By Glenn Rolfe

MILLVILLE — Evans Farm, a controversial multi-family apartment development proposed in the Millville/Ocean View area, Tuesday received narrow passage from Sussex County Council.

By 3-2 margin County Council at its June 15 meeting backed the County Planning & Zoning Commission’s recommended conditional use approval for the proposal: 17 apartment buildings with 200 total units, 17 single-story garages and a community center amenity on 50-plus acres along Old Mill Road and Railway Road.

Council members Mark Schaeffer and Doug Hudson opposed.

Cindy Green, John Rieley and Michael Vincent approved the motion, which included several amendments submitted by Mr. Vincent prior to the vote.

Council had deferred action on the conditional use application for Evans Farm at its April 20 meeting.

“I have given this application a lot of thought,” said Mr. Vincent. “I have considered all the evidence in the Planning Commission’s recommendation.”

Ms. Green and Mr. Rieley also supported approval, based on Planning and Zoning’s recommendation and conditions, and those offered by Mr. Vincent. Those tendered by Mr. Vincent focused on stricter requirements for buffers, screening from neighboring developments, vegetation replacement and additional street lighting.

“Based on Planning and Zoning’s recommendations and the conditions presented today, which I believe will make the development more palatable to the surrounding communities, and considering the comments made by Councilman Vincent I also will vote yes,” Mr. Rieley said.

During the April 20 public hearing before county council, attorney David Hutt, representing the applicant, noted this same property had been approved for 200 units through a conditional use adopted by council in 2011. Although the final site plan was granted in 2016, the project did not proceed and approval for that application ultimately lapsed.

During public hearings before Planning and Zoning and County Council, the application was vehemently opposed, including concerted opposition from Evans Farm Watch, a coalition of 13 communities whose petition effort drew nearly 1,500 signatures and some 800 comments.

Traffic issues, overcrowding, potential contamination of private wells in other communities, public health and safety risk were among concerns of the Evans Farm Watch, whose consensus was “this is the wrong development in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

“Based on the testimony received at Planning and Zoning and testimony received at the County Council public hearing, I would vote no,” said Mr. Schaeffer.

Mr. Hudson, council’s District 4 representative, spoke at great length, listing his reasons for application denial.

“On one hand I realize there was a similar multi-family development approved on this same site. However, that development was never built and conditional use approval for it expired,” said Mr. Hudson. “There is a reason why development approvals can expire. The rules and standards can change or the area where the development was to be located may change. There are good reasons why we don’t keep stale developments on the books. In this case a lot has changed since the prior development was approved on this site. The immediate area has developed primarily with single family homes and not multifamily buildings.”

Mr. Hudson added that traffic has “significantly increased on nearby roadways without any corresponding improvements, and I am not satisfied that DelDOT’s requirements of this developer will mitigate the existing traffic issues in the area or sufficiently address the additional traffic created by this development.”

“I also found much of the concerns expressed by the neighboring residents to be valid. They made strong arguments about the traffic problems, drainage impacts on the neighborhoods and area properties, and other factors,” Mr. Hudson said. “I also respectfully disagree with the Planning and Zoning’s recommendation to approve this application. The commission seemed to place significant emphasis on the fact that a similar development was approved on this site. But again, that development approval expired. To me the prior approval should not be considered.”

Councilman Vincent added he is very much “aware of decisions with Delaware courts in similar situations which can make a development like this difficult to deny, especially where it is identical to what we previously approved on the same property.” The council president also noted that under county General Residential zoning up to four units are permitted, by right.

“This application does not seek a density higher than what it is already permitted under GR zoning,” Mr. Vincent said.