Sussex County Council split on Cool Spring Crossing amid public backlash
- Sussex County Republican Committee
- 4 days ago
- 5 min read
From Spotlight Delmarva
by Olivia Marble
November 5, 2025
The chambers of the Sussex County Council was a sea of green and white stickers on Tuesday as area residents flooded into a hearing for a controversial plan to build what effectively would be a new town in southern Delaware – complete with 1,900 homes and retail shops.
So many people attended the meeting that the chambers reached its 120-person capacity, leaving about 40 people to watch from an overflow room, according to a security officer.
The turnout marked the latest drama in what has become a longstanding fight over the future of Sussex County.
During the meeting, opponents said the massive project would exacerbate traffic congestion, school overcrowding and overextend emergency services.
“Council members were supported and elected to represent the public interest. And in my view, the public sentiment is loud and clear,” said resident Alison Monroe, one of many opponents of the project who wore a white sticker with the words “Smart Growth: Right use, Right place, Right time.”
Opponents have also submitted to the county four petitions criticizing the project. Two of those were presented during the meeting on Tuesday. One has nearly 1,000 signatures.
In response, supporters of the proposal – who wore green stickers to the meeting stating “We Support Cool Spring Crossing” – said the project would bring needed affordable housing to a corner of Delaware that has grown more expensive with an influx of retirees in recent years.
Among those supporters were several employees of Carl M. Freeman Companies, the developer that is pushing the project. Company CEO Michelle Freeman said she was paying them for their time at the hearing.
On Thursday, a company official said that “8–10 Carl M. Freeman Companies” employees attended the hearing.
Freeman also said that her development, called Cool Spring Crossing, would include townhomes, duplexes and condos – all cheaper forms of housing than the single-family homes that have dominated new developments in the area.
“When you have different housing types, you are allowing more people to start their housing journey,” she said.
Beyond the housing and retail, Freeman proposes a YMCA, an assisted living facility, a hotel, a bank, several education programs and a theater on the farmland property along Route 9, near Milton.
If the county does not approve the project, Freeman said she would instead build 1,200 homes on the property without commercial amenities.
The land’s existing zoning already allows residential development, so Freeman’s company would face a less arduous county approval process for the alternative plans.
For the broader project to move forward, the County Council would first have to vote to edit the Sussex County comprehensive plan, and then vote to rezone the property itself.
By the end of the night on Tuesday, the County Council delayed any vote to approve the town-sized development. And their comments during the meeting left few clues as how they ultimately will vote, as they included both skepticism and support for the project.
The County Council’s comments
During the hearing, Councilmembers Jane Gruenebaum and John Rieley asked questions that appeared to show their skepticism for the project, while Councilman Matt Lloyd made comments that appeared to support the project.
Councilman Steve McCarron appeared to have mixed feelings about the project, while Council President Doug Hudson did not make comments, nor ask questions about the project.
Traffic studies show the additional 33,000 car trips on the roads from the initial Cool Spring Crossing plan could be managed with several road improvements funded by the developer. But Rieley told a project traffic engineer during Tuesday’s meeting that he has a hard time accepting that “from a common sense point of view.”
“I don’t have your expertise, but I do drive the road, and I have an understanding of what it’s like now,” Rieley said.
The backup plan with single-family homes would generate 12,600 car trips, according to a development application submitted to the state. But developer Freeman said she thinks the traffic impact for the initial plan would be less than estimated because people could walk to stores within the development.
Rieley, who represents the district where the project would be located, also asked if the developer could incorporate Cool Spring Crossing as a town so it could have its own police and fire departments, lessening the strain on county emergency services.
James Fuqua, an attorney representing the developer, said his client would ideally like to incorporate it as a town, but doesn’t believe it would happen because Sussex County would have to give up its own zoning authority over the land.
Gruenbaum said she is concerned the homes in Cool Spring Crossing would not actually be affordable to many workers in the county. Most would be sold at “market rate,” meaning the rent would not be controlled by the county.
But Lloyd contended that workers would definitely not be able to afford the homes built under the backup plan, if it moved forward.
If the council denies the plan, it would also deny affordable housing, which is “exactly the thing we’ve been missing in Sussex County,” he said.
McCarron, who also represents some of the nearby Milton area, said that while he had signed a petition against the project on the campaign trail, he would decide on the rezoning based on the information in the hearing.
During the hearing, he said he finds it “hypocritical” that many of the people complaining about new development in the county live in newly-built subdivisions. Still, he also expressed frustration that DelDOT employees could not give clear answers about the future of the Route 9 corridor.
“We can’t even pinpoint in this discussion what Route 9 is going to look like … So how are we supposed to consider these things sitting at this table?” McCarron said.
The council will now have two weeks to submit additional questions to state agencies about the project. Those agencies will have another two weeks to respond, then the public can comment on those responses for another two weeks.
County officials will also discuss the plan with the state Office of State Planning Coordination. The office has opposed the project because it discourages future development in the project area in its State Strategies map.
The next time the council could consider the issue is its Dec. 16 meeting.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated after a previous version inaccurately described the county approvals needed for a by-right development. It also misstated the total number of employees of the Carl M. Freeman Companies who attended Tuesday’s hearing. We regret the errors.