In a surprise move, Milford City Council denied a request from Shawnee Farms request for a final preliminary major subdivision approval for Phase IV of the Cypress Hall development. The phase would have included 64 single-family detached dwellings and 30 single-family semi-detached dwellings.
“City Council granted final major subdivision approval for Cypress Hall – Phase I on 2009 consisting of 96 townhouses and 288 garden apartments,” Rob Pierce, City Planner, explained. “Construction did not commence until the original 2009 approval and developer elected to resubmit the design of the proposed apartment area. City council granted approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) on March 25, 2019, consisting of 96 townhouses, 288 garden apartments for a total of 546 units.”
Pierce continued, stating that council approved a revised PUD application on March 28, 2022, consisting of 96 townhouses, 288 garden apartments and 118 single-family detached as well as 46 single-family semi-detached for a total of 548 units. The application was again revised and approved by council on September 22, 2025, adding one single-family detached for a total of 549 units. The final major subdivision of Phase I was granted on July 25, 2022. Final site plan approval of Phase II was approved by council on July 19, 2022, and preliminary major subdivision approval was granted by council on September 22, 2025, for Phase III.
“The Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary major subdivision application at their August 18, 2026, meeting and recommended approval of the plan with a vote of four to zero,” Pierce said.
Tim Metzner, an engineer with Davis, Bowen & Friedel, spoke for the applicant, stating that this project had been around for quite some time. He pointed out that all the waivers were granted in the PUD.
“What I want to point out to council is that many of those waivers have already been constructed, so it’s a part of the PUD that was done years ago,” Metzner said. “So, as this project has developed and time has gone by, some of the previous waivers were not in compliance with the newest code, but yet, those have already been constructed. We put those in because ethe PUD is getting reupped. Phase IV is just a continuation of the PUD.”
Metzner explained that the water was sized to handle the additional section as was sewer and electric. All the aspects required, including stormwater, were included in the entire PUD plan from Phase I through Phase IV and any phases that may be coming in the future.
“In this phase, what are the number of parking spaces for each unit,” Councilman Dan Marabello asked.
Metzner stated that they were proposing two and a half spaces per unit with a driveway and a garage. Marabello then asked if the units had basements and Metzner replied that he did not know. Councilwoman Madula Kalesis asked if the parking was going to drop from two and a half spaces to two in this phase. Metzner replied that only the apartments would have two spaces per unit.
“Are there any additional parking spaces, like overflow parking for guests and visitors?” Councilman Danny Perez asked. “This is a fairly large community. We’re talking way over 300 units altogether.”
Metzner stated that for the single-family homes there was not overflow parking planned for Phase IV.
“I feel like parking is an issue for the residents,” Perez said. “The future resident who might buy in there, you are saying for a single-family home there is now overflow parking.”
Metzner pointed out that there is an 18-foot driveway that is 20 feet or more long, so there would be ample parking as well as a garage where residents could park. Perez then asked if there would be sidewalks and Metzner confirmed there would be sidewalks on both sides of all streets. Marabello questioned what type of garbage pickup would be offered and Metzner said it was covered by the City of Milford. A public hearing was held on the request.
“This is a neighborhood that I support,” Jennifer Cinnelli Miller said. “Everyone I’ve met who lives there is very happy. What I do want to point out, though, is that the experience I had today at Redner’s was that of community members running stop signs, which I get happens all over Milford, so there may be some concern about stop mechanisms in Redner’s parking lot.”
Eric Johnson asked if council had taken into consideration healthcare in the community, the hospital, doctors available when so many were moving into town.
“And then I was told last night the elementary schools are at full capacity,” Johnson said. ‘So, what happens now if we have more students moving in. We build more schools.”
Tom Chilton echoed Marabello’s parking concerns.
“I’m not sure how big the single families are, but let’s say it is a three-bedroom, two car. Nobody’s going to park in the garage, that’s my experience in the Meadow’s at Shawnee,” Chilton said. “Other than older people like me that maybe don’t have kids anymore, but parking is going to be a headache. So, one, they park in the street and how wide are the streets. I’ve heard different things, 30 feet wide or the code I think is 36. This has been a problem in Milford. I think we can fit six cars in our parking lots at the Meadows at Shawnee and believe or not, we have overflow and people complain there is no room for parking.”
Julie Morris complained that each time Cypress Hall came before council, they used the excuse that it was part of the PUD.
“The Planning Commission did revise the code and you guys approved it,” Morris said. “The new codes. That’s for safety reasons and lots of other things. The lengths of the streets, the widths of the roads and all of that fun stuff, so I’m not sure why we are approving more development with the same codes from four years ago. I would like to know the legal basis for treating a new phase under old standards, specifically stormwater determination, because that’s a huge concern and I don’t know why we are even discussing this yet since Sussex Conservation has not given a response.”
Councilman Jason James asked if the developer would like to address some of the concerns expressed by the citizens.
“I believe one of the questions I can try to answer,” Pierce said. “I think there was a waiver a spart of the PUD from September 2025 that granted the width of the street to 28 feet. And, again, a planned unit development, council is permitted to grant deviations from certain requirements of the code as part of a PUD. So, this PUD was revised for compliance with the current city ordinance, and those 12 conditions were approved.”
James pointed out that it appeared that the streets were pretty wide in the townhouse area and that there was no restriction for parking along those sidewalks. Pierce stated that in front of the townhomes, parking was designed as parallel parking. Pierce also stated that the fire company had given no indication the streets would be too narrow for apparatus due to parking on the street.
“I had a comment because I looked at this over and over and over for the last couple of days,” Kalesis said. “I just want to urge new council people when it comes to developments, really look through and understand what it means when we are approving waivers and when we’re approving things that are coming, for reductions in the roads because what happens is we approved it for Phase I, II and III and then you have IV and V and those could be done in five or ten years. This was actually started in 2009, and we are now talking almost 20 years later.”
James made a motion to approve Cypress Hall Phase IV, and it was seconded by Councilwoman Katrina Wilson. Wilson voted yes as the project began in 2009 and the developer had complied with all requests from the city. She also stated this was simply a continuation of the total project. James voted yes as it was in line with the previously approved PUD.
“I vote no,” Perez said. “Although this project was approved way back, and there were waivers given to the developer, 20 years later, things have changed. Unfortunately, I personally believe whatever issues we have with the residents here in the city, as the community grows, this development will have lots of people in there. They will buy boats. They will buy jet skis and a whole bunch of other toys and where will they park it.”
Marabello stated he was ambivalent about the request but voted no for the reasons stated by Perez. Kalesis voted no, as she felt she would be hypocritical for voting no on a previous development and then voting yes on this one.
“I vote no for the reasons and concerns stated by Mr. Perez and Councilwoman Kalesis,” Councilwoman Nadia Zychal said. “Although these things met code years ago, we need to be cognizant of how it impacts the quality of life and the code as it develops in the future.”
Councilwoman Nina Pletcher also voted no.
“I’m not sure the infrastructure that we have in place is going to sustain this, as well as the future development,” Pletcher said. “I also want to wait for the Sussex Conservation Report about stormwater.”
The motion failed with a vote of five to two. After recording the vote, Mayor Todd Culotta chastised council for the decision.
“My comments will be this is why HB23 got passed, we can’t get out of our own way to vote on things that meet the criteria. And all of you live in neighborhoods that were voted on a long time ago.” Culotta said. “This is what we’re going to end up with. Just realize that. And the Sussex Conservation thing, that’s all part of the approval process once it gets out of here. So. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel.”
