Salem Church (Delaware) Associates v. New Castle County, C.A. No. 20305-NC (Del. Ch. 10/6/2006), C.A. No. 20305-NC.
| Decision Date | 06 October 2006 |
| Docket Number | C.A. No. 20305-NC. |
| Parties | SALEM CHURCH (DELAWARE) ASSOCIATES, a Delaware general partnership, Plaintiff, v. NEW CASTLE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Delaware, and THE STATE OF DELAWARE, Defendants. |
| Court | Court of Chancery of Delaware |
A developer, in 1987, purchased approximately 100 acres of undeveloped property in New Castle County, Delaware from landowners who, thirteen years earlier, had obtained exploratory sketch plan approval for the development of more than 600 residential units. The land remained fallow for many years afterwards. In an attempt to begin again the process of obtaining final approval for the subdivision project, the developer made several unsuccessful attempts to obtain approvals for the two remaining development stages — preliminary plan approval and final record plan approval. The developer was eventually informed by New Castle County (the "County") that the exploratory sketch plan approval given to the developer's predecessors in interest was still in effect and that, if the developer submitted a preliminary plan in compliance with environmental and traffic standards existing as of the exploratory sketch plan's approval, then final record plan approval could be granted. The developer alleges that it relied on the County's assurances and that, while on the cusp of final record plan approval, various County and State of Delaware (the "State") officials conspired to push legislation through the General Assembly that would have the effect of preventing final approval of the subdivision project. Instead of having to comply with environmental and traffic standards in existence at the time its predecessors initiated the subdivision project, the developer must now comply with current
standards. The developer seeks injunctive and declaratory relief against both the County and the State to prevent the enforcement and application of the state law to its subdivision project, bringing claims based on a variety of theories—including vested rights, equitable estoppel, due process, equal protection, and unlawful taking. Before the Court are the County and State's motions to dismiss.
On May 17, 2001, the Governor signed into law Senate Bill No. 143 ("SB 143").2 The law amended 9 Del. C. § 2659(c), which, as amended, provides, in part:
All subdivision or land development applications heretofore or hereafter filed or submitted to New Castle County that do not receive final approval from New Castle County government within 5 years from the date of application shall be subject to the environmental standards contained in Chapter 40, Articles 5 and 10, of the New Castle County Code, as may be amended, and the traffic impact standards contained in Chapter 40, Articles 5 and 11, of the New Castle County Code, as may be amended.3
* * *
Plaintiff Salem Church (Delaware) Associates ("Salem Church" or "Plaintiff") is a Delaware general partnership owned by Frank E. Acierno
("Acierno").4 On July 21, 1987, Salem Church acquired approximately 100 acres (the "Parcel") from owners who, in 1974 and following the County's decision to rezone the lands to the category of Diversified Planned Unit Development, had obtained approval of an Exploratory Sketch Plan for a proposed subdivision development of 688 residential units and 25,000 square feet of commercial space.5 The Parcel became known as "French Park."6 Salem Church's predecessors in interest never obtained any further approvals for French Park's development.7
Following its purchase of the Parcel, Salem Church made several unsuccessful attempts to obtain additional development approvals.8 According to the Amended Complaint (the "Complaint"), one of these attempts was made on July 1, 1999, when Salem Church formally requested recordation of the Record Major Subdivision Plan that it had submitted on September 21, 1988, after what it thought was approval of its Preliminary Plan on December 2, 1987.9 In response, the County informed Salem Church in a July 14, 1999 opinion letter (the "County Opinion Letter") that it had never obtained Preliminary Plan approval and had
never properly submitted a Record Major Subdivision Plan.10 Significantly, the County also informed Salem Church that the original Exploratory Sketch Plan submitted in 1974 was still active and that, after submission of a revised Preliminary Plan conforming to the rules and regulations existing as of the Exploratory Sketch Plan's submission in 1974, Final Record Plan approval for French Park could then be granted.11 Salem Church was then advised that the County's Department of Land Use's (the "Department") decision was final and could be appealed to the County's Planning Board within twenty days.12
Later in 1999, Salem Church received additional direction by the County to proceed with submission of its Preliminary Plan, and, on or around June 14, 2000, an application and Preliminary Plan were submitted for the County's approval.13 The submission was based on the original Exploratory Sketch Plan's proposed number of residential units, although it did not call for any commercial development.14 After Salem Church's submission, a revised preliminary plan review comment letter was sent to Salem Church on March 28, 2001. That letter,
according to Salem Church, granted Preliminary Plan approval for the French Park project and authorized the filing of a final record plan if certain technical requirements were satisfied.15
By May 15, 2001, Salem Church's engineer had filed "virtually all of the remaining documents necessary to receive final record plan approval with the County."16 Two days later, the Governor signed SB 143 into law.17 On May 30, 2001, in a letter to Salem Church's engineer, County planner Charles D. McCombs, II, (the "McCombs Letter") advised Salem Church that, in light of SB 143's enactment, the Preliminary Plan approval for French Park had been rescinded.18 If Salem Church wished to obtain final record plan approval for French Park, it would have to comply with then-current environmental and traffic impact standards set forth in Articles 10 and 11 of the County's Uniform Development Code—standards materially different from those prescribed in 1974
and on which the original Exploratory Sketch Plan had been based.19 The McCombs Letter, unlike the County's Opinion Letter, did not inform Salem Church that the Department's decision was final and could be appealed to the Planning Board.
Salem Church alleges that, by the time SB 143 was enacted, it had already acquired a vested right to the specific French Park plan.20 Central to Salem Church's claims is its allegation that County and State officials acted "in bad faith, with an intent and motive to deny Salem Church its property rights and to carry out a political and personal vendetta against Acierno."21 Specifically, the Complaint alleges that "[t]he County enlisted the assistance of State officials because the County knew it could not legally change the rules for French Park since the County Code and the County Opinion Letter had already `grandfathered' French Park."22 Salem Church states in its Complaint that SB 143 was "designed specifically to decimate the Preliminary Plan"23 and was the product of a "conspiracy" among a
small number of political allies, some of whom had an "extreme personal dislike of Acierno."24
As Salem Church saw it, "SB 143 did not have any effect on the previously approved Preliminary Plan."25 Therefore, on January 20, 2003, Salem Church's counsel requested that the County complete its review of the final record plan for French Park.26 On February 24, 2003, the County responded that it was the final decision of the Department that such a review would not be completed and that, should Salem Church wish to continue with the French Park plan, it would have to submit a revised exploratory sketch plan in conformity with current environmental and traffic impact standards.27 On March 12, 2003, Salem Church appealed to the Planning Board to reverse the Department's final decision.28 On March 20, 2003, the County informed Salem Church that the Department's decision, set forth in the McCombs Letter on May 30, 2001, was final and that its appeal was time-barred for not having been filed within twenty days of the McCombs Letter.29
Relying upon representations the County made in the County Opinion Letter (that final record plan approval for French Park would be given if Salem Church
submitted a revised Preliminary Plan conforming to County Code provisions that existed in 1974), Salem Church incurred substantial engineering, legal, and governmental application fees. At bottom, Salem Church alleges that, but for the enactment of SB 143, final record plan approval for French Park was a virtual certainty.30
Confronted with the choice of abandoning its plans for French Park or bringing them into compliance with existing environmental and traffic standards, Salem Church has petitioned this Court to estop equitably and permanently enjoin the County and the State (collectively, the "Defendants") from enforcing SB 143 against the French Park plan. Salem Church also seeks a declaratory judgment to the same effect. Salem Church brings claims based on the vested rights and equitable estoppel doctrines, and has also raised several discrete constitutional claims...
To continue reading
Request your trial