Case Title: Paladin v. New Castle County Board

Citation: 

Docket Number: 591, 2006

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-07-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
FRIENDS OF PALADIN, an   
§ 
unincorporated association, ROY 
§ 
V. JACKSON, JOHN SEVERIN, 
§ 
No. 591, 2006 
and MARIE SIMS  
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiffs Below-   
 
§ 
Appellants,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below:  Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
NEW CASTLE COUNTY BOARD § 
C.A. No. 05A-08-009 
OF ADJUSTMENT and   
 
§ 
EDGEWOOD VILLAGE, L.L.C., 
§ 
 
a Delaware limited liability company, § 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Defendants Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellees.  
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted:  May 9, 2007 
   Decided:  July 23, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 23rd day of July 2007, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties 
and their contentions at oral argument, it appears to the Court that: 
(1)  
Appellants Friends of Paladin, Roy V. Jackson, John Severin, and 
Marie Sims (collectively referred to as “Friends of Paladin”) appeal the Superior 
Court’s decision upholding the jurisdiction of the New Castle County Board of 
 2
Adjustment (“Board of Adjustment”).1  Appellee Edgewood Village, L.L.C. 
(“Edgewood”) sought the approval of the New Castle County Department of Land 
Use (“Department of Land Use”) to develop property adjacent to a residential 
complex called the Paladin Club.  After the Department of Land Use denied its 
application, Edgewood appealed to the Board of Adjustment.  The Board of 
Adjustment ultimately ruled in favor of Edgewood.  Friends of Paladin contends on 
appeal, as it did before both the Board of Adjustment and the Superior Court, that 
the Board of Adjustment did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the 
appeal did not concern zoning matters.  They argue that the appeal should have 
been taken to the Planning Board.  We find no merit to their arguments and affirm. 
(2)  
Edgewood owns real property adjacent to a residential condominium 
complex called the Paladin Club.  Edgewood seeks to develop its property and 
build a townhome community.  On Edgewood’s property, however, lies an old 
stone wall.  A group of condominium owners and various other neighbors joined 
together and formed Friends of Paladin, an unincorporated association.  Friends of 
                                          
 
1 This matter was before the Superior Court on certiorari review.  Although the Superior Court 
“denied” Friends of Paladin’s petition for certiorari, it is clear from the Superior Court docket 
(Docket Entry No. 2.) that the writ was issued and the record was sent from the Board of 
Adjustment to the Superior Court.  “There can be no doubt that the writ of certiorari as known in 
this state was a common-law writ, issued from a superior court, directed to one of inferior 
jurisdiction, and commanding the latter to certify and return to the former the record in the 
particular case.”  Rash v. Allen, 76 A. 370, 374 (Del. Super. 1910).  The appeal before us does 
not challenge the issuance of the writ but the decision of the Superior Court to affirm the Board 
of Adjustment’s determination that it had jurisdiction over Edgewood’s appeal. 
 3
Paladin was created for the specific purpose of opposing the development of 
Edgewood’s property.  The historic significance of the old stone wall was raised to 
stop the project. 
(3)  
Edgewood filed a Subdivision Land Development application and an 
Exploratory Record Major Land Development Plan (collectively, “the Plans”).  
The Plans called for removal of 850 feet of the stone wall.  The review process 
proceeded as follows:  The Plans were sent to Department of Land Use Planner 
Michael Bennett and Engineer Stacey McNatt for review.  They, in turn, forwarded 
the matter to the Department’s Historic Preservation Section (“HPS”).  HPS 
forwarded the Plans to the Historic Review Board (“HRB”), after opining that the 
wall did not meet the criteria for historic zoning.  After a hearing, the HRB 
recommended that the Plans be rejected because the wall was of historic 
significance.  
(4)  
Despite the HRB’s recommendation, Bennett and McNatt reached a 
different conclusion.  They determined, as did HPS, that the wall did not qualify as 
a historic resource under the New Castle County Unified Development Code 
(“UDC”).  A New Castle County Councilman protested the determination in a 
letter to Charles Baker, the General Manager for the Department of Land Use.  
Counsel for Edgewood also wrote to Baker, seeking confirmation that it could 
remove the wall.  In February 2005, Baker decided by letter that the wall could not 
 4
be removed because it was of historic significance.  In that letter, Baker stated, 
“[t]his is a final decision of the Department of Land Use.  Please see UDC § 
40.31.500 for rights of appeal of the Planning Board if so desired.”   
(5)  
Edgewood appealed the Department of Land Use decision.  Instead of 
following the suggestion in Baker’s February 2005 letter that the right of appeal 
was to the Planning Board, Edgewood filed its appeal with the Board of 
Adjustment.  Edgewood did so after its counsel conferred with counsel for the 
Department of Land Use on the proper venue for the appeal.  The Board of 
Adjustment held a hearing in July 2005.  Notwithstanding Friends of Paladin’s 
jurisdictional challenge, the Board of Adjustment proceeded with the hearing, 
applied the criteria of the UDC, and ultimately concluded that the Department’s 
decision was not supported by the evidence.  In August 2005, Friends of Paladin 
filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the Superior Court, in which  
Friends of Paladin claimed that the Board of Adjustment lacked jurisdiction over 
the matter.   
(6)  
The Superior Court rejected Friends of Paladin’s argument, finding 
that the Board of Adjustment had jurisdiction because the Department of Land Use 
had made a zoning, and not a subdivision, decision.  The Superior Court denied 
Friends of Paladin’s motion for reargument and this appeal followed. 
 5
(7)  
The Board of Adjustment is empowered to hear appeals in zoning 
matters under State2 and County law.3  The Planning Board is empowered to hear 
appeals in subdivision matters.4  The issue in this appeal is whether Edgewood 
appealed a zoning decision or a subdivision decision.  If the decision of the 
Department of Land Use was a zoning matter, the Board of Adjustment acted 
within its jurisdiction.  If the Department of Land Use made a subdivision decision, 
the Board of Adjustment lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.  We agree with the 
Superior Court that the statutory scheme demonstrates the Department of Land Use 
made a zoning decision and therefore, the Board of Adjustment had jurisdiction to 
hear Edgewood’s appeal. 
(8)  
Friends of Paladin relies upon Arbour Park  Civic Ass’n, Inc. v. Bd. of 
Adjustment of the City of Newark.5  Their reliance is misplaced.  In Arbour Park, 
the issue was, as stated by the Superior Court, “whether or not the Board of 
Adjustment, created to hear zoning appeals, has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from 
                                          
 
2 9 Del. C. § 1313(a)(1) (“The Board of Adjustment shall be entitled to hear and decide: (1) 
Appeals in zoning matters where error is alleged in any order, requirement, decision or 
determination made by an administrative officer or agency in the enforcement of any zoning 
ordinance, code regulation or map . . . .”). 
3 UDC § 40.30.320 (“The Board of Adjustment, consisting of seven (7) members, shall be 
empowered to hear and decide all of the following: A. Appeals in zoning matters where error is 
alleged in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative officer or 
agency in the enforcement of any zoning ordinance, code, regulation or map.”) (emphasis 
added). 
4 UDC § 40.30.310. 
5 1969 WL 99824 (Del. Super.). 
 6
an order of the City Manager, calling for bids for the construction of sidewalks in 
Arbour Park . . . .”6  Sidewalks were regulated by Chapter 12 of the Newark Code.  
There is nothing in the opinion to suggest that Chapter 12 was designated by the 
Newark Code as a “Zoning Regulation.”  Indeed, as the trial judge in that case 
explained, “[t]he argument of appellant, that the Board of Adjustment does have 
jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, has merit only if the subdivision regulations 
are, in fact, a zoning matter.”7  Here, Article 15 is specifically designated as a 
“Zoning Regulation.”   
(9)  
The terms “Zoning regulations” and “Subdivision regulations” are 
defined in Section 40.33.300 of the UDC.  More specifically, “Zoning regulations” 
is defined in “Articles 1-15, 30-33,” and “Subdivision regulations” is defined in 
“Articles 1, 20-27 and 30-33 of this Chapter.”  The criteria within Article 15, a 
zoning regulation, were used in this case as the principal basis to determine 
whether the stone wall was of historical significance.8  The application of a zoning 
regulation is a zoning matter.  Because the application of the criteria under Article 
15 was at issue, the decision of the Department of Land Use to deny the 
development plan because the stone wall is historic, was a zoning matter.  
                                          
 
6 Id. at *2 
7 Id. 
8 UDC § 40.15.110.  
 7
Therefore, the Superior Court correctly concluded that the Board of Adjustment 
had jurisdiction over Edgewood’s appeal. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice