Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/03/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin Injunction-City argues neighbors who oppose () subdivision do not have standing to contest decision Neighbors claim subdivisions granted after amendment to ordinance create undersized lots Citation: Calagione v. City of Lewes Planning Com'n, 2007 WL 4054668 (Del.Ch.) . DELAWARE (11/13/07)-ln August 2003, a public hearing was held in the city of Lewes on a recommended proposal to increase the zoning ordinance's minimum lot size in a historic district from 4,000 square feet to 5,000 square feet. While the proposed amend- ment was being considered, the city council had imposed a mora- torium on subdivision applications except those that were pending before the moratorium was enacted. Ultimately, the city adopted the proposed amendment to its zoning ordinance and lifted the moratorium on subdivisions in the district. In February 2007, the city approved subdivision applications sub- mitted by Maull and Healing. Both applications pertained to land located in the aforementioned historical district. Maull's application proposed the subdivision of his property into two lots, each alleged- ly approximately 4,283 square feet. Healing's application proposed the subdivision of his property into five lots, four of which allegedly measure between 4,161 square feet and 4,790 square feet. Calagione, who owned property adjacent to one of the parcels that was approved for subdivision, challenged the approvals. Cala- gione argued that the applications were not "pending" at the time that the amendment was enacted because Maull and Healing had not submitted proper applications until after the imposition of the mora- torium. Calagione argued further that even if the applications were pending, they were exempt only from the moratorium, not from the increased minimum size requirement in the ordinance. Calagione sued the city, its mayor, and the individual land own- ers in court, arguing that the subdivisions violated the minimum lot size requirement passed in 2003. He asked the court for an in- junction against the city to prevent the subdivisions. The city asked the court to dismiss Calagione's request, arguing that he did not have standing to bring his claim, and that, even if he did, he did not meet the requirements for injunction. Decision: Request for injunction denied. When a party asked the court to dismiss a request of another party, the court had to construe all facts in favor of the nonmoving party. The court noted that, here, there were a number of disputed facts surrounding the approval of the subdivision applications, but 6 80 () / ): .'-~.