Carlisle Lane LLC has presented a preliminary subdivision plan to the City of Milford for a 39-unit townhouse development on Truitt Avenue. The new development will sit on just under five acres of vacant land between Northwest Third and Northwest Sixth Street.
“The applicant proposes to consolidate five existing parcels and subdivide the land into 39 townhouse lots and one single-family detached dwelling,” the report provided by Rob Pierce, City Planner, reads.
The applicant is seeking some waivers from council which will be presented as an introduction at the August 11 meeting. Ordinance introductions are not discussed nor are they voted on at meetings but are provided for council and the public to review for a future meeting where a public hearing will be held.
The waivers the developer is requesting include a reductio in the pavement width for Lilac Lane, which will be a street within the development from 36 feet to 30 feet. They are also asking to reduce the right-of-way width from 60 feet to between 34 and 43 feet on that same street.
“Chapter 200-8(E)(8) states “no lots shall be platted on land subject to flooding by the 100-year flood elevation or any other use where danger to life or property or an aggravation of flood hazard may result. Such land should be set aside for uses which would not be endangered by periodic or occasional inundations,” the report reads. “The applicant is seeking permission to allow Lots 24, 37, 38 and 39 to be platted within the 100-year floodplain. It should be noted that the proposed dwellings would be located outside of the 100-year floodplain.”
Platting involves creating a detailed map of land, including boundaries, divisions, streets and public areas to ensure that the land divisions meet all local zoning rules before development. A floodplain is one that has a one percent or greater risk of flood and are used by FEMA to show flood risks. It does not mean the land floods regularly or will ever flood, but that FEMA has determined that there is a higher risk of flooding in that area than others.
According to experts, the 100-year flood zone gives a property owner a 26 percent chance of being flooded at some point while someone in the 50-year flood zone has a 45 percent chance of experiencing a flood. However, being outside the floodplain does not guarantee an area near a body of water will never flood as, with significant rainfall, any body of water can flood. A review of the DNREC Flood Planning Tool for Milford shows that almost all of downtown is within the 100-year floodplain, including the business district.
The DNREC Flood Planning Tool shows that a very small portion of the land proposed for development is within the floodplain due to a small creek running along the back of the property from the Mispillion River. This also led the applicant to their next waiver which requested permission to allow Lots 23, 24, 35, 336, 27, 38 and 39 to be patted within 25 feet of wetlands which are under the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers while the final waiver requested is to eliminate the requirement to plant shade trees 150 feet on each side of the street.
“The minimum required open recreational open space for the proposed subdivision is 0.5 acres,” the report read. “The applicant is seeking permission to provide cash-in-lieu of recreational space.” The request is due to the fact the land is close to city-owned recreational space. If approved, the developer would be required to provide a cash donation of $55,084.75.
The report stated that a FEMA Letter of Map Change will be required prior to final major subdivision approval to correct the location of the 100-year floodplain based on surveyed topography of the property. The applicant does not plan to place any fill in the existing floodplain
Milford Board of Adjustments approved 32 variance requests for the development on March 13, 2025. No comments were provided by DelDOT, DNREC, Carlisle Fire Company, Milford Parks & Recreation, Milford Police Department or Milford School District. The Delaware State Fire Marshal’s Office provided information on fire suppression requirements.
“As the disturbance from this site will exceed one acre, a detailed sediment and stormwater management plan must be reviewed and approved by Kent Conservation District prior to any land disturbance,” the comments from Kent Conservation District read. “It appears that the proposed townhomes on the west side of the property as well as pond 4 are placed within the floodplain. These should be relocated. The six-unit townhomes to the NW of the property encroach the wetland setback area. These should be adjusted.”
The report continued, stating that a maintenance access needed to be added to pond two and a permanent 15-foot easement behind lots 8 through 14. According to engineers for the project, these requests would be met.
Neighbors are already expressing concern about the size and scope of the project.
“Here on Truitt Avenue, some of us recently became aware of a proposal to allow 38 townhomes to be built in a vacant lot in the 300-500 area. I live [in the area] and am disabled. I have tried to walk the neighborhood and knock on doors to get signatures to encourage both the Planning Commission and City Council to reconsider the scope of this proposed work,” a letter in the packet written by Moira Closey reads. “A few items became clear. Most of the people in the neighborhood were unaware of this proposal and the scope of this proposal. Upon realizing the extent of the building project, the lack of guest parking, the number of potential cars that would be added to the neighborhood and local traffic, many were opposed to this plan as it was proposed.”
Closey continued.
“I am sure I did not follow some preset rules in collecting signatures, but I have tired. I am giving you the original and a copy of the original,” the letter continued. “We generally object to this proposal for the following reasons: 1) not enough notification to the current owners and residences; 2) not enough parking and guest parking in the planning. Increase in traffic; 3) A vision that will enrich the owner but is perceived it will not contribute to the local community in a positive manner; 4) The concern that many of these units will end up as rentals and crime will increase.”
Closey included a petition signed by over a dozen people who lived in the area and ended her letter with a request that council think carefully before approving the development.
There will be no public hearing at the August 11 meeting regarding this request although, as with all council meetings, there is a 15-minute public comment section where area residents can express concerns. A public hearing will be held when the request comes before council at a future meeting.
