At their last meeting, Milford City Council delayed a decision on 609 Walnut LLC, sending the request to construct six duplexes and two single-family dwellings back to Planning and Zoning. At issue was the size of a home proposed for lot 10 in the development which council felt was too large. On Monday, City Planner Rob Pierce read a letter from the attorney of the developer into the record.
“On Monday, November 24, 2025, the Council voted to refer the application back to the Planning Commission to consider making the house on Lot 10 smaller if the applicant was in agreement to reduce the size of a proposed home on the property,” David Hutt, an attorney for Morris James LLP, wrote. “My client does not agree that this application should be referred back to the Planning Commission for consideration of a smaller home on Lot 10. Primarily, this is because the application meets the requirements found in the City’s Code and any home constructed on Lot 10 will still have to comply with the setback and other requirements for improvement found in the City’s Code.”
Hutt stated that if his client agreed to reduce the house size for future construction would create ad hoc requirements for the property. In other words, council would be requiring something of one developer that would not be required of others. Hutt quoted a decision by the Delaware Supreme Court in 2008 which stated that property owners with land zoned for a specific use are entitled to rely on the fact they can implement that use provided the project complies with all of the specific criteria found in ordinances.
“The second part of the analysis is whether a limitation on the size of a future home on Lot 10 is a “reasonable condition.” A random limitation on the size of a future home on Lot 10 is not a reasonable condition,” Hutt wrote. “For this property within the City’s R-2 Residential District, none of those “Area Regulation” restrict the size of a home or other improvement to a property. The only regulation not met on this property is the minimum for width requirement. The Board of Adjustment granted a variance for the minimum lot width as the testimony established that the reduced width was consistent with the character of other, nearby lot widths and the proposed lot will be larger in area than the Code requires.”
Councilman Jason James asked Pierce if the application was a code compliant plan as it was mentioned several times in the letter. Pierce confirmed that the plan met the zoning code and subdivision code other than the variance sought and approved by the Board of Adjustment. According to Pierce, if there are any objections to a decision by Board of Adjustment, they must be made to through the state court system.
“So, help me phrase this correctly,” Mayor Todd Culotta said. “The Board of Adjustment, when they vote on something, it’s accepted and not subject to our review. Unlike Planning which votes to recommend to council?”
Pierce confirmed that Culotta was correct and that once Board of Adjustment made a decision, it does not have to be approved by council. Culotta commented before opening up the floor to the rest of council.
“I understand when the building happens next to somebody that there’s concerns for what they had before, but we have a city code for everything we do,” Culotta said. “Therefore, according to this, it meets all the city code. They’re not asking for anything outside of that. I also think, we talked about it last week to send it back to Planning and Zoning. Planning and Zoning recommends to us, so at the end of the day, we decide. I think we need to, as elected officials, make the decisions that we feel are best for our constituents, so that’s what I think needs to happen here.”
Councilwoman Katrina Wilson made a motion to approve the final subdivision ordinance for 609 Walnut LLC. It was seconded by Councilman Jason James. There was no public hearing on the ordinance. City Solicitor Greg Morris recommended taking a roll call vote so that council could express why they were voting yes or no.
“I vote yes because it meets our zoning ordinance,” Wilson said. “I feel as though it will enhance the neighborhood.”
James also voted yes since the development met zoning ordinances. Councilman Michael Stewart voted yes based on statements made by his fellow council members. Councilman Dan Marabello voted yes as it conformed to code requirements and because the decision by the Board of Adjustments cannot be challenged by council.
“I vote no and I vote no for the reason that it is unfortunate that I believe that the Board of Adjustments has not considered the adverse impact of the size of that lot relative to what was going to be built on it related to the neighboring property,” Councilwoman Nadia Zychal said. “It is my duty as a representative of the people of Milford to consider the greater good of the city and the needs of the constituents over the personal and private gain of private interests, so that is why I, in all good conscience, cannot say yes to this.”
Councilman Danny Perez and Councilwomen Lori Connor and Madula Kalesis were absent from the meeting. The motion passed with a vote of four to one.
