Proposed density limits could be ‘catastrophic’ for Sussex County farmers

The worry stems from one of the Sussex County Land Use Working Group’s draft recommendations that would reduce the allowed density in agricultural areas from two houses per acre to one. 

“If the recommendations are implemented, that could be catastrophic for agriculture in Delaware,” said Jay Baxter, owner of Baxter Farms and member of the working group. 

Some members of the working group argued the change is necessary to stop the rapid development of agricultural areas. The current allowance of two homes per acre allows homebuilders to plan massive developments on large farms, but cutting their allowances in half would likely persuade more builders to pursue rezonings to gain more home sites.

But Sussex County farmers told Spotlight Delaware the change also could have the opposite effect: causing farmers to quickly sell off their land as soon as they hear about it. They also said the proposed density reduction could violate federal law. 

The 10-member working group has been meeting since March. County Council formed the group after three newcomers beat out incumbents in the November 2024 elections, their victory largely fueled by resident anger over how the five-person council had previously handled development.

More than 13,000 homes have been built in Sussex County over the past five years, bringing  an increase of more than 32,000 residents, the county council said in February. 

About a quarter of that growth has come in areas that state planners designated for open space and farmland preservation. 

Why one home per acre?

Under current county zoning laws, if farmers sell their land to a housing developer, that developer can build two houses for every acre of the property. 

If the Sussex County Council were to pass the working group’s draft recommendations, that same developer would only be allowed to build one house per acre on that property. 

Jill Hicks, working group member and president of the Sussex Preservation Coalition, a grassroots advocacy for smart growth practices, helped write the current draft recommendations. 

A visualization of One house per acre. | PHOTO COURTESY OF MAINE.GOV

The ultimate goal of the working group, Hicks said, is to figure out a way to make new development “clusters” in certain areas. 

That means incentivizing housing developers to make dense, walkable communities in areas where there is already infrastructure to support it, and disincentivizing development in the rest of the county. 

The density reduction may make it less appealing for farmers to sell their land to housing developers, Hicks said. And if the land gets less expensive, it could become easier for farmers to expand their businesses.

The problem

But Sussex County Farm Bureau President Steve Breeding said this new rule could have unintended consequences. 

Farmers are often “asset rich and cash poor,” he said, meaning they often do not have a lot of money that is ready to spend, but they have wealth in their land.

So when farmers need to buy new equipment or seeds, they use land value as collateral for a loan.  

“That’s our safety net,” added Ray Ellis, owner of Ellis Farms in Millsboro.

All three farmers interviewed said they feared the new rules would cut their land value in half, since they could only potentially build half as many homes on their property. 

Baxter, the working group member, said farmers would then have to put up twice as much land to get the same amount of money from a loan.  

And farmers who don’t have enough land to make up the difference may try to sell their land all at once before Sussex County Council has a chance to change the law, Baxter said.

“You will see farmland go up for sale immediately with farmers that could not afford to continue to operate their business,” Baxter said. 

Farmers are already struggling financially, Ellis said. Corn prices reached a five-year low this year, and the recent property reassessment increased taxes for many. 

Ellis emphasized that most farmers would rather not sell their land. 

“If we can find a sustainable way for us to make a good living, you ain’t got to worry about it. We won’t sell it,” Ellis said. “But … we’re wondering how we’re going to pay the bills.”

Would it be legal?

During the working group’s Aug. 5 meeting, Baxter said changing the density limits could be considered an illegal taking, which is when a government severely limits the use of a property without compensating its owner. 

But working group member and affordable housing developer Matthew Padron said he doesn’t think the value of the land would be reduced. 

“You’re making the ability to live that rural lifestyle … more scarce and therefore more expensive,” Padron said. 

The Sussex County Land Use Working Group’s draft recommendations also include policies that might help reduce the development of farmland without negatively affecting farmers. 

One idea is to establish a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program. Developers would then be able to build on farmland in areas targeted for growth only if they also purchase the development rights of a farm in an area slated for preservation without building anything on it. 

That would allow farmers in preservation areas to make a profit from developers while also preventing any future housing development on that land. 

Baxter said he likes the idea of TDRs, but they are “extremely complicated to enforce.”

The working group recommendations also include allowing farmers to put “Agricultural Support Uses” on their properties, like processing plants, to earn extra income. 

What’s next?

The working group has two more meetings scheduled on Aug. 21 and Sept. 11, both at 10 a.m. 

Group facilitator Andrew Bing said at the last meeting that the group will finalize the recommendations by the end of September. 

They will then go before the county council for approval, where members are facing pressure to act soon to mitigate the effects of development in the region.