§ 99-C Code Notes

Online Document

TEPACHE FARMS
§ 99-9. C. In addition to the other provisions contained within this article, an Applicant for approval of a preliminary plat shall provide that the following criteria are incorporated and addressed in the plat and the manner in which each one is incorporated and addressed through the design of the preliminary plat:

(1) That the proposed subdivision is integrated into existing terrain and surrounding landscape.

Developers Answer: The existing terrain and surrounding landscape is a rural area with ¾ acre lots, agricultural and forested areas. The subdivision will be integrated into the existing terrain and surrounding landscape with the maintenance of open space, trees and buffers. Careful attention was directed at the location of the lots to the adjoining properties and adjacent Burton Road. The proposed subdivision will be encompassed by a 20-foot “Forested and/or Landscaped Buffer Strip” subject to the conditions outlined in the Sussex County Subdivision Code, specifically Section 99-5. Further, existing trees on-site were avoided to the extent possible with the design
of this subdivision.

Response:

The developer’s claim of “integration” does not match the reality of this site.

  • The existing terrain and surrounding landscape is active farmland and forest, not subdivisions. Replacing that with 21 suburban lots is conversion, not integration.

  • A 20-foot landscaped buffer is cosmetic at best — it does not preserve rural character or protect the surrounding properties. For context, 20 feet is about the width of a driveway. True rural buffers are far larger and continuous.

  • The developer admits that existing trees will still be removed, despite saying they were “avoided to the extent possible.” This undermines their claim of careful preservation.

  • Most importantly, Burton Road is a narrow tar-and-chip road that is already unsafe for two cars to pass in places. Adding 240 car trips a day (their own traffic number) is not integration with the existing landscape — it’s a serious public safety hazard.

In short: This subdivision does not integrate into the terrain or landscape. It permanently changes farmland and forest into suburban housing, hides behind a minimal buffer, and places dangerous new traffic pressure on Burton Road.

(2) That all resources and resource buffers are protected in accordance with Chapters 99and 115 herein and that floodplains are minimally used.

Developers Answer: There are no “Resources” and the property is not within a floodplain as those terms are used and defined in Chapters 99 and 115. This determination was made after Pennoni’s team performed both on-site investigations and document review. More specifically, Pennoni performed an on-site preliminary wetland investigation and delineation and determined that there are NO non-tidal wetlands on the property. In addition, Pennoni reviewed mapped soils data, available wetland inventory maps and FEMA maps which also confirmed that there no wetlands on the property. Based upon the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance
Rate Map (FIRM) dated January 6, 2005 Map Number 10005C0165J, the subject property is located in a Zone “X” unshaded, which is an area outside the 500-year floodplain, less than 0.2% annual probability of flooding (see FEMA Floodplain Map – MAP SECTION).

Response:

The developer’s conclusion that there are “no resources” and “no floodplain concerns” does not reflect the reality of this site.

  • History of Ditches on Property - The previous owner, over the decades of owning the property, had to utilize ditches to keep the property dry.  Since then, the ditches have been covered up.  Most of the ditches leading to Burton Road have been built over, forcing water to find alternative means to travel. Review the satelite maps and they are clearly visible.   

  • Outdated FEMA Maps – Their analysis relies on a FEMA map from 2005. These maps do not account for localized flooding patterns that residents on Burton Road see regularly. FEMA’s Zone X designation doesn’t mean the land is safe from flooding — it only means it hasn’t been federally mapped as such.

  • Documented Flooding History – DelDOT already had to install culverts to relieve water pooling on Burton Road. This proves drainage problems exist, regardless of what Pennoni’s paperwork says.

  • Poor Drainage Soils – USDA reports classify the soils here as poorly drained. Water often stands after rainfall, making infiltration-based stormwater plans unreliable.

  • Narrow Definition of “Resources” – The developer limited their definition of resources to federally mapped wetlands and floodplains. They ignored existing ditches, runoff patterns, and the nearby Pemberton Branch stream, which is sensitive to excess stormwater and sediment.  Now that the ditches have been built over, the Pemberton Branch ecosystem has been thriving.  Don't ruin it now. 

  • Seasonal/Intermittent Wetlands – Preliminary investigations can miss wetlands or low-lying areas that only hold water part of the year. Local residents already know the land holds water and pushes it toward Burton Road.

In short: The absence of federally mapped wetlands does not mean the site lacks drainage and flooding issues. Real-world conditions — poor soils, past flooding, and dependence on DelDOT culverts — prove that stormwater will remain a major problem for Burton Road and adjoining properties.

(3) That natural and historic features are preserved and forest fragmentation and vegetation and soil removal is minimized. In addition, a forest assessment shall be conducted with a forest assessment report provided with the preliminary plat. If woodlands or mature forests that contain high habitat value are found, these areas shall be conserved to the maximum extent possible.

Developers Answer: Pennoni conducted an environmental review field study of the subject property. One of the purposes of the review was to identify the presence of threatened and/or endangered species within the proposed development area through a visual site investigation. In addition to the field study, Pennoni reviewed Federal and State agency databases. The findings of these assessments indicated an absence of threatened and/or endangered species within the area of investigation. This finding was determined through both a visual site reconnaissance (field study) and a database review of the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Division of Fish & Wildlife and Delaware Natural Heritage Program databases. The database review also yielded no State Resource Areas, no Natural Areas, and no Critical Natural Areas within the subject property. Pennoni also reviewed available historical information for indications of past usage that may have had an environmental impact on the site. This historical review included aerial photographs of the site and surrounding vicinity for the following years: 1937, 1954, 1961, 1968, 1992, 1997, 2002, 2007 and 2012. Information depicted on aerial photographs indicates active farming of the agricultural field with dwelling and farm structures present.

Forest Assessment: Tepache Farms’ wooded areas are restricted to the northwest and southwest corners of the parcel. Located in the Pine-Oak and Mixed Southern Hardwood Forest communities associated with this region, trees found here are a mixture of the following species: oaks (Quercus spp.), hickory (Carya spp.), maple (Acer spp.), and black cherry (Prunus serotina), in addition to pines (Pinus spp.) This area provides habitat and resources for various species, and aids in nutrient cycling. The forest appears relatively healthy, though minor invasive species encroachment and evidence of deer browse were noted. Management should focus on preserving hydrologic function, controlling invasives, and enhancing native understory diversity.

The proposed layout of the subdivision takes advantage of the former agricultural fields that make up most of the site. Existing tree areas are avoided to the extent possible, and those that remain will provide buffering to adjacent properties in addition to ecosystem services to Tepache Farms and beyond its boundaries. It is recognized that forests and their soil ecology provide important water quality, air
quality and wildlife benefits both for the immediate site and for the region. All standard procedures for tree and erosion control protection will be utilized, minimizing the impact on existing vegetated areas and helping to preserve native soil. Minimal soil removal and only required grade changes will be undertaken during construction of the subdivision to help reduce the impact on tree root zones and
preserve the natural state of the existing wooded areas.

Response:

The developer’s claims about preservation don’t hold up when you look at what’s really happening.

  • Forest Fragmentation – They admit wooded areas exist on the site and that these forests provide habitat, water quality, and air quality benefits. Cutting into these wooded corners and surrounding them with houses fragments the forest, reducing habitat quality and long-term ecological value. Buffers cannot replace continuous, unbroken woodlands.

  • Wildlife Impact Overlooked – A “visual survey” and a database search are not the same as comprehensive wildlife studies. Many species are not officially “listed” but are still critical to local ecosystems. Small mammals, pollinators, and migratory birds all depend on these edge habitats, and fragmentation will harm them.

  • Soil & Drainage Dependence – The developer’s own forest assessment admits these wooded areas are important for nutrient cycling and hydrologic function. Removing or fragmenting them will only worsen Burton Road’s already poor drainage and runoff problems.

  • Historic Use Misrepresented – Their aerial photo review highlights past farming, but that’s misleading. The presence of farmland historically does not make it acceptable to fragment the remaining forest today — especially when that land now borders the Nature Conservancy property and sensitive natural areas downstream.

  • Contradiction – They claim to be “minimizing impact,” but also state that only “required grade changes” and “minimal soil removal” will occur. Any grading in poorly draining soils risks destabilizing natural hydrology and pushing water off-site.

In short: The developer admits the forest is healthy and ecologically important, but their plan will fragment and damage it. Once cut and surrounded by houses, the forest will lose much of its habitat value, hydrologic function, and ability to buffer runoff. That is not preservation — it is permanent loss of natural features.

(4) That open space and scenic views are preserved.

Developers Answer: Approximately 6.03 acres (24.85%) of the project remains as open space which includes approximately 2.14 acres of the site to be planted for the “Forested and/or Landscaped Buffer Strip,” as defined in § 99-5, Subsections A through J. The proposed open space exceeds the minimum required open space of “0” acres. Scenic views for all the lots will be provided to the extent possible through the existing woods remaining as a part of this development as well as the proposed wooded buffers planted with native species that will mature to match the existing mix of hardwoods and softwoods.

Response:

The developer’s version of “open space” does not preserve the rural character or true scenic views of Burton Road.

  • Cosmetic vs. True Preservation – Of the 6 acres they call “open space,” more than a third (2.14 acres) is just landscaped buffer strips. That is not farmland or forest preservation — it’s decorative planting inside a subdivision.

  • No Net Preservation – The land being labeled “open space” was already farmland or natural space. Building homes on most of the parcel and setting aside leftover strips is not preservation — it’s loss.

  • Scenic Views Misrepresented – Scenic views today are wide open farmland and natural woodlots along Burton Road. After development, those views will be houses behind thin wooded buffers. This does not maintain the rural landscape.

  • Minimum Requirement Spin – They emphasize exceeding the minimum open space requirement of “0 acres.” That bar is so low it’s meaningless. Meeting or exceeding “0” does not prove preservation.

In short: Calling leftover land and narrow buffer strips “open space” does not preserve the scenic or rural character of Burton Road. What residents see today as open farmland and forest will be permanently replaced by houses, driveways, and traffic.

 

(5) That the supply of potable water to future residents of the proposed subdivision is safe and adequate for their use.

Developers Answer: All lots will have private, individual on-site wells that will be permitted by DNREC.

Response:

The developer’s answer ignores several serious concerns about relying on private wells:

  • Well Density – With 21 new homes, that’s 21 new wells in close proximity, all drawing from the same groundwater source. This concentration can lower water tables and create conflicts with existing neighboring wells.

  • Water Quality Risks – Poorly drained soils and heavy reliance on septic systems (also individual per lot) raise the risk of groundwater contamination. Wells and septic systems side by side increase long-term vulnerability to nitrates and bacteria in drinking water.

  • No Guarantee of Long-Term Adequacy – DNREC permitting simply ensures construction standards are met. It does not guarantee long-term water supply, water pressure, or protection against overuse of local aquifers.

  • Burden on Neighbors – New wells can affect the recharge rate and quality of nearby existing wells, placing the burden on current residents if water levels drop or contamination occurs.

In short: Saying “DNREC will permit wells” does not prove that the water supply is safe or adequate in the long term. Concentrating 21 wells and 21 septic systems on poorly draining soils puts both new and existing residents at risk of water shortages and contamination.

(6) That the means and method of sewage disposal are adequately addressed for the proposed subdivision.

Developers Answer: All lots will have private, individual on-site septic systems permitted by DNREC.

Response:

The developer’s answer oversimplifies the risks of relying on individual septic systems:

  • Soil Limitations – The USDA already classifies these soils as poorly drained. Septic systems in such soils struggle to function properly, raising the risk of system failure and untreated wastewater reaching surface water and groundwater.

  • Cumulative Impact – One septic system might be manageable, but 21 systems concentrated on one parcel greatly increases the risk of nutrient pollution (nitrogen and phosphorus) and bacterial contamination of nearby wells and waterways.

  • Water Quality Risk – Runoff from failing or saturated septic systems can flow toward Burton Road and ultimately into the Pemberton Branch stream, harming plant and animal species downstream.

  • Long-Term Maintenance Problem – Septic systems require ongoing inspection and pumping. If homeowners do not maintain them perfectly, the entire neighborhood and adjacent properties can suffer the consequences.

In short: Just because DNREC issues permits does not mean septic systems are adequate here. Poor soils, a high concentration of systems, and nearby water resources make this plan risky for both new and existing residents.

 

(7) That the proposed subdivision will not pollute surface water or groundwater.

Developers Answer: The project will provide Erosion & Sediment Control (ESC) and Stormwater Management (SWM) Best Management Practices (BMPs) which comply with DNREC standards and specifications in accordance with current guidance documents and policies. Green Technologies and Pollution Control Strategies will be implemented to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus loads to their mandated levels. Best Management Practices (BMPs) have been implemented to the greatest degree practicable to protect sensitive headwaters and other water bodies.

The stormwater management design for Tepache Farms will reduce runoff, mimic natural watershed hydrologic processes, and cause no adverse impact to property. This shall be accomplished by treating runoff at the source, disconnecting impervious surfaces, preserving or enhancing natural flow paths and vegetative cover, conserving or enhancing natural open spaces and riparian areas, and other measures that simulate natural watershed hydrologic processes. The resource protection event design will provide runoff management measures to reduce the volume of stormwater runoff generated on the property, recharge groundwater, minimize impacts to downstream channels from runoff leaving the property, and reduce pollutant loads. The stormwater practices for this project will be designed to manage and treat runoff from precipitation, preventing pollution and improving water quality. These systems utilize various techniques to remove pollutants like sediment, trash, debris, and hydrocarbons, and will also include features for groundwater recharge and peak runoff attenuation.

Response:

The developer’s answer oversimplifies the risks of relying on individual septic systems:

  • Soil Limitations – The USDA already classifies these soils as poorly drained. Septic systems in such soils struggle to function properly, raising the risk of system failure and untreated wastewater reaching surface water and groundwater.

  • Cumulative Impact – One septic system might be manageable, but 21 systems concentrated on one parcel greatly increases the risk of nutrient pollution (nitrogen and phosphorus) and bacterial contamination of nearby wells and waterways.

  • Water Quality Risk – Runoff from failing or saturated septic systems can flow toward Burton Road and ultimately into the Pemberton Branch stream, harming plant and animal species downstream.

  • Long-Term Maintenance Problem – Septic systems require ongoing inspection and pumping. If homeowners do not maintain them perfectly, the entire neighborhood and adjacent properties can suffer the consequences.

In short: Just because DNREC issues permits does not mean septic systems are adequate here. Poor soils, a high concentration of systems, and nearby water resources make this plan risky for both new and existing residents.

(8) That the anticipated method of minimization of erosion and sedimentation are adequately identified.

Developers Answer: The Preliminary Subdivision Plan identifies the planned steps to minimize erosion and sedimentation. A combination of strategies is proposed, including erosion control measures like revegetation, soil stabilization, and diverting runoff, and sediment control measures like silt fences and sediment basins. These practices help prevent soil loss and keep sediments from entering waterways, protecting water quality and ecosystems. The project, under Delaware's Sediment and Stormwater Regulations, will implement erosion and sediment control measures in phases as construction progresses that will minimize soil disturbance and erosion at any given time. Sediment basins designed and used will create a temporary holding area for sediment-laden water, allowing sediment to settle out before the water is discharged.

Sediment fences and barriers will be used to trap soil particles carried in runoff, preventing them from reaching waterways. Diverting runoff away from disturbed areas will reduce the erosive force of water and prevent sediment from being carried away. This will involve creating diversion ditches or swales to channel water flow. Finally, stabilizing exposed soil surfaces with materials like erosion control blankets, mulch, sod, or rock/rip rap/stone will prevent erosion, especially on slopes or in areas where vegetation is difficult to establish.

Response:

The developer lists standard erosion-control practices, but these measures are temporary and unreliable for Burton Road’s conditions:

  • Poor Soil Performance – USDA already identifies these soils as poorly drained. When saturated, silt fences and basins clog or overflow, sending sediment and runoff directly into Burton Road and nearby waterways.

  • Maintenance Risk – Erosion and sediment controls only work if properly installed and continuously maintained. Once construction ends, enforcement and upkeep typically fall short, leaving neighbors to deal with failures.

  • Downstream Impacts – Sediment-laden runoff from construction can quickly reach the Pemberton Branch stream, harming aquatic habitat and species.

  • History of Flooding – Burton Road already floods after storms. Adding construction disturbance and increased impervious surfaces will worsen both flooding and sedimentation despite paper promises of control.

In short: Listing silt fences and mulch doesn’t guarantee protection. Poor soils, flooding history, and the high risk of maintenance lapses make erosion and sedimentation inevitable — putting Burton Road, neighboring properties, and local waterways at risk.

 

(9) That changes to the groundwater levels will be minimized and that groundwater recharge is maximized as a result of the proposed subdivision and that the methods of both are adequately identified. In addition, there will not be increased rates of runoff or increased risk of flooding onto adjoining properties from the design and construction of the proposed subdivision, and the anticipated methods Used to achieve these criteria are adequately identified.

Developers Answer: The project is not anticipated to change groundwater levels, and the stormwater management design will enhance groundwater recharge. In addition, there will be reduced risk of runoff and flooding from the property as stormwater best management practices will be used and will reduce total runoff volumes from the developed site through canopy interception, surface recharge, evaporation, engineered infiltration and evapotranspiration which are practices that delay the delivery of stormwater surface discharges. In addition, the use of best management practices will protect public health and safety as these practices eliminate negative impacts of unmanaged areas such as increased risk of flooding, degradation of water quality, increased sedimentation and reduced groundwater recharge. The site is in a good groundwater recharge area.

Response:

The developer’s answer promises ideal outcomes but ignores the real limitations of this site:

  • Soils Won’t Support Recharge – The USDA already classifies these soils as poorly drained. Water does not infiltrate here; it ponds and runs off. Claiming engineered infiltration and recharge will work contradicts the natural limitations of the land.

  • History of Flooding – Burton Road has a well-documented flooding problem, even before additional impervious surfaces. Residents have seen DelDOT install culverts to relieve standing water. More development will only add to the burden.

  • Best Management Practices (BMPs) Are Not Guarantees – BMPs work on paper, but in reality they require constant maintenance. Once homes are built and responsibility shifts to homeowners or an HOA, these systems often fail or are neglected.

  • Contradiction – The developer says there will be “reduced runoff volumes,” but adding roads, roofs, and driveways always increases impervious surfaces. This means more runoff, not less, compared to the farmland that exists today.

  • Risk to Neighbors & Natural Areas – When water fails to infiltrate, it will flow toward Burton Road, neighboring properties, and eventually into the Pemberton Branch stream, threatening wildlife habitat and the adjacent Nature Conservancy land.

In short: Promising more groundwater recharge and less runoff on soils that already drain poorly is unrealistic. The project will increase runoff and flooding risks, not reduce them.

 

(10) That area property values will not be adversely affected.

Developers Answer: Subdividing land for residential purposes, in compliance with local regulations, generally increases property values by creating attractive and marketable lots. The single-family detached housing proposed in this development will enhance and compliment the natural setting of the community and will increase in value over time The effect on area property values will only benefit from this style of development.

Response:

The developer’s claim that property values will “only benefit” is opinion, not fact, and it overlooks real risks:

  • Traffic & Safety Issues – Burton Road is already a narrow, unsafe tar-and-chip road. Adding 240 daily trips will reduce safety and livability, which can drive down values for surrounding properties.

  • Flooding & Drainage Problems – If runoff increases and properties nearby experience more flooding, home values will decline, not rise. Buyers avoid areas with known drainage issues.

  • Loss of Rural Character – People choose this area for its farmland and open space. Converting farmland into dense subdivisions erodes that rural character, making neighboring homes less attractive to buyers who want peace, privacy, and scenic surroundings.

  • Market Assumption vs. Local Reality – While developers often claim subdivisions “raise values,” in rural areas they frequently create the opposite effect — more noise, light pollution, traffic, and conflict with farming activities.

In short: The idea that this project will raise everyone’s property values is speculative and misleading. For existing residents, increased traffic, flooding risk, and the loss of rural character are far more likely to hurt property values than help them.

 

(11) That any active farmland and tree farming adjacent to the proposed subdivision is adequately preserved through the design and construction of the proposed subdivision.

Developers Answer: It is the intent of the applicant to stress the preservation of all agricultural lands which are feasible and worthwhile of such preservation. The applicant has ensured, through its planning and design, that there shall be no negative effect on the agricultural uses or agricultural farmland adjacent to Tepache Farms. To provide a more generous transition from the adjacent agricultural lands, a 30-foot (in lieu of a 20-foot) “Forested and/or Landscaped Buffer Strip” within a 50-foot Agricultural Buffer, in lieu of the required 50-foot Agricultural Setback for as per Section 99-6 of the Sussex County Subdivision Code, has been provided for this project from the adjacent agricultural field on TM# 235-19.00-10.00. In addition, Open Space has been provided along Burton Road to maintain a rural character and reduce noise conflicts between homes and traffic.

Response:

The developer’s claim of “preserving” farmland is misleading.

  • Buffers Are Not Preservation – Planting a 30-foot buffer strip does not preserve farmland. It only separates houses from fields. Once farmland is developed, it is permanently lost.

  • Inevitable Conflicts – Subdivisions next to active farms often bring complaints about dust, odors, noise from equipment, and chemical applications. These conflicts can make farming more difficult and reduce agricultural productivity.

  • Runoff Risks to Farms – Poor drainage soils and added impervious surfaces mean stormwater will run off onto adjacent farmland, potentially harming crops and soil quality.

  • Loss of Rural Continuity – Farmland thrives best when surrounded by other farmland. Carving out subdivisions disrupts the continuity of agricultural land use and makes it harder for farms to operate long-term.

  • Contradiction – The developer says they will preserve farmland “feasible and worthwhile of such preservation.” That phrase admits farmland is being sacrificed here and only some preservation is considered “worthwhile.”

In short: A landscaped strip is not farmland preservation. This development removes farmland, increases conflicts with neighboring farms, and undermines the long-term sustainability of agriculture along Burton Road.

 

(12) That the Applicant has notified the local school district where the proposed subdivision will be located.

Developers Answer: The project will have a positive benefit on schools by generating economic benefits in the form of increased revenues through property taxes. The applicant shall coordinate and cooperate with the local school district’s transportation manager to establish a school bus stop area, if the transportation manager deems a stop area necessary or appropriate. At the same time, the expected demographic of the purchaser and impact on the school system is not expected to create any burden from the number of pupils projected to attend the local school district.

Response:

The school district was notified and responded as follows: “The district does not require a school bus shelter, but we do request a pull-off area for parent vehicles to wait without impeding the flow of traffic, and a sidewalk for students to walk to and from the bus safely.” Despite this clear request, the developer has stated that a bus pull-off area is not warranted, and the site plans do not include either the pull-off area or the sidewalk. In other words, the safety precautions identified by the school district for the protection of children have been ignored.

(13) That public buildings and community facilities will not be adversely affected by the proposed subdivision.

Developers Answer: There are no public buildings or community facilities within the nearby area. However, the proposed development will coexist with other nearby residential areas and provide minimal effects on the quality of life for adjacent land uses.

Response:

The developer dismisses this issue by saying there are no public buildings nearby, but the subdivision will still have an impact:

  • Emergency Services Strain – More homes mean more calls for fire, EMS, and police. Burton Road is narrow and prone to flooding, which could delay emergency response times and endanger public safety.

  • School Transportation – Even if the nearest schools aren’t “adjacent,” the subdivision still adds bus stops, pickups, and drop-offs on Burton Road. This creates safety issues on a road that is already too narrow for two cars to pass safely.

  • Community Quality of Life – Increased traffic, noise, and drainage problems directly affect neighbors and nearby landowners — which are part of the broader community fabric, whether or not public buildings sit next door.

  • Contradiction – Claiming there will be “minimal effects” is speculation. In reality, Burton Road’s infrastructure is already strained, so any added demand will be felt more strongly here than in other areas.

In short: Public facilities don’t have to sit next door to be affected. More homes mean more strain on emergency services, schools, and roads. Burton Road is not built to handle these added pressures, which puts the broader community at risk.

(14) That the subdivision is either within an established Transportation Improvement District or the subdivision endeavors to maintain the current Delaware Department of Transportation Level of Service on all adjacent roads and intersections after the subdivision is completed and in no event will allow the Level of Service to degrade below a Level of Service D

Developers Answer: Tepache Farms is not located in a Transportation Improvement District. The subdivision will not allow the Level of Service to degrade below a Level of Service D. The proposed traffic being generating from the proposed 21 lots is 240 trips (120 entering and 120 exiting) on a daily basis. To support existing traffic and additional traffic from this development, road and entrance improvement plans for this project will be finalized with DelDOT and safe ingress and egress will be constructed.

Response:

The developer’s answer overlooks the real-world dangers of adding more traffic to Burton Road.

  • Unsafe Road Conditions – Burton Road is a narrow tar-and-chip road with no shoulders, ditches on both sides, and blind curves. It is already unsafe for two cars to pass in places. Adding 240 trips per day will make it more dangerous for residents, pedestrians, cyclists, and school buses.

  • Level of Service (LOS) Misleading – Saying traffic will not degrade below Level of Service D is a technical loophole. LOS measures delays at intersections, not the safety and design of the road itself. A road can meet LOS “standards” on paper but still be unsafe in reality.

  • DelDOT Improvements Insufficient – Minor entrance or road “improvements” cannot fix the fundamental problem: Burton Road was never built to handle subdivision traffic. Widening a small entrance does nothing for the rest of the unsafe corridor.

  • Emergency Access Concerns – Narrow conditions and increased traffic will slow down fire, EMS, and police responses, putting residents at risk.

In short: Claiming that traffic impacts will not degrade “below Level D” ignores the fact that Burton Road is already inadequate and unsafe. Adding 240 trips a day will create a serious safety hazard that DelDOT improvements cannot solve.

(15) That the proposed subdivision will be compatible with other area land uses.

Developers Answer: The owners and planners carefully reviewed the location of this project and the surrounding area and have endeavored to design and provide a project that integrates with the existing area and provides for appropriate transitions through buffers from the existing adjacent lands. This development provides for low density housing within an area designated for low density on the Future Land Use Map. In addition, the project has been designed to minimize any potential adverse impacts on properties that are adjacent to it.

Response:

The developer’s claim of “compatibility” does not reflect the reality of Burton Road.

  • Rural vs. Suburban Conflict – The surrounding area is primarily active farmland, forests, and conservation land. Replacing farmland with a 21-lot subdivision introduces suburban housing that is fundamentally incompatible with the existing rural uses.

  • Buffers Don’t Create Compatibility – A thin landscaped buffer does not resolve the conflicts subdivisions create with farms: dust, noise, odors, and equipment use often lead to complaints from new residents that make farming harder.

  • Future Land Use Map Misused – Labeling this area “low density” on paper doesn’t change the fact that the road, soils, and drainage cannot support the subdivision in practice. The map is a planning tool, not a guarantee of suitability.

  • Loss of Rural Character – The defining land use of this area is agriculture and open space. Building homes along Burton Road disrupts that character and undermines the community’s established land use pattern.

In short: This subdivision is not compatible with existing area land uses. It removes farmland, disrupts rural character, and creates conflicts with neighboring farms and conservation lands that no buffer strip can solve.

(16) That there will be safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and to and from adjacent developed properties with interconnectivity where appropriate.

Developers Answer: The subdivision as designed and planned compliments its rural setting with a single road, Auroras Alley, and ¾ acre lots. This design is consistent with the surrounding community and is compatible with the aesthetic of the region. Individual lots and a property owned by the Nature Conservancy prevent interconnection on a majority of the Tepache Farms’ boundaries.

Response:

The developer’s claim of safe and efficient movement is not supported by the actual conditions:

  • Burton Road Is Unsafe – The only access point is Burton Road, which is narrow, tar-and-chip, with no shoulders or sidewalks. It is already unsafe for two cars to pass in places. Adding subdivision traffic makes it more dangerous, not safer.

  • No Pedestrian Infrastructure – The subdivision provides no sidewalks or pedestrian connections to surrounding areas. Residents will have no safe way to walk, bike, or access neighboring properties.

  • Dead-End Design – A single road (Auroras Alley) with no interconnection creates a dead-end subdivision. This limits emergency access and increases risks if the entrance is blocked by flooding, accidents, or maintenance work.

  • Nature Conservancy Land Conflict – The developer blames the lack of interconnectivity on the Nature Conservancy boundary. But this highlights the incompatibility of the subdivision: placing dense housing next to preserved conservation land creates conflicts, not connections.

In short: This plan does not provide safe or efficient movement. It funnels all traffic onto an unsafe rural road, offers no pedestrian infrastructure, and creates a dead-end neighborhood that increases risks for residents, neighbors, and emergency responders.