Milford City Council chose to table a vote on a townhome project planned for Truitt Avenue in order to obtain additional information from the applicant and review objections from area residents regarding the size of the project.
“The property is currently vacant and there is one remaining detached dwelling that is in a state of demolition,” City Planner Rob Pierce said. “The proposed use would be a 39-townhouse unit subdivision with one single family detached dwelling. It is five combined parcels on the west side of Truitt Avenue between Third and Sixth Streets. The applicant proposes to combine five existing parcels and subdivide the land into 39 townhouse units and one detached dwelling lot.”
Pierce then read the 32 variances approved by the Board of Adjustments in March which included small lot setbacks and lot coverages throughout the development. The biggest issue facing council was a variance related to plotting in a floodplain, although the applicant stated that there would be no building within the floodplain. During the public comment portion of the meeting, members of the community spoke out for and against the project.
“I am in support of this development because I want to see Milford continue to thrive, to grow, for jobs to be created, for the downtown and the environment to continue to improve,” Jennifer McSorley who lives adjacent to the development, said. “My request is for the city employees and the developers to continue to ensure that the plans and development add to the neighborhood while ensuring safety, balance and keeping environmental factors a priority.”
Dan Bond, who has renovated nine historic buildings in Milford and constructed townhouses across from Avenue Church, spoke in favor of the project.
“I can say, with confidence, I’ve had a significant impact on the downtown’s appearance on the number of people who can live in this area,” Bond said. “Our town has a serious shortage of housing for the homeless, for the poor and for the working class and given the historically high cost of building new housing, plus Milford’s rapid growth, the problem is getting worse every day. Delaware’s Affordable Housing Task Force released a report in April that everyone should read, which points to actionable steps to increase the availability of affordable housing across Delaware.”
Bond pointed out that one of the action items was revising local zoning restrictions and density limitations to allow for more buildings that can use the existing infrastructure, transportation, utilities and schools more effectively. He stated that projects like the Truitt Avenue plan that used vacant lots or took down dilapidated buildings in an established urban area can cut the cost of construction. Not everyone was in favor of the project, however.
“Let’s be clear, this is not in the floodplain, it is in the flood way, where the water is the highest and moves the fastest,” Julie Morris, who lives on Cedar Beach Road, said. “FEMA makes it clear that there is a 36 percent chance of flooding over a 30-year mortgage. If you look on Zillow today, there are over 100 homes for sale in Milford, so we don’t have a shortage of homes, we have a shortage of homes under $200,000.”
When asked what the price of the homes might be, Ed Ide, an engineer for the project stated that he had been told they would be in the $300,000 range. Research indicates that the mortgage on a $300,000 home with seven percent interest and 20 percent down would be between $1,000 to $2,000 per month. Ide stated that all the townhomes would be three-bedroom units and research shows that the average rent for a three-bedroom home or apartment in Milford is almost $2,200 per month. The FHA states that an income of $75,000 to $95,000 is the average needed to qualify for a mortgage in that amount, but the income levels could vary depending on credit rating and the amount of the downpayment. The average salary in Milford is currently $55,265 which would make the average person eligible for a mortgage between $180,000 and $200,000.
“I want to comment on affordable housing if I can as I think it is considered to be 30 percent of a person’s income that goes toward housing and the other costs of the house,” Councilman Jason James said. “So, low-income housing is not the same as affordable housing.”
James asked about the parking, whether parking would only be permitted on one side of the street in the development and Ide confirmed it would. When asked if the fire company had confirmed their trucks could fit, Ide stated that their calculations indicated they would. James then asked about the floodplain.
“You can’t regrade or place any structures within the floodplain, so it could be a lawn, grass area, just fenced in,” Ide said. “The wetland buffer is a little more complicated, so we would just leave it off limits within the buffer area, allow it to grow up and not be touched. Our plan allows for continued flow into the wetlands.”
Councilman Danny Perez asked if the owners of the townhomes would be permitted to build patios or decks on their structures. Pierce stated that with the setbacks, a small deck would be permitted but a patio may not be as it would be impervious surface. Matt Feindt, owner of the property, explained that the original plan was for garden apartments which would not have required him to come to council for the variances, but he felt home ownership was a better option.
“I would like nothing better than to provide $200,000 housing but the numbers don’t work,” Feindt said. “I can’t make that happen, so now I have spent the last three and a half years trying to develop this project and it started off in two parcels which worked for the whole project, but after three and a half years meeting with your city planner, having multiple discussions with people on city council and members of this community, we came up with this plan. We could put in 72 apartments. We have the space for the parking lot and 72 apartments, but we would have the same issue with the parking on streets and traffic. We are trying to build something that works for everyone.”
Feindt wanted council to review the plan on its merits and not be swayed by false information that had been spread on social media and among speakers that evening. He stated emphatically that there was no plan to build anything within the floodplain or in the wetlands surrounding the property.
“All I am asking is that you guys look at this plan and do what is right for the community,” Feindt said. “Vote for what is best for the community and not what is best for you, or the one individual sitting out there, running their mouth online. If it doesn’t go the way I’d like it to go tonight, I’ll go back to the drawing board and do something different. What is different may be worse than what you have now. I’m not saying that as a threat or to antagonize anybody, I’m just saying that these are the options.”
Feindt stated that he did not zone the property R3 and that it was zoned that way long before he purchased it. He asked if council wanted him to figure out how to maximize density and build 16 apartments per acre as that may provide more affordable housing but would not help them build equity or enter into homeownership. Mayor Todd Culotta asked Pierce how many apartments could be placed on the same property.
“For townhouses, it is 12 per acre, for apartments it is up to 16 per acre,” Pierce said. Because the lot is around four-and-a-half acres, this would mean the developer could build up to 73 apartments without needing waivers or approvals from Board of Adjustment or Planning Commission.
Due to the complicated nature of the project, council chose to table a vote and hold a workshop where they could ask more detailed questions to get more information. Councilwoman Madula Kalesis asked the applicant to consider bringing a reduced plan during the workshop for review. City Solicitor Gregory Morris reminded council that tabling the motion meant they could not vote during the workshop and that the entire matter would need to return to a council meeting with another public hearing. Council voted seven to zero to table the matter. Councilwoman Lori Connor was absent from the meeting
