Location of approved Westwood development on Williamsville Road
After a public hearing with many members expressing concerns about the Westwood development planned for Williamsville Road, Milford City Council voted reluctantly to approve the final major subdivision plan for the 329-planned unit development. The property, which was formerly the Draper farm, was annexed into Milford in 2006 with the understanding it would be developed. The preliminary approval for the plan was awarded by council in 2022.
“The layout itself hasn’t changed from the preliminary approval that we got two years ago. We lost a few lots to increase the stormwater ponds in certain areas to handle that. When we got into the engineering of everything, we needed to handle stormwater slightly better, but the overall design, the layout, all the infrastructure related to it, is very similar to what we presented two years ago,” Alan Decker, an engineer with Pennoni Associates, said. “We were here maybe two to three months ago, asking for final extension because we just had one agency approval letter that was kind of still hanging out there. We got that about a month or so ago.”
During the public hearing portion of the meeting several people spoke up to oppose the development’s final approval.
“I’m the business developer with the Kent Economic Partnership. We are the economic development organization covering all of Kent County, and we focus on business attraction, retention and expansion. So, while we understand the major need for housing in the area, we have to oppose this project due to its proximity to rail, “Zach Prebula said. “So, in Kent County, we have very limited rail entitled land that is used for businesses due to the massive expansion in the residential neighborhoods and developments being constructed near the rail so due to that, the rail land is a prime local industrial and agricultural development which create jobs for the community. So, for that reason, we have to oppose the project.”
Artist rendering of approved Westwood development
Chad Fry was vehemently opposed to the development, repeatedly stating that the developer had requested “thousands” of waivers, and that the entire development was illegal.
“This developer and his engineers have created a development plan that simply disregards City of Milford laws, DNREC recommendations, as well as current use surrounding properties. This developer is asking for thousands of waivers for this development to be built outside of our two laws. Thousands of waivers is no longer a waiver, simply an illegal development. This developer is asking to pick and choose which laws they follow and offer nothing in return,” Fry said. “Second, I do not support this development, as 340 homes being built on the edge of town will create significant traffic, which will encounter oversized AG equipment on a daily basis. There are five blind corners within half mile of this property, and the only way AG equipment and this amount of traffic can coexist safely is with wider roads and shoulders, neither of which this area has, and neither of which are being addressed by the developer or the city.”
Fry continued, pointing out that Phase Five of the development was one that he felt was most environmentally dangerous.
“The property is surrounded by blue water stream and wetlands on three sides. DNREC recommends a minimum of 200 feet buffers around small wetlands. However, the developer is ignoring this recommendation building within 65-feet of wetlands. This proposal for Phase Five includes destroying the woods behind Baltimore Air Coil, which serves as a noise barrier and putting illegal size duplexes and illegal size single family homes right against Baltimore Air Coil,” Fry said. “Baltimore Air Coil provides the highest quality jobs of any business in our city and deserves to be respected and protected. BAC is extremely noisy business that operates 24 hours a day. Putting illegal houses right up against Baltimore Air Coil’s property will lead to constant noise complaints and petitions and is not smart growth.”
Fry also pointed out that his family owned a shooting range directly adjacent to the property and had dealt with police being called in the past. The shooting range is safe and legal, according to Fry, but adding a large number of houses in a development would result in police contact which was a waste of resources. Councilman Dan Marabello expressed concern about the thousands of waivers mentioned in Fry’s statement, asking City Planner Rob Pierce if this were factual.
“There were eleven conditions that were approved as part of the PUD. The PUD does allow, in the code, city council flexibility in approving lot sizes to a certain limit, along with setbacks, parking and other design criteria within the development. So those PUD conditions are listed out in the approval letter from 2022 and like I said, there were 11 of them,” Pierce said. “So, I’m assuming, if you count, you know each lot is less than the 8,000 square foot minimum required. And they’re 6,800 which was what was approved by the council, and you counted each one, you have 329 there. If the setbacks are reduced from 30 to 20, you might have another 329 there. But there’s essentially, eleven conditions that council approved that is allowed by city ordinance under the PUD conditions.”
Councilman Marabello was satisfied with Pierce’s answer, stating that “illegal building” was a strong claim. Pierce confirmed that the development was legal. Councilwoman Nadia Zychal expressed concerns about the DNREC comments asking if there were variances granted for setbacks from wetlands.
“No, ma’am, the city’s ordinance, the zoning code allows 25 foot wetlands. I believe the PLUS comments that are in the packet provide recommendations from state agencies. They do not have governance over our design requirements,” Pierce said. “These are recommendations from DNREC that may have recommended an additional riparian or wetland buffer, either from the blue line stream or the wetland area. But in our ordinance, our riparian buffers are established, and so are the wetland buffers, and if council would like to modify that, and we would have to change our zoning code,”
Councilman Marabello asked about comments that Baltimore Air Coil opposed the development. Pierce stated that there had been discussions with Baltimore Air Coil about a different development, but that was many years ago. He had not heard any concerns from the company about this development. Craig Haas who lives in the Griffith Lake area expressed concerns that this type of development was unnecessary urban sprawl, warning council not to create areas of crime and congestion like areas like Baltimore, Philadelphia and other big cities had allowed. Councilwoman Katrina Wilson asked if there were enough buffers in the development.
“Yeah, I believe what the conditions from City Council’s approval of the PUD was to provide an enhanced buffer. That was one of the conditions provide an enhanced buffer along the north side of development, between the proposed dwelling units and the railroad easement,” Pierce said. “They’ve provided 60 feet from the rear property line to the railroad with an extensive planting schedule on the back there, and they do plan on keeping some of the trees. And we did review that with our landscape architect during the construction plan review phase. I don’t know off the top of my head the width of that rail easement.”
Councilwoman Lori Connor asked if the city had discussed this development with the school district. Pierce stated that every application received by the city is sent to the district for comment.
“I will say that we have several units that have been on the books 15 years that school district is aware of,” Pierce said. “When they were doing their school planning, we did have detailed discussions about what our housing pipeline looked from those prior projects and what our growth projections were that that’s listed on our comprehensive plan. So, they we have had those coordination discussions with the school district.”
Councilwoman Connor wanted to be sure that the district had been contacted about this development recently and Pierce confirmed they were contacted with every development.
“If I can add to that, I actually sat on the strategic planning committee with the school district when they were working on a new five year strategic plan last year, the city’s growth projections based on the developments and lots that were approved and had not even been started yet were discussed,” Councilman Jason James said. “So, they’re projecting. That’s why they are fully aware that the middle school will likely be over capacity before it’s done. And they’re already, they’re already looking at additional capacity. They are fully aware exactly where the city is with this, with this growth,”
Councilwoman Madula Kalesis also expressed concerns about the district schools being over capacity. City Solicitor David Rutt halted the conversation in order to provide details on the application process.
“Maybe it’s appropriate, since we do have new council people here to give some background on an application process. This development went through the PLUS process,” Rutt said. “PLUS process is a state procedure where you have DNREC, Soil conservation, Department of Education, you have all these various state agencies who will send a representative. They review the application, they review the submission, they’ll make their comments to the developer. Sometimes the developer will have to make some changes, take it back through the process, but eventually what happens is they will make recommendations that will both benefit the project, or say why they object to the project, those things, those comments. Then come back to the city.”
Rutt continued.
“This is a PUD which is a planned urban development, and under the R2 code, this allows for creative design and concept. So that’s why you would have situations where the lot sizes in an R2 are 8,000 square feet but allow smaller design because they can cluster or group, which is our zoning applications on a parcel, which then allows for greater open space,” Rutt said. “So the concept there is, you’re trading off the size of your lot, but creating more open space overall. Also, it allows for street signs to be somewhat different and so on and so forth. But these are, these are things that engineers are able, then to come up with something that doesn’t look like a cookie cutter, where you have a straight road and lots off of it, and it’s pretty sterile.”
The preliminary plan was submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission who recommended approval to council. Council then gave preliminary approval for the design. The developer was required to conform to any comments made by Planning and Zoning or council on the preliminary approval before coming back to for final approval.
“In this case, according to Mr. Pierce and KCI, who reviewed this, as well as all the state agencies, since this goes back, they have to give approval, and you’ll see those approval letters here, once the applicant has met all of those criteria,” Rutt said. “Delaware Supreme Court has ruled that they have a primary subdivision. That means, if they meet all the criteria imposed by the municipality in their final subdivision, you don’t have right to deny it. It is by right they have met their threshold. And frankly, these final subdivision hearings, if they meet them all, sometimes they’re a waste of time, in my opinion. But that’s what we have, and that’s our process. And until that process has changed, that’s the way we have to go about it.”
Pierce also explained that council had changed the code so that final subdivision plans would no longer have to come before council unless the plan changed significantly between the preliminary and the final. This preliminary plan was approved under the old rules which was the only reason it was before council now.
“I guess it’s too little of no use at this point. But what are we doing about the roads? There’s an S curve there that’s blind when you go around the lake,” Councilman Michael Stewart said. “The two curves there are blind if we’re putting that amount of cars, what is been talked about, what’s in the process for the future of that area?”
Pierce stated that the developer did go through a process with DelDOT and since those are state maintained roadways, the city had no jurisdiction over them He believed that there were plans to widen the road and add signaling at Route 14 and Williamsville Road. After the motion was made and seconded to approve the development, council was asked to vote and give their reasons for that vote.
Councilwoman Connor voted yes because she was forced to do so under the law. Councilwomen Zychal and Kalesis also voted yes for the same reason. Councilman Marabello voted yes as it was consistent with city code. Councilwoman Nirmala Samaroo voted yes as it met the comprehensive plan and city construction standards. Councilwoman Wilson also voted yes.
“I vote yes to approve the final project based on reasons that I worked on a comprehensive plan. It was included in our comp plan at that time, it was approved by all of our state agencies, which that always is a guideline for us,” Councilwoman Wilson said. “And I think that this has been on the books since 06, and these developers have gracefully walked through to check off and tried to comply with everything that we’ve asked them to do.”
The next yes vote was Councilman James.
“I vote yes. This does meet all of our requirements, and we have vetted this project very carefully over several, several times, and the developer has listened, and they have complied with all of the changes and buffers and all that was best of them, and all of the state approvals have been obtained,” Councilman James said. “And there is such a great need for housing, there’s just not enough housing stock, and I don’t want housing in lieu of bad environmental issues, but these things have been addressed by the agencies that know better than we do, in conservation district, DelDOT and the like. But there’s so such a great need for housing. Obviously, the sooner this project can start, the better. I vote yes for the project.”
Councilman Stewart asked if he had the right to abstain and Solicitor Rutt stated that he did.
“We all have a right to think in our vote,” Councilman Stewart said. “So that’s what I do, I abstain.”
The final approval passed with a vote of 7 to 0 with one abstaining.
Share this Post