Old Mill Landing developer seeks changes

A request by the Old Mill Landing subdivision developer to amend two conditions of approval was removed from the Feb. 27 Sussex County Planning and Zoning Commission agenda by the developer and will be placed on an agenda in April.

Old Mill Landing South and Old Mill Landing North, located between Bethany Beach and Fenwick Island, received preliminary approval Feb. 13 from the commission. The two subdivisions will contain 227 single-family lots on 283 acres on the southeast corner of Old Mill Bridge Road and Millers Neck Road.

In a Feb. 20 letter, Old Mill Landing LLC attorney Jim Fuqua asked the commission to reconsider a condition requiring sidewalks on both sides of all internal streets and a building restriction on lots 77 through 85, which the commission had designated as an environmentally sensitive area with mature woodlands.

According to Fuqua, there is no legal basis for removing the lots from the site plan and requiring that the area remain undisturbed. The subdivisions, located on AR-1, agricultural-residential, zoned land, will be developed using the county cluster ordinance allowing for smaller lot sizes and requiring superior design features, such as contiguous open space.

Fuqua noted the zoning ordinance has no restrictions on development of a site with woodlands or other natural features. In addition, he said, detached single-family dwellings on individual lots are permitted by right on AR-1 zoned land.

Fuqua said while the commission has the authority to impose reasonable conditions on the approval of a site plan, it cannot impose ad hoc requirements on the use of the land not specified in county ordinances.

“If it were allowed to do so, it would create uncertainty on all landowners as to whether they can safely rely on the permitted uses conferred on their land under the zoning ordinance,” he said.

He said allowing the condition to remain would set a precedent that could force future applicants to remove trees prior to submitting applications.

Fuqua said although the commission stated the developer proffered sidewalks on both sides of all streets, the applicant actually proposed sidewalks on one side to reduce impervious cover. He said there is no provision in the zoning or subdivision ordinances requiring sidewalks on both sides of streets, and even under the design criteria of the AR-1 cluster development option, sidewalks are only required on one side of subdivision streets.

He is asking the commission to amend the sidewalk requirement and delete the building restriction condition.