity.
The developer and the Department of Land Use added a condition to the record plan requiring an updated traffic impact study under Article 11 if the actual trip generation from tenants exceeds the approved entrance design. Yanks said staff will need tenant data once occupants are identified and that the Department of Land Use will determine whether additional improvements are required.
Council members pressed the team on likely end uses and timing. A committee member asked whether the buildings would be speculative or built to suit tenants; Yanks said end uses are “to be determined” and will be market driven rather than built on speculation, and that any future resubdivision or new plan required to accommodate specific tenants would be filed at that time.
A committee member praised the inclusion of the traffic note, stressing that different warehouse tenants generate different traffic patterns: “Warehouses are not just warehouses, ... it’s like a box of chocolates until you pick somebody, and the traffic is always a big issue,” the member said, urging careful monitoring.
On property access, the presenter confirmed the project already owned the land providing the access route and that the plan calls for construction of a right‑turn lane; no additional right‑of‑way purchases were reported.
The team described community outreach with the Westover Woods neighborhood and said changes made after neighbor input included the addition of an 8‑foot solid fence, shifting a building about 30 feet to increase buffering, using lighting oriented away from residences, and resurveying property lines to clarify boundaries.
No members of the public spoke in person or online during the public comment period.
The committee did not take a final vote on the plan at the meeting. The developer said the team would appear later that evening for other scheduled business.
Votes at a glance: the committee approved the minutes by voice vote earlier in the meeting and adjourned by voice vote; motion movers/seconders and roll‑call tallies were not specified in the transcript.
