ONLY SIGN IF A SUSSEX COUNTY RESIDENT!!!

Sussex County Council & Planning and Zoning Commission

C/O Jamie Whitehouse

Planning & Zoning Office

2 The Circle, P.O. Box 417

Georgetown, DE 19947

Re:         Opposition to CZ 2037 – Mulberry Knoll Associates, LLC

Atlantic Fields Rezoning (AR-1 to C-4)

Dear Council and Commission Members,

I, the below signed, am writing in opposition to the proposed rezoning of Tax Parcels: 334-12.00-46.00 & 334-12.00-47.00 from Agricultural Residential to Planned Commercial.

·     The change from AR-1 to C-4 is a dramatic change in zoning, inconsistent with the immediately surrounding properties. Nearly all contiguous properties and those across the frontage streets are AR-1. This change is inconsistent with the character of the immediate area. It will be detrimental to the property value and quality of life of the AR-1 neighbors.  

·     Despite DelDOT’s recent widening of Rt. 24, traffic congestion from Rt. 1 extends west well beyond this property during peak months and times, including onto Plantation and Mulberry Knoll Roads. This development will exasperate existing traffic congestion on Rt. 24, Plantation and Mulberry, as well as the Rt. 24/Rt. 1 intersection.

·     To force this heavy commercial development into a rural area is unnecessary urban sprawl when there is already 5 miles of dense commercial shopping available along both sides of Rt. 1, between Rt. 9 and the Rehoboth Canal. This rezoning opens the door for other rezonings along Rt. 24 and its transformation from a residential/rural road into another commercial district, mirroring all the issues that surround Rt. 1 today.

Despite my objection, I understand my voice is unlikely to be heard in regards to a project of this size, and with this amount of money behind it. If the Council and Commission intend to approve the rezoning, we ask that you hear some concerns regarding the planned commercial development and make the rezoning contingent on some conditions/revisions.

Note: This project cannot be developed by-right. The developer requires a dramatic change from the AR-1 zoning it shares with the surrounding properties. The developer should generally be held to a higher standard than the minimum requirements of the code. Several examples are noted in the items below.

·       The developers plan shows a 5’ Side setback along the Mulberry Knoll frontage. Though this is the side of their development, it is still a frontage road and should be treated as a front setback with a 60’ dimension. It is the front yard for all their neighbors on Mulberry.

·       The Sussex County Staff analysis (9/8/25) notes the plan shows parking in the 60’ front setback along Rt. 24. Note it also shows parking and truck loading in within 60’ of the frontage along Mulberry Knoll Rd. The developer has requested a waiver from the county code to allow the parking in the setback. The applicant should be held to higher standard with a rezoning, not be given additional concessions from the code. They argue that Rt. 24 has already been widened, but this does not address the aesthetics referenced in the code, or the portion of Mulberry Knoll that has not been widened. These aesthetics are important for the wellbeing of all Sussex County residents.

·       In one of the developers exhibits they show tractor trailer truck turning diagrams. The intent is for the two Mulberry Knoll Rd roundabout entrances to be the primary truck entrance/exits, with one possible movement from Planation Rd. Mulberry is classified as a ‘Local’ road. It is the smallest, most rural of the three frontage/access roads. It has a substantial number of small rural homes with driveways directly to the road, where Plantation (a Major Collector) and Rt. 24 (Arterial) do not. The developers desire for site aesthetics and not wanting truck traffic in their site should not permit them to pass these hardships to their rural neighbors on Mulberry. The developer should be required to provide truck access to their site from the largest/ highest classification road. Rt. 24 is designed and intended to accommodate truck traffic and does not have the small residential neighbors.

·       Given the frontage road classifications and the fact that Mulberry will contribute the fewest trips to the commercial development, the number of entrances should be reduced to no more than 1 on Mulberry Knoll Rd., the same number as the higher classification Plantation Rd. This would still leave 3 possible entrances and exits from both the eastbound and westbound directions (total of 5 entrances).

·       The Staff report notes street trees should be planted along internal streets to improve aesthetics and reduce heat island affect. This recommendation should be extended to Rt. 24 and Mulberry Knoll Rd. While we are in agreement with the staff’s recommendation, the aesthetic concerns of the neighbors and the general public who are forced to look at this shopping center should be a larger concern than the developer’s customers who come here by choice. The developers conceptual Landscape Plan show only a few sporadic trees along these roads. Many more could be planted just outside of the right-of-way/ frontage easements.

·       Further, the developer should be held to a higher standard than the minimum screening requirements. Given the extreme change in zoning, the size and intensity of commercial use, and the height of the buildings, they should exceed the minimum screening requirements between the residential adjoiners to the northeast. Also, screening should be required along the entire Mulberry Knoll frontage. The conceptual landscape plan proposes shrubs along the parking and evergreen trees along a truck loading area. Shrubs may help with headlights, but they will not help with the massive 30’ - 40’ tall box stores that will be in full view of residences along Mulberry. Shrubs should be supplemented by dense trees that could double as street trees.

·       While we are in agreement with most of the Staff report, the recommendation for interconnectivity to the property to the northwest should not be permitted. The farm which includes the adjoining TP# 334-12.00-48.06 is in a protected Delaware Agricultural Easement. As such the farm does not have any development rights. Providing a stub road to this parcel could encourage someone to pursue legal action to develop land that has been designated for protection.

Thank you for your consideration,