Title: McLaughlin v. Board of Adjustment of New Castle County, et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 15, 2009
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 7, 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
PAUL J. MCLAUGHLIN and  
) 
LISA C. MCLAUGHLIN, 
 
)  No. 15, 2009 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
Defendants Below, 
 
)  Court Below:  Superior Court 
 
 
Appellants,  
 
)  of the State of Delaware in 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
)  and for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF  
)  C.A. No. 07A-07-003 
NEW CASTLE COUNTY,  
 
) 
RONALD FULLER and KRISTINE ) 
FULLER, JEFFREY MARTIN and 
) 
VALERIE MARTIN, 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
Plaintiffs Below,  
) 
 
 
Appellees.  
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
Submitted:  October 14, 2009 
Decided:  December 7, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
Upon appeal from the Superior Court.  AFFIRMED. 
 
 
Lisa C. McLaughlin, Phillips Goldman & Spence, P.A., Wilmington, 
Delaware for appellants. 
 
 
Jeffrey K. Martin, Martin & Associates, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware for 
appellees. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STEELE, Chief Justice: 
 
 2  
Paul and Lisa McLaughlin appeal from a Superior Court judgment affirming two 
decisions of the New Castle County Board of Adjustment granting area variances 
for two property owners.1  The McLaughlins contend the Board incorrectly applied 
the analysis we established in Board of Adjustment of New Castle County v. Kwik-
Check Realty, Inc2 and failed to consider the degree of and the need for the 
variances and the impact of the subdivisions.  Because we find no error in the 
Board’s application of the Kwik-Check factors or the Superior Court’s judgment, 
we also AFFIRM.   
Factual Background and Procedural Background 
Fuller Application 
On July 14, 2006, the Fullers requested a dimensional/area variance to 
support a three-lot subdivision of their 1.85-acre parcel, located in Sedgely Farms, 
Wilmington, Delaware.3  Because of the unusual location of the property, two of 
the three proposed lots required variances.  During the Board’s hearing on August 
24, 2006, the Fullers stated their intent to subdivide the property because Mrs. 
Fuller’s multiple sclerosis had caused financial hardship.  The Board considered a 
                                                 
1   
Ronald and Kristine Fuller and Jeffrey and Valerie Martin, respectively. 
2  
389 A.2d 1289 (Del. 1978). 
3   
The Fuller property is zoned NC-15, a classification requiring a minimum lot size of 
15,000 square feet, frontage on a public street, 100 feet of lot width, 40 feet front and rear yard 
setbacks, and 12 feet side yard setback. 
 
 3  
Recommendation Report by the Department of Land Use, reviewing and 
discussing the legal standards governing a Board’s decision to grant a variance 
pursuant to 9 Del. C. § 1352 and  Kwik-Check.4   
The Department concluded that the variances would neither seriously affect 
the neighboring properties nor adversely affect the area, and that “the hardship as a 
result of a denial will outweigh the minimal likely effect on neighboring properties 
if the variance is granted.”  Despite opposition from neighbors, the Board granted 
the variances, subject to three conditions:  (1) no further subdivision of the lot 
retained by the Fullers, (2) that the Fullers submit a comprehensive stormwater 
management plan for review by New Castle County, and (3) that the Fullers 
provide landscaping between the newly created lots and the adjoining property. 
Martin Application 
On January 31, 2007, the Martins requested a dimensional/area variance to 
support the subdivision of their 2.35 acre-parcel, located at Sedgely Farms.5  At the 
Board’s hearing on April 12, 2007, Valerie Martin testified about the disrepair of 
her home and her intent to subdivide the property to help finance a new home.  The 
Board considered the Recommendation Report by the Department, which favored 
granting the variances.  On June 22, 2007, the Board granted the variances.    
                                                 
4   
389 A.2d 1289 (Del. 1978). 
5   
The Martin property is also zoned NC-15, but does not have 100 feet of lot width.   
 
 4  
Claims on Appeal 
The McLaughlins petitioned the Superior Court for a writ of certiorari for 
both variances.  The Superior Court issued a consolidated Opinion and Order 
affirming the Board’s decisions in both cases.  This appeal followed.    
The gist of the McLaughlins’ three assignments of error is that the Board 
misapplied the Kwik-Check factors.  Particularly, they contend that under the Kwik-
Check analysis, the Board may grant an area variance solely for economic reasons 
only if it finds that the variance is minimal and that the Board errs when it fails to 
consider and determine the extent of the requested variances.   
Second, the McLaughlins claim Kwik-Check required the Board to consider 
the effects of the subdivisions on the community resulting from the variances, and 
that the Board misapplied Kwik-Check by considering only the variances’ effect, 
and not the subdivisions’ effects.  Finally, the McLaughlins contend that because 
Fuller and Martin created the difficulties underlying their request for variances, the 
Board erred by finding simply that the Fullers and the Martins demonstrated 
“exceptional practical difficulties.” 
Standard of Review 
Upon review of a Zoning Board decision, we apply the same standard as 
applied by the Superior Court.  We limit our review to correcting errors of law and 
determining whether substantial evidence exists to support the Board’s findings of 
 
 5  
fact. 6  When sufficient evidence exists, we will not reweigh it and substitute our 
own judgment for that of the Board.  7  
Discussion 
We agree with the Superior Court’s well-reasoned discussion of the 
McLaughlins’ claims in McLaughlin v. Board of Adjustment of New Castle County, 
C. A. No. 07A-07-003, and find no error.  Accordingly, while we affirm on the 
basis of the opinion below, we make these additional observations.   
In their briefs, the McLaughlins contend that the Board may grant an area 
variance solely for economic reasons only if it finds that the variance is minimal.  
In Kwik-Check, we rejected a similar position advanced by the Board and observed 
that under the exceptional practical difficulty test “[a] practical difficulty is present 
where the requested dimensional change is minimal and the harm to the applicant 
if the variance is denied will be greater than the probable effect on neighboring 
properties if the variance is granted.”8   
                                                 
6   
Janaman v. New Castle County Bd. Of Adjustment, 364 A.2d 1241, 1241 (Del. Super. 
1976), aff’d, 379 A.2d 1118 (Del. 1977) (TABLE); Cooch’s Bridge Civic Ass’n v. Pencader 
Corp., 254 A.2d 608, 609-10 (Del. 1969)).  See also Sawers v. New Castle County Bd. Of 
Adjustment, 550 A.2d 35 (TABLE), 1988 WL 117514 at *2 (Del. Oct. 26, 1988).   
7   
Groves v. Bd. Of Adjustment of Sussex County, 1987 WL 25469, at *1 (Del. Super. Nov. 
10, 1987) (citing Searles v. Darling, 83 A.2d 96 (Del.  1951). 
8  
Kwik-Check, 389 A.2d at 1291. (emphasis added). 
 
 6  
Our statement, on which the McLaughlins rely, does not mandate that the 
Board make a separate analytic step when considering an “economically 
motivated” application for an area variance.  Rather, our observation was a specific 
example of how the Board should consider the four factors, weighing the potential 
harm to the neighboring properties by granting the variance against the potential 
harm to the property owner by denying it.  Because the McLaughlins’ first claim of 
error rests on an incorrect premise, it must fail.   
The McLaughlins’ next assignment of error – that the Board erred by failing 
to evaluate the effects of the subdivisions on the neighboring properties – raises a 
factual issue without regard to the record.  Several concerns raised by opposing 
residents included adverse effect on property values, stormwater management, 
private nature of lots, and lot size in keeping with the community.  For the Fuller 
variance, the record shows that the Board placed three conditions on its grant “to 
satisfy concerns voiced by Sedgely Farms residents.”   
Similarly, in its decision on the Martin application, the Board discussed the 
opposing neighbors’ concerns and stated that the Martins would address the 
stormwater, drainage, and landscaping issues raised by the subdivisions.  The 
record sufficiently demonstrates that the Board considered the effects of 
subdividing and recommended mechanisms to minimize any potential negative 
 
 7  
effects the variances had, and that these ultimate subdivisions might cause, to the 
community. 
The McLaughlins third claim of legal error is that the Board misapplied the 
law because it could not properly find that the Fullers and the Martins showed 
“exceptional practical difficulties” because the Fullers and the Martins created 
those very difficulties.  The McLaughlins rely on the principle that “[a] self-
imposed condition or violation which gives rise to a form of self-imposed hardship 
is generally not such hardship as is sufficient to sustain a variance.”9  They contend 
that the Fullers and the Martins “self-created” their need for the variances.  
Granting the variances would therefore “sanction[] or reward[] code violations, and 
thus, stimulate[e] their occurrence.”10 
This claim of error must fail because the variances remedied difficulties that 
were not self-created; rather, the Fullers’ and the Martins’ respective difficulties 
resulted from inherent and pre-existing characteristics of their properties that 
operate to preclude subdivisions that would otherwise be permitted.  Particularly, 
the variances remedy the idiosyncratic location of the Fuller property at the end of 
a private driveway and the smaller lot width of the Martin property. 
                                                 
9   
Janaman, 364 A.2d at 1243. 
10   
Id. 
 
 8  
Assuming arguendo that the Fullers and the Martins created the difficulties 
that generated the need for variances, that alone would not suffice to deny the 
variances.  “In Delaware, there is no per se bar against a variance for a self-
imposed hardship.”11  The question is whether an applicant has adequately 
demonstrated that his difficulty justifies the grant of a variance.   
9 Del. C. § 1352(a)(3) empowers the Board to grant variances “where, 
owing to special conditions or exceptional situation[s], a literal interpretation of the 
provisions of any zoning ordinance, code or regulation will result in … exceptional 
practical difficulties to the owner of property so that the spirit of the ordinance, 
code, or regulation shall be observed and substantial justice done.”  The special 
characteristics of the two subject properties were properly found to constitute 
“special conditions or exceptional situation[s]” creating the Fullers’ and the 
Martins’ difficulties.   
Conclusion 
Because the Board did not err in its application of the Kwik-Check factors 
and its findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence, the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
11   
CCS Investors LLC v. Brown, 977 A.2d 301, 314 (Del. 2009) (reviewing the grant of a 
use variance).