Title: Christiana Town Center,LLC et al. v. New Castle County, et al.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
CHRISTIANA TOWN CENTER, 
 
) 
LLC., CTC PHASE II, LLC, and 
 
)  No. 189, 2009 
CTC EAST, LLC,  
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  Court Below:  Court of Chancery 
 
 
Appellants,  
 
 
)  of the State of Delaware in and 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  for New Castle County 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  File No. 4044 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
NEW CASTLE COUNTY, 
 
 
) 
SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., and  
) 
KRC ACQUISITIONS, INC.,  
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
Appellees.  
 
 
) 
 
Submitted:  October 21, 2009 
Decided:  December 1, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, BERGER, JACOBS and 
RIDGELY, Justices constituting the court en banc. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 1st day of December, it appears to the Court that:  
(1) 
Christiana Town Center, LLC; CTC Phase II, LLC; and CTC East, 
LLC appeal the Vice Chancellor’s decision upholding the New Castle County 
Council’s approval of KRC Acquisitions, Inc. and Sears, Roebuck and Co., Inc.’s 
rezoning and development project.  CTC argues the Vice Chancellor erroneously 
decided that (1) the Unified Development Code ambiguously defines major plans, 
(2) the County Council’s interpretation of the UDC deserves deference, and (3) 
 
 
2 
Sears’ rezoning does not constitute a major plan.  We find no merit to CTC’s 
argument and AFFIRM. 
(2) 
Sears submitted an exploratory sketch to the New Castle County 
Department of Land Use that set out Sears’ plan for a 447,000 square-foot 
shopping center on 45 acres of land.  Sears also requested rezoning to Commercial, 
Retail to make the property appropriate for community and regional commercial 
services. 
(3) 
Sears offered to build a stormwater management system to alleviate 
drainage problems on the adjoining land.  Additionally, Sears proposed expanding 
Eagle Run Road across the property to connect Routes 273 and 7 and to decrease 
traffic congestion in the area. 
(4) 
The New Castle County Planning Board and the Department of Land 
Use approved Sears’ preliminary plan and recommended that the County Council 
approve the rezoning.  DelDOT expected Sears’ plan and other developments to 
increase traffic surrounding the property.  Accordingly, DelDOT recommended 
conditioning the issuance of any building permits on Sears’ reaching an agreement 
with DelDOT to fund part of the road-improvement costs. 
(5) 
CTC sent a letter to the County Council urging it to deny the rezoning.  
It alleged that the Eagle Run-Route 273 intersection already suffered from 
dangerous congestion, and that constructing a new shopping center on Eagle Run 
 
 
3 
Road would only make the problem worse.  Second, CTC asserted that the UDC 
required Sears to submit a traffic impact study for this rezoning.  CTC presented its 
argument in person, when the County Council met to consider the rezoning. 
(6) 
The County Council unanimously approved the rezoning to 
Commercial, Regional.  CTC then sued Sears, KRC, and New Castle County in the 
Court of Chancery.  The Vice Chancellor dismissed the suit, holding that the plan 
complied with the requirements of the UDC.  CTC appeals from that judgment. 
(7) 
Generally, a developer must obtain a TIS of the proposed 
development’s capacity to support traffic the new project will generate.1  In the 
TIS, an engineer estimates how much additional traffic the new site will generate 
and determines the surrounding intersections’ ability to handle that additional 
volume.2  Article 8 of the UDC exempts a property owner seeking to redevelop an 
existing property from the TIS requirement, when the owner promises to bring the 
property into greater harmony with the overall objectives of the UDC.3   The 
parties dispute whether Sears’ plan meets this exemption. 
                                                 
1 UDC § 40.11.130. 
2 Id.  DelDOT must also review the report.  UDC § 40.11.140. 
3 UDC § 40.08. 
 
 
4 
(8) 
Traffic and other adverse effects of development in New Castle 
County inspired the UDC’s adoption in 1997.4  The UDC, therefore, encourages 
developers to revitalize existing properties, reduce sprawl, and bring older 
properties up to code.  Sears asserts that its proposal meets these objectives by 
bringing the property into conformity with land use requirements that did not exist 
during its initial development over forty years ago.  Sears’ plan also addresses 
stormwater management and traffic decongestion issues. 
(9) 
The parties agree that § 40.08.130(b)(6)(e)(7) exempts major plans 
from the TIS requirement,5 but disagree whether a plan that requires rezoning can 
benefit from this provision.  CTC contends that Sears requires rezoning separately 
from approval of the general plan, and that this separate request triggers a TIS 
requirement.  The County Council decided, to the contrary, that § 
40.08.130(b)(6)(e)(7) only requires a TIS if DelDOT requests one.  CTC contends 
that the County Council misinterpreted this provision of its own code. 
(10) CTC asserts that § 40.31.113, which governs the preliminary planning 
process, recognizes different procedures for rezonings and “Preliminary Plans 
Without Rezoning.”  CTC contends that §§ 40.11.150 and 40.11.155 prove a 
                                                 
4 UDC § 30.01.015(D)(1) (stating that the UDC should promote an adequate transportation 
system). 
5 “An operational analysis may be required for major plans. A traffic impact study shall only be 
required if requested by DelDOT.” 
 
 
5 
distinction between rezoning and a major plan, under the UDC, because a major 
plan without a rezoning or a rezoning without a major plan may require a TIS. 
(11) Sears counters that § 40.08.130(B)(6)(c)(2) defines major plan 
irrespective of rezonings, because major plans without a rezoning may skip the 
preliminary review phase and move directly from exploratory sketch to final record 
plan.6  Sears contends that this section establishes that, without qualification, the 
mere reference to major plans includes plans with and without rezonings. 
(12) As the UDC does not resolve the ambiguity in the definition of major 
plan, we turn to Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary.  Webster’s defines major as 
“greater in number, quantity, or extent: larger,”7 and plan as “a drawing or diagram 
drawn on a plane.”8  CTC asserts that, under these definitions, a major plan does 
not include a rezoning because a rezoning changes the zoning of land, not a 
diagram or drawing.  Sears contends that a rezoning is a major plan, because the 
County Council passed a rezoning ordinance for a drawing or diagram of the plan.  
The dictionary does not assist our understanding of major plans in the UDC. 
(13) On appeal, CTC asserts that the Vice Chancellor erroneously deferred 
to the County Council’s decision.  The County Council acts as an administrative 
                                                 
6 UDC § 40.08.130(B)(6)(c)(2). 
7 WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY, at 1363. 
8 Id. at 1729. 
 
 
6 
agency when considering zoning ordinances, and receives deference when 
interpreting its own rules.  CTC cites an inapposite decision,9 in which we rejected 
this deferential standard of review when an administrative agency interpreted a 
statute.  We did not defer to the agency’s decision in DiPasquale because, unlike 
this County Council decision, it did not interpret its own rules. 
(14) The UDC ambiguously defines major plans and CTC has failed to 
persuade us otherwise.  Because the County Council’s interpretation of its UDC 
does not clearly err, in order to reverse the County Council and the Vice 
Chancellor, we would be forced to substitute our judgment for theirs, respectively, 
on how to define “major plan.”  We will not do so.   
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of 
Chancery is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
                                                 
9 Public Water Supply Co. v. DiPasquale, 735 A.2d 378 (Del. 1999).