[{"_1":2,"_114":-5,"_115":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,84,94,104],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},"mediaId",6186351,"mediaKeyId","5076643-e41877698925600506775d82e710cde5","parentId",5076643,"title","Council defers vote on 116-unit ‘Creekside’ development amid resident concerns over buffers, runoff and traffic","audioSeconds",5799,"startMs",3477230,"endMs",9277130,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5076643-e41877698925600506775d82e710cde5&start=3477&end=9277","thumbnailUrl","https://d352y6ypj4mjo3.cloudfront.net/AudioPlaceholder.png","articleUrl","/articles/6186351/Sussex-County/Delaware/Council-defers-vote-on-116-unit-Creekside-development-amid-resident-concerns-over-buffers-runoff-and-traffic","mediaUrl","author","Sussex County DE","date","2025-05-25T00:00:00Z","article","Sussex County Council heard presentations and public comment on two consolidated applications from Rudder Road LLC — a change of zone from AR-1 to MR for roughly 30.57 acres on Banks Road and a conditional-use request for a 116-unit residential project (75 townhomes and 41 single-family lots, the applicant calls the project \"Creekside\"). After extended technical presentations and numerous resident objections, council members moved to defer action on both applications.

Attorney David Hutt, representing Rudder Road LLC, described the two applications and the proposed site plan: \"This second application ... is a request for a multifamily project to be constructed on the property consisting of a total of a 116 units. That's a mixture, of 75 town homes and 41, single family lots.\" He said the site sits near existing medium- and higher-density residential uses, is designated as a coastal growth area under the county’s future land-use map and lies in Level 2 on the State Strategies Map, which the applicant argued supports medium-density residential development.

Technical presentations: Engineer Jason Palkowitz and wetlands scientist Ed Linnae presented resource-buffer and stormwater work, including tidal and non-tidal wetland delineations, a resource buffer management plan and FEMA mapping. Linnae told council the remaining wooded band along Guinea Creek that was left after timbering is generally between \"75 feet to a 100 feet wide\" in places and in some areas up to about 130 feet near the abandoned house site.

Public comment and concerns: Multiple residents and callers opposed the applications, raising repeated concerns about erosion and silt entering Guinea Creek during construction, the adequacy and enforcement of resource-buffer protections, impacts to vegetation and wildlife, and traffic safety on Banks Road (a narrow, sometimes slick road in heavy weather). Opponents requested stronger mitigation measures including a robust permanent buffer, construction phasing to limit disturbance at once, additional erosion controls, and a privacy fence along some property lines.

Applicant proffers and mitigation: Hutt said the developer offered proffers including a $3,500 contribution per building permit to the Sussex County Housing Trust Fund (projected to total approximately $406,000 for 116 units), a $500 per building permit contribution to the Indian River fire company (projected total about $58,000), and a $10 per month association fee per unit earmarked for emergency services. Hutt also proposed a more mature landscape buffer than county minimums along the Creekside–Creeks End property line and noted resource-buffer averaging had been approved in the project’s resource-buffer management plan.

Council questions and staff responses: Council members asked whether DelDOT had reviewed the traffic impacts and whether site plan approval would require DelDOT entrance permits; staff confirmed DelDOT had submitted a service-level evaluation that characterized the traffic impact as \"negligible\" (DelDOT technical definition) and that site-plan approval requires a DelDOT letter of no objection and any required entrance permits. Staff and the applicant said stormwater for the developed site would be directed into constructed stormwater ponds and modeled to avoid increasing runoff volume to downstream properties; the engineering consultant said pond design (lining vs. infiltration) will follow geotechnical findings and Sussex Conservation District requirements.

Outcome: After extensive questioning and public comment, council members moved to defer both the change-of-zone and conditional-use votes. The motions to defer were seconded and carried by roll-call vote. The hearing record was closed and the matters will return to council later, per the deferral.

What was left unresolved: Council did not approve the rezoning or conditional use; numerous technical and community concerns remain to be addressed, including final site-plan-level stormwater designs, construction phasing and buffer management details, and DelDOT entrance permits.

Next steps: Council deferred the matter; staff and the applicant will return with responses to the outstanding engineering, buffer-management and traffic questions, and any revised conditions or materials for future council consideration.","mediaType","Audio","parentTitle","County Council Meeting (Audio) May 25, 2025 (Part 3)","oneSentenceSummary","Sussex County Council deferred decisions on a proposed 116-unit Creekside development on Banks Road after extended presentations and public opposition focused on resource buffers, runoff controls and traffic.","taxTitle","Sussex County, Delaware","taxId",29941,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":50,"_51":81,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":82,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":83,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6186356,"Council approves conditional use for boat repair and storage on Route 17 property",449,1196260,1646240,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5076643-e41877698925600506775d82e710cde5&start=1196&end=1646","/articles/6186356/Sussex-County/Delaware/Council-approves-conditional-use-for-boat-repair-and-storage-on-Route-17-property","Sussex County Council approved a conditional use to permit boat repair and storage on a 5.54-acre agricultural-residential parcel on the east side of Bethany Road (Route 17).

Applicant and property owner Albert Finelli and representative Kelly Markamanilakis told council the operation would be leased to others and that repairs would be conducted inside an existing larger building on the site. \"He is not operating. He intends to lease it out,\" Markamanilakis said; she added the lease will incorporate any zoning conditions so future tenants must comply.

Staff noted the Planning & Zoning Commission had recommended approval with seven findings and six conditions, including that \"work will be done inside\" the larger building. There were no public speakers in favor or opposition and no remote commenters.

Council adopted the ordinance to grant the conditional use with the commission’s recommended findings and conditions and recorded a roll-call vote in support.

What the council approved: Conditional use allowing boat repair and storage on parcel District 533, Map 19, Parcel 11.1 in Baltimore Hundred, Sussex County, subject to the planning commission’s specified conditions, including limitations on hours or on-site operations as detailed in the commission record.

What the council did not do: Council did not approve site-plan-level details or building permits at this hearing; any tenant will be subject to the conditions and may face revocation of conditional-use approval if conditions are violated.

Implementation and compliance: The applicant said lease terms will incorporate planning conditions. Planning staff will enforce compliance through the county’s conditional-use and code-enforcement processes.","A conditional use allowing boat repair and storage on a 5.54-acre AR-1 parcel on Bethany Road (Route 17) was approved after the applicant and staff said work would occur inside existing buildings and no public opposition was recorded.",{"_33":85,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":86,"_41":87,"_43":88,"_45":89,"_47":90,"_49":50,"_51":91,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":92,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":93,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6186361,"Council adds Bridgeville Warehouses parcels to county sewer district after no public opposition",214,743390,957890,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5076643-e41877698925600506775d82e710cde5&start=743&end=957","/articles/6186361/Sussex-County/Delaware/Council-adds-Bridgeville-Warehouses-parcels-to-county-sewer-district-after-no-public-opposition","The Sussex County Council adopted a resolution extending the Unified Sanitary Sewer District boundary to include two parcels proposed for the Bridgeville Warehouses development along Route 13.

County engineering staff told the council the request came from Becker Morgan Group on behalf of FPDN Management LLC for parcels 131-19-4 and 131-19-5, zoned CR-1 and adjacent to the town boundary and existing sewer district. Staff posted notices and reported no written comments in support or opposition.

Frank Damondi, identified in the record as part owner of FDPN (FPDN) Management LLC, spoke in the hearing and described the project’s evolution: the site originally had a grinding operation but the developers redesigned the project into a commerce/business center and have secured over $1 million in site-plan readiness funding and tax-increment financing (TIF) support. He said businesses have already shown interest and the developers expect to begin building within the next four to five months.

Council approved the resolution to extend the sewer district boundary; the property owner will be responsible for system connection charges in effect at the time of connection. The council recorded an affirmative vote and the resolution carried.

What council approved: Boundary extension of the Sussex County Unified Sanitary Sewer District to include the Bridgeville Warehouses parcels; the developer will follow standard permitting and pay system-connection charges when connecting.

What council did not do: This resolution does not authorize site-plan approval, building permits, or direct county funding for the development; those remain separate processes.","Sussex County extended its Unified Sanitary Sewer District to include two parcels fronting Route 13 proposed for the Bridgeville Warehouses project; a project owner updated council on development progress during the hearing.",{"_33":95,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":96,"_41":97,"_43":98,"_45":99,"_47":100,"_49":50,"_51":101,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":102,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":103,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6186365,"Council approves annexation of Camp Salty Farm into county sanitary sewer district",196,538040,734420,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5076643-e41877698925600506775d82e710cde5&start=538&end=734","/articles/6186365/Sussex-County/Delaware/Council-approves-annexation-of-Camp-Salty-Farm-into-county-sanitary-sewer-district","The Sussex County Council voted to adopt a resolution adding Camp Salty Farm LLC’s parcel in the Miller Creek area to the Sussex County Unified Sanitary Sewer District.

County staff member Mr. Ashman told council the engineering department received a request from Stevens Environmental Consulting Group on behalf of Camp Salty Farm LLC for parcel 134-19-18, adjacent to the existing sewer district near Camp Gardens Road and Millers Neck Road. \"The parcel is adjacent to the existing county unified sanitary sewer district on Camp Gardens Road near Millers Neck Road ... the project will be responsible for system connection charges in place at the time of connection,\" Ashman said.

Staff posted public notices and received no written comments in support or opposition before the hearing. No one in the chamber or on the line asked to speak. Council moved to adopt a resolution extending the district boundary; the motion was seconded and carried by recorded vote.

What the council approved: A resolution to extend the boundary of the Sussex County Unified Sanitary Sewer District in the Miller Creek area to include the Camp Salty Farm parcel; the parcel will be subject to the system connection charges that apply when a property physically connects to the sewer.

What the council did not do: The action does not authorize construction of on-site connections or building permits; those steps remain subject to standard permitting and connection procedures and payment of applicable fees.

Implementation: The engineering department will record the district boundary change and the property owner will be responsible for connection charges at the time of service hookup.","Sussex County approved a resolution extending the Unified Sanitary Sewer District boundary to include Camp Salty Farm LLC’s parcel in the Miller Creek area; engineering posted notices and staff reported no public correspondence in opposition.",{"_33":105,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":106,"_41":107,"_43":108,"_45":109,"_47":110,"_49":50,"_51":111,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":112,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":113,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6186369,"Sussex County Council adopts updates to senior and disability property tax-exemption thresholds",454,62974,517520,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5076643-e41877698925600506775d82e710cde5&start=62&end=517","/articles/6186369/Sussex-County/Delaware/Sussex-County-Council-adopts-updates-to-senior-and-disability-property-tax-exemption-thresholds","Sussex County Council voted to adopt two ordinances updating local property tax-exemption rules for senior citizens and for disabled persons to preserve the relative tax benefit after a countywide reassessment.

Finance director Miss Jennings told the council the changes adjust the local exemption from $12,500 of assessed value to $229,000 \"to make it very similar to what happens this year,\" and align the residency and income rules between the two programs. \"The goal of both of the ordinances is just to make sure that everybody that qualifies for the programs today qualifies them tomorrow when the reassessment takes in effect,\" Jennings said.

The nut graf: County reassessments raised assessed values for many properties; council and staff said the local exemptions needed numeric updates so recipients receive comparable tax relief. Jennings said about 818 property owners used the senior exemption when she presented the measures during introduction and that applications had since increased to about 840.

The ordinances change the exemption amount used to reduce taxable assessment from $12,500 to $229,000, lengthen the residency requirement for the local senior exemption from three years to five, and align income limits and residency requirements across the senior and disability programs. The ordinance for disabled persons also clarifies application procedures and excludes pension income directly related to an applicant’s disability when calculating eligibility.

Jennings clarified the updates do not affect the state’s 65-and-older program or the separate 100%-disabled veterans exemption: \"I want to be clear that these changes do not impact the state 65 program,\" she said, and noted about 25,000 properties participate in the state senior program while roughly 350 properties enroll in the 100%-disabled veteran exemption.

Council members asked clarifying questions about how exemptions apply when a property deed lists two owners and about the proportional treatment when only one spouse is eligible. Jennings explained that if only one qualifying owner appears on the deed the exemption applies to 50% of the property; if both qualifying owners are on the deed the full property is exempt as provided by the local ordinance language.

Formal action: Council members moved to adopt each ordinance separately. The senior exemption ordinance was moved by Council member Lloyd and seconded by Miss Gruenbaum; the vote was recorded as yes by Council members McCarron, Lloyd, Grenfell and Riley and the motion carried. The disabled-persons ordinance was moved by Council member Riley and seconded by Miss Gruenbaum; the motion carried with an affirmative roll call.

What the council did not do: The council did not change state programs or the separate veteran exemptions; those remain under state authority. Staff also noted applicants may use the county website to file for the programs.

Next steps and practical effect: The ordinances update local code (chapter 103 taxation) to the new assessed-value thresholds and residency and income provisions; qualified property owners who meet the updated criteria will see their taxable assessment reduced by the updated exemption amounts when the reassessment is applied.","The county updated two local property tax-exemption ordinances — for low-income seniors and for disabled persons — raising the assessed-value exemption and changing residency and income rules so current beneficiaries keep comparable tax relief after reassessment.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council defers vote on 116-unit ‘Creekside’ development amid resident concerns over buffers, runoff and traffic

Council approves conditional use for boat repair and storage on Route 17 property

Council adds Bridgeville Warehouses parcels to county sewer district after no public opposition

Council approves annexation of Camp Salty Farm into county sanitary sewer district

Sussex County Council adopts updates to senior and disability property tax-exemption thresholds