Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of New Castle County v. Dragon Run Terrace, Inc.
Decision Date | 10 August 1966 |
Citation | 222 A.2d 315 |
Parties | ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF NEW CASTLE COUNTY, Delaware, Appellee Below, Appellant, v. DRAGON RUN TERRACE, INC., a corporation of the State of Delaware, Appellant Below, Appellee. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Delaware |
Clarence W. Taylor, of Hastings, Taylor & Willard and Arthur J. Sullivan, of Morris, James, Hitchens & Williams, Wilmington, for appellant.
Ralph F. Keil and Carl Goldstein, of Keil & Keil, Wilmington, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Superior Court which reversed a denial of a permit to operate a trailer or mobile home park in the unincorporated community of Kirkwood. The basic issue is whether the Zoning Board of Adjustment abused its discretion or committed an error of law in refusing the permit.
In accordance with the authority conferred by T. 9 Del.C. Ch. 26, the Levy Court of New Castle County enacted a Zoning Code for the entire county outside of incorporated communities. Appellee's land is located in an R-2 District--agricultural and general purposes. Despite the use of the letter 'R' in this classification, it is not a residential district, as are the other 'R' districts. The Code explains that this designation is used to describe certain large undeveloped areas for which the purpose cannot yet be determined. The Code contemplates possible rezoning of R-2 districts, depending upon future developments.
Trailer parks are not permitted in R-1 and R-3 districts, which are one-family and group housing residential areas, respectively. They are permitted in R-4 districts, which is multifamily residential, under the same conditions applicable in R-2 areas. These conditions are set forth in Art. IV § 2(8) of the Zoning Code as follows:
'(8) Trailer park, if granted a permit by the Board of Adjustment as provided in Section 4 of Article XVIII of this Code, subject to conformance with the following requirements:
(a) The minimum size of the lot upon which such use is located shall be two acres.
(b) All access roadways and trailer parking berths shall be paved with a dust-proof surface.
(c) Each trailer parking berth shall have a minimum area of fifteen hundred (1,500) square feet and a minimum width of thirty (30) feet and no such parking berth shall project beyond the required building set-back line nor be located within the required side yards or rear yard.
(d) A site plan showing roadways, parking berths, landscaping, lighting, and provision of sanitary facilities shall be filed with the application for a certificate of occupancy and, if approved, shall be part of the provisions for the issuance of a certificate.
(e) Approved by the State Board of Health of proposed sanitary facilities shall be a prerequisite to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.'
Art. XVIII authorizes the Board of Adjustment to grant special permits in certain districts (including R-2) for trailer parks subject to the special requirements quoted above. That Article also requires hearings by the Board to consider applications for special permits and contains the following language in § 2:
Counsel agree that any decision of the Board must be guided by Article XIX § 1 which contains the following language:
.
We emphasize the fact that we are not here dealing with a proposed Variance but with a Special permit or exception, a distinction which was noticed in Appeal of Hickman, 10 Terry 13, 108 A.2d 667. 1 In contrast to the City ordinance described in Searles v. Darling, 7 Terry 263, 83 A.2d 96, and Appeal of Hickman, supra, both the County ordinance and the Act of Legislature upon which is founded fully observe this distinction, and impose the requirement of a showing of hardship only upon variances. There is no similar requirement for special permits. This case is therefore distinguishable from both Searles and Hickman, supra. Cf. Montgomery County v. Merlands Club, 202 Md. 279, 96 A.2d 261.
The Board in its ruling specifically mentioned seven reasons for denying the permit. They will be discussed later. Appellant argues here, and appellee denies, that the Board relied also upon an eighth reason, i.e., lack of need for the facility. The Court below held that this point was not before it. There are authorities supporting the view that lack of need does not alone justify refusal of a permit for a use which the legislative body has found to be generally compatible with other permitted uses. See Texaco, Inc. v. Board of Adjustment of Milburn, 73 N.J.Super. 313, 179 A.2d 768; 2 Rathkopf on Zoning and Planning (3d ed.) 54--18, 1965 Supplement. We do not decide the point because, as the Court below pointed out, the record before us contains no evidence to support the finding in any event. To clarify this statement, we will outline the contents of the record having any bearing on the question.
An application for a permit was made by appellee some time prior to December, 1961, and was denied by the Board on the ground of lack of need. A new application was filed and a hearing thereon took place on December 14, 1961. At that time, the Chairman announced that, since the earlier petition had been denied solely because of a failure to demonstrate need, the new hearing would be limited to that question. He further stated that, if the Board later found it necessary to consider other matters, an additional hearing would be held. The petitioner then introduced certain evidence, consisting largely of statistics, tending to show a need for the facility. The Board as then constituted never decided the matter because a majority of the members were soon replaced by new individuals. The newly constituted Board ultimately agreed to hold an additional or supplemental hearing at which proponents and opponents could produce any pertinent evidence they desired, which would be considered along with the evidence previously presented. This supplemental hearing was held on March 12, 1964. No additional evidence was then introduced upon the question of need. In making its finding, the Board stated that 'its decision concerning this subject (need) has basis in fact, based on the testimony presented at the public hearing of which this subject...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nani v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Town of Smithfield
...is supported elsewhere. Texaco, Inc. v. Board of Adjustment, 73 N.J.Super. 313, 179 A.2d 768. In Zoning Board of Adjustment of New Castle County v. Dragon Run Terrace, Inc., Del., 222 A.2d 315, the court, noting that some authorities support the view that lack of need will not alone justify......
-
Stephen C. Glenn, Inc. v. Sussex County Council
...Zoning Board of Review of the City of Warwick, R.I.Supr., 99 R.I. 269, 207 A.2d 47 (1965); Zoning Board of Adjustment of New Castle County v. Dragon Run Terrace, Inc., Del.Supr., 222 A.2d 315 (1966). I therefore conclude that, in an appropriate situation, the Sussex County Council, when gra......
-
Perron v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Town of Burrillville
...by denying the owner an opportunity to use his property for an otherwise conditionally permitted use. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment v. Dragon Run Terrace, Inc., 222 A.2d 315, 318 (Del.1966). See Crowther, Inc. v. Johnson, 225 Md. 379, 384, 170 A.2d 768, 770 (1961). In a comparable situation this......
-
Payne & Dolan v. Dane County
...traffic congestion or noise provide an insufficient basis to deny a conditional use permit. See Zoning Bd. of Adjustment v. Dragon Run Terrace, Inc., 222 A.2d 315 (Del. Super. Ct. 1966); Goldstein v. Zoning Bd. of Review, 227 A.2d 195 (R.I. 1967); Zoning Hearing Bd. v. Konyk, 290 A.2d 715 (......