2018-32 Tepache Farms – Pheat Farms, LLC 

A cluster subdivision to divide 33.81 acres +/- into 33 single family lot to be located on a certain parcel of land lying and being in Broad Kill, Sussex County. The property is located on the north side of Burton Road, approximately 0.83 mile west of Sandhill Road. Tax Parcel: 235-19.00-7.00. Zoning District. AR-1 (Agricultural Residential District).

The Planning Commission discussed the application which has been deferred since May 20, 2019.

Ms. Stevenson moved that the Commission deny Subdivision 2018-32 for Tepache Farms – Pheat Farms, LLC, based upon the record made during the public hearing and for the following reasons:

1. This application is for 33 lot clustered subdivision. Each lot is proposed to be served by an individual, on-site septic system. I do not believe that the Applicant has favorably addressed the requirements of Section 99-9C of the Subdivision Code, which contains 17 items that must be considered in any subdivision application.
2. I am not satisfied that the Applicant has adequately addressed the provision for sewage disposal as required by Section 99-9C(8) of the Subdivision Code. I am concerned that the Applicant is proposing 33 individual septic systems in a location where the soils are inadequate.
3. According to the record, the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service determined that the soils on this site are primarily “Ingleside Sandy Loam” with small amounts of “Ingleside Loamy Sand”, “Rosedale Loamy Sand” and “Evesboro Loamy Sand”. The USDA Report states that each of these types is “Very Limited” for septic fields. According to the USDA, “Very Limited” means that “the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use”, that the limitations “cannot be overcome without soil reclamation, special design or expensive installation procedures” and that “poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.”
4. The Applicant’s engineer confirmed these “Very Limited” soil types yet found that the soils are suitable for on-site septic systems based upon limited on-site testing. However, based on the information contained in the record, I am not satisfied that the Applicant has fully reconciled its findings with those provided by the USDA. And further that any on-site systems would not fail in the future based upon the USDA’s statement that “poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.”
5. These concerns about the soils and the placement of 33 septic systems on this site were supported by several neighbors who testified that the property is both low-lying and very wet.
6. The property is adjacent to land owned by the Nature Conservancy. For the reasons outlined above about the types of soils that exist on the property and the limitations of them, I am concerned about the environmental impacts of 33 individual septic systems on this pristine Nature Conservancy property.
7. For the same reasons, I am not satisfied that the Applicant has adequately addressed how the subdivision is integrated into the existing terrain and surrounding landscape, including the Nature Conservancy property. This is a requirement of Section 99-9C(1) of the Subdivision Code. Although the property has been farmed in the past, it will need extensive grading for the lots, roadways and stormwater management. Even DNREC’s review of the Septic Feasibility Study recognized that this type of site work could adversely affect the already “Very Limited” soil types that exist on the property.
8. I am also not satisfied that the Applicant has addressed the requirements for a cluster subdivision because it does not provide for a total environment that is superior to a standard subdivision. The applicant has proposed 33 lots on 33 acres in a basic grid design with roads ending in three cul-de-sacs. The layout of the subdivision is not unique from a standard subdivision, and the Applicant has not satisfied its burden that the total environment is superior to what could be designed as a standard subdivision.
9. The proposed project also does not meet the purpose of the Subdivision Ordinance because it does not ensure that residential developments are conveniently and properly located.

Motion by Ms. Stevenson, seconded by Ms. Wingate and carried unanimously to deny the application for the reasons stated in the motion. Motion carried 5-0.