Milford City Council reversed a decision to deny Phase IV of the Cypress Hall development. City Solicitor Gregg Morris explained he had received a letter from the attorney of the applicant questioning the legality of the denial. City Planner Rob Pierce explained that the preliminary site plan met minimum standards and that because it was a preliminary plan, it did not require engineering approval or agency approvals.
“We do not need to have another public hearing as we had a public hearing back in August,” John Paradee, an attorney for Shawnee Farm LLC, said. “What we respectfully submit to you is that this application satisfies all of the code requirements under Chapter 202-30 of your code. For that reason, Delaware law says there was no discretion to deny it, so we’re back before you, asking that you reconsider it because the record is very clear that the application satisfies all of your code requirements and, therefore, there’s really no basis to deny it whatsoever.”
Morris stated that public comment should be permitted as council could potentially reconsider and make a decisions to overturn or affirm the initial decision. No one spoke in favor of the application, but three people spoke in opposition.
“It seems there is a lot of growth in Milford,” Eric Johnson said. “I wonder about school capacity. Do we have enough doctors in the hospital? And, also, I’ve lived here for three years. I’ve owned property here since 2019 and even in that time, I can see there’s a lot more traffic congestion.”
Tracy Jones Hurd felt that the city had bigger fish to fry than worrying about another development since the city had just lost a major school. She felt that should be addressed before they move forward with another development.
“We bought in Cypress Hall a year and a half ago, it looked really promising and excited to move into a new development, but since then I have gotten a reality check,” Tracy Titian said. “Building more buildings, we have quite a large number of apartments that are behind the townhomes. I live in the townhomes and adding more to this, I don’t think it was very well thought out by the developer. There’s another development not even a quarter mile down the road and I think this is putting a strain on the electricity grid and never did I think that would happen.”
Titian they have lost electricity and internet which makes her skeptical that the power grid could manage more homes.
“I would like to draw to your attention page 79,” Julie Morris said. “It says KCI, who is the outsourced city engineer says the items under previously approved deviations from R3 zoning code and additionally approved deviations from R3 zoning code are expired and are being requested again. Because the reason we are here is because you’re stating there’s nothing that the council said in their denial that’s a legal reason. Well, then the lawyer doesn’t want to reference his letter. Well, maybe that’s because he threatened council and its individual members for all monetary and consequential damages suffered by the applicant as a result of the denial.”
Morris stated that she would speak for the city and say the entire city would rather council be sued than have another development. Councilwoman Katrina Wilson asked Pierce when the development began.
“Phase I and II were originally approved back in 2009,” Pierce said. “It came back through as a planned-unit development to make some modifications to the multifamily area. That was approved September 22, 2025, so that planned development is still valid.”
Councilwoman Nina Pletcher asked what the timeline was for proceeding with the next phase in light of the Ross fire.
“Right now, the plan is for the preliminary and once we receive a favorable approval, we go into the design portion and that can take up to two years for design,” Tim Metzner, an engineer with Davis Bowen & Friedel said. “Then construction would take several years for this space to be built out. My guess would be around four to five years.”
James pointed out that if the applicant filed litigation against the city, the cost may not just be monetary and that a judge could overturn the denial.
“Every statement you have made is 100 percent correct,” Morris said. “There are monetary aspects and if the court overrules a decision stating you should have approved it, then it’s going to be approved.”
Paradee confirmed Morris’ assessment.
“This is a preliminary site plan application, it’s not a rezoning so the level of discretion that a municipal body like this council has is different than a rezoning,” Pardee said. “In a rezoning you are exercising your legislative discretion to decide whether or not a use of a property is appropriate in a particular place. That has already happened in this case. This body has zoned this property to allow this type of development.”
Paradee explained that under state law, when an applicant like his client comes forward with plans that satisfy every code requirement, it is not a matter of judgement at that point.
“Your code says, ‘you have to do this and this and this,’ so if you do ‘this and this and this,’ you are approved,” Paradee said. “The law in Delaware says you do not have the discretion to say no at that point. If you don’t like your code, you can change it but right now, this plan meets your code.”
Wilson asked Pierce to address the questions about the expired plan referenced by Morris during public comment.
“The plan review letter that’s provided in the packet was prepared in coordination between the planning office and the city engineer,” Pierce said. “KCI Technologies, who acts as the city engineer, may have felt like these things warranted a comment but we addressed it by taking it through the conditional use process in September of 2025 and that is what we are currently operating under. That comment is listed as addressed in the comment review letter.”
Council approved Phase IV of Cypress Hall by a vote of six to zero as Councilwoman Madula Kalesis and Councilman Dan Marabello were absent. The mayor called for a roll call vote. Wilson, who made the motion to approve, voted yes.
“I vote yes and my reason is that there is no legislative authority for this body to deny this application, so my vote is yes,” James said.
Councilman Danny Perez also voted yes as there was no authority for them to deny the application as did Councilwoman Joan King who felt there was no option to vote no.
“I did hear the lady’s complaint about electric and internet, so I hope that is going to be addressed,” King said.
Councilwoman Nadia Zychal, and Councilwoman Nina Pletcher also voted yes. Pletcher suggested that this may be a lesson learned in future planning.
