Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />on impact-related concerns expressed by commenting state agencies." <br />Pursuant to the county;s Code, the Commission could condition its <br />approval of the Application based on non-Code factors, such as state <br />agency comments. However, the Commission could not outright deny a <br />conforming application based on non-Code factors. lithe Commission <br />could deny an application that met all applicable statutory and Code <br />criteria, "purchasers of land would be left unable to predict whether <br />they [could] develop their land in accordance with the pertinent zoning <br />ordinances, or whether instead the [c]ounty may prevent development <br />based upon non-Code related ad hoc determinations." <br /> <br />See also: DiFrancesco v. Mayor and Town Council of Elsmere, 2007 <br />WL 1874761 (Del. Super. Ct. 2007), judgment aff'd, 947 A.2d 1122 <br />(Del. 2008). . <br /> <br />See also: JNK, LLC v. Kent County Regional Planning Com'n, 2007 <br />WL 1653508 (Del. Super. Ct. 2007). <br /> <br />Case Note: While Ashburn's appeal was pending, the county intro- <br />duced ordinances. amending its Code. Those amendments created <br />specific, mandatory standards relating to traffic, schools, emergen- <br />cy services and water that had to be satisfied in order for a sub- <br />division plan to be approved. The court concluded that because <br />Ashburn's Application was filed over three months prior to the ef- <br />fective date of those new ordinances, the new ordinances were in- <br />applicable to Ashburn's Application. <br /> <br />~~flll:it4l8~ii!~ESl~!~~1il~~LtV'(~'?~"~~ <br /> <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin @ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />78 <br />