Title: Port Penn Hunting Lodge Association v. Meyer, et al.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
PORT PENN HUNTING LODGE 
§ 
ASSOCIATION, a Delaware General 
§ 
Partnership,  
 
 
 
§ 
No. 235, 2019 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Petitioner-Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellant, 
 
 
 
§ 
Court Below: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Court of Chancery 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
MATTHEW S. MEYER, individually 
§ 
 
and in his official capacity as the   
§ 
C.A. No. 2018-0328 TMR 
County Executive for New Castle   
§ 
County, NEW CASTLE COUNTY, 
§ 
a political subdivision of the State of  
§ 
Delaware, TRACY SURLES, 
 
§ 
individually and in her official capacity § 
as the General Manager of Special  
§ 
Services for New Castle County,  
§ 
MARY A. JACOBSON, individually 
§ 
and in her official capacity as Legal 
§ 
Counsel to the Department of Land Use § 
for New Castle County, RICHARD E. 
§ 
HALL, individually and in his official 
§ 
capacity as the General Manager of the § 
Department of Land Use for New Castle § 
County, 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Respondents-Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellees. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted:  November 13, 2019 
Decided:  November 18, 2019 
 
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
This 18th day of November, 2019, having considered this matter on the briefs and 
oral arguments of the parties and the record below, and having concluded that the same 
should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned by the Court of Chancery 
in its Memorandum Opinion dated May 9, 2019; 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of Chancery 
be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                              
1 We note that the Court of Chancery rejected Appellant’s regulatory taking argument because of 
Appellant’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies.  Port Penn Hunting Lodge Ass’n v. Meyer, 
2019 WL 2077600, at *7 (Del. Ch. May 9, 2019) (observing that, “Section 40.31.600 of New 
Castle County’s Unified Development Code requires a petitioner pursuing a Takings claim to first 
pursue the administrative remedy of a beneficial use appeal with the New Castle County Board of 
Adjustment.”).  In defending the court’s rejection of Appellant’s “takings” claim, the County 
argued to this Court in its brief that, “Port Penn, however, does not allege that it has been denied 
all economically viable use of the land because it cannot – it may unquestionably develop its 
property using septic systems.”  Answering Br. at 27.  At oral argument, the County raised new 
facts on this issue which contradict these statements in its briefing.  For example, it advised this 
Court that it has enacted a moratorium on the installation of septic systems.  See Oral Argument 
Video at 19:26–19:38, https://livestream.com/accounts/5969852/events/8882479/videos/198891718 
(informing the Court that Appellant cannot currently develop the property with individual septic 
systems because “the County Council has passed a moratorium on those . . . .”).  The new facts 
raised at oral argument are not technically part of the record before us, and so we do not consider 
them.  They may be relevant in any further administrative proceedings before the New Castle 
Board of Adjustment.