[DOWNLOAD] "New Castle County Council v. Bc" by Supreme Court of Delaware " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: New Castle County Council v. Bc
- Author : Supreme Court of Delaware
- Release Date : January 13, 1989
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 64 KB
Description
New Castle County Council ("Council") appeals from a decision of the Court of Chancery granting partial summary judgment in
an action challenging Council's denial of a rezoning application made by appellee, BC Development Associates ("BCD"). The
Court of Chancery held that Council's denial was arbitrary and capricious because Council failed to articulate the rationale
underlying its decision, as required by Tate v. Miles, Del. Supr., 503 A.2d 187 (1986). In its appeal, Council raises four
challenges to the Court of Chancery's decision. First, Council argues that the record created in connection with BCD's application
provides adequate support for its actions and thus obviates the need for a more direct statement of the Council's reasoning.
Second, Council alleges that BCD's proposed rezoning was manifestly contrary to the Comprehensive Development Plan adopted
by New Castle County pursuant to 9 Del.C. § 1144. Council argues that this fact alone is sufficient to justify its
actions. Third, Council contends that even if the Court of Chancery correctly determined that the decision must be set aside,
the Court erred in remanding the case directly to Council. Rather, it is argued, Tate v. Miles requires that the entire zoning
process be repeated. Finally, Council alleges that the Court of Chancery abused its discretion by dismissing without prejudice
certain constitutional claims made by BCD. Having reviewed the record created by Council during its consideration of BCD's application, we find that it provides an
inadequate explanation of the reasoning underlying Council's actions. Without such an explanation, we cannot determine whether
Council has acted in accordance with requirements imposed by the General Assembly. Thus, we find that Council's decision
must be invalidated. However, we believe that the zoning process should be reinitiated, lest the Council base its decision
upon information and analysis that have become stale through the passage of time. Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Chancery's
decision in all respects except for the remedy. The earlier proceedings must be vacated and new proceedings begun.