More than 60 people came ready at the Jan. 6 Sussex County Council meeting to challenge development of a 67-acre site outside Milton, but they were frustrated to learn their efforts were premature.

Council held a public hearing on a request by Reed Farms LLC to change the designation of three adjacent parcels from low density to developing area on the county’s future land-use map.

It was the second time an application for the property was considered by council. In April 2021, council rejected the same map amendment request and a proposal to change the zoning of the site at the intersection of Routes 16 and 30 from AR-1, agricultural-residential, to H-1, heavy industrial.

The owners of the property took the county to court to challenge its decision only on the future land-use map amendment. They did not contest the zone change decision.

After a nearly four-year process of litigation, the Delaware Court of Chancery ruled in July that Sussex County Council must hold a new hearing on the map change.

Residents at the Jan. 6 hearing began to argue against heavy industrial uses at the site, only to be told their points were irrelevant to the map amendment request.

“We’ll cross that bridge when we get there, but we’re not there,” Council Vice President John Rieley said.

“Nobody was aware of how to consider this,” said project opponent Keith Steck of Milton. 

The fight may be yet to come, as heavy industrial uses are not allowed in low-density areas, but they are among a list of permitted uses in developing  areas.

The zoning would remain AR-1 if the map amendment is approved, said county Planning & Zoning Director Jamie Whitehouse, limiting development to no more than two houses per acre.

Any other project would require approval by county council, either through a zone change or a conditional use.

Prepared to argue against the proposal, several people veered back to the issue during the public hearing, only to be told the points could not be considered for the future land-use map amendment request.   

Residents said they are concerned that heavy-industrial uses would threaten nearby residential developments that are becoming more common in the area. 

David Hutt, a lawyer for the applicant, explained how the property meets the county’s criteria for a developing area.

Among his points, he noted the site is in a rapidly developing area north of Milton that is well-suited for growth. It has access to a railroad track and is adjacent to a designated truck route.

Some residents noted that Hutt had cited characteristics of the site that would make it a good location for heavy-industrial development, further causing confusion among opponents who feared such a project.

Several people who spoke against the project said they were frustrated they did not know what businesses would occupy the site. Two of the property owners, Richard Reed and Beverly White, attended the meeting, but they did not provide details.

Louise Montoya, who lives near the site, said she wonders what the map change will allow the developers to do that they cannot do now. 

Without knowing what is planned, neighbors have had to assume the worst and planned their opposition accordingly, said Chris Montoya, her husband.

The Sussex Economic Development Action Committee supported the application, Hutt noted. He also said the request was compatible with the Sussex County Land Use Reform Working Group’s criteria for a growth area.

Jill Hicks, president of the Sussex Preservation Coalition and a member of the working group, took issue with Hutt citing the working group recommendations. She said the group was heavily weighted toward developers and others were outvoted.

“We were keeping in mind that there would be a hearing process before any of these recommendations were put into use,” Hicks said. “So I am really troubled by, not just this time but in other times, those recommendations being used as a reason to justify some of these piecemeal changes.”

“I think your comments are going to be more appropriate when there is a site-specific plan,” Councilman Matt Lloyd told the project opponents.

“We were under the understanding that there was going to be heavy industry,” said Anthony Scarpa, president of the Pemberton Homeowners Association.

Council deferred a decision to a future meeting.