Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/05/2009

Home

January 10, 2009 I Volume 3 I No.1 ment of Planning Services. Ashburn proposed a subdivision (the "De- velopment") that would consist of 214 lots with a density of .84 units per acre. The lots would be served by on-site water and septic systems provided by private utilities. It was undisputed that the Application complied with all applicable county planning and zoning requitements (the "Code"). The county's Regional Planning Commission (the "Commission") held. a public hearing on the Application. It also solicited comments from various state agencies about the impact of the proposed Devel- opment. The state agencies did not support the Development. Rather, their comments indicated that the Development would be inappropri- ate because the State did not plan to invest in infrastructure in the area aside from necessary maintenance. Ultimately, the Commission denied the Application, citing three rea- sons: (1) the infrastructure was not in place; (2) the Property was out- side the county's so-called Growth. Zone (a designated area in which the county encouraged development); and (3) the Development would negatively affect the health, safety and welfare of the community. Ashburn appealed to the county court, which upheld the Commis- sion's denial of the Application. Ashburn then appealed to the superior court, which also upheld the denial. . Ashburn again appealed to the Supreme Court of Delaware. DECISION: Reversed with instructions. On appeal, the court held that the Commission exceeded its statuto- ry authority when it denied outright the Application, which fully com- plied with all of the provisions of the county's Code. The court explained that "[b]ecause 'subdivision control involve[d] the specific application of the applicable general standards to the par- ticular facts of a proposed subdivision,' the Commission had quasi-ju- dicial power. The Commission did not exist "merely to rubberstamp every application... before it." Rather, it had a measure of discretion. Ashburn had argued that the Commission, however, lacked the pow- er to deny a subdivision plan that complied legally with all applicable zoning and subdivision requirements. The court agreed. In doing so, it rejected the. Commission's claim that it had statutory authority to deny .applications based on comments from state agencies that implicated the health, welfare and safety of the community. Th~ court noted that the "very statutes upon which the Commission relie[d]" provided only that the Commission consider such information. The statutes did not, ex- pressly or by implication, give the COrn..mlssion "unfettered discretion to deny an otherwise legally conforming subdivision application based Zoning Bulletin @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 11 .i I ; 7.7