Opinion ID: 1940596
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Commission Lacked the Power to Deny a Legally Conforming Subdivision Plan

Text: The central dispute on this appeal concerns the scope of the Commission's discretion to approve or disapprove a subdivision application. Because subdivision control involves the specific application of the applicable general standards to the particular facts of a proposed subdivision, [16] the Commission has quasi-judicial power. The Commission does not exist merely to rubberstamp every application that comes before it. [17] Most certainly it has a measure of discretion. [18] Ashburn claims, however, that under the statutory scheme in existence at the time its subdivision plan was rejected, the Commission lacked the power to deny a subdivision plan that complied legally with all applicable zoning and subdivision requirements. The Commission responds that 9 Del. C. § 4961 commands that the Commission consult with other state agencies when considering a subdivision application. Moreover, in cases where the relevant state agencies present compelling reasons to deny the subdivision application, the Commission has discretion to deny even a fully conforming subdivision plan. 9 Del. C. § 4811 empowers the Commission to approve, approve with conditions, disapprove or table a subdivision application. That statute grants the Commission discretion when determining the proper disposition of a subdivision application. The scope of the Commission's discretion is not explicit from the face of that statute. Ashburn claims that the fact that the General Assembly has empowered the Commission to approve a subdivision application with conditions, evidences the legislature's intent to prohibit the Commission from denying an application based upon the information it receives regarding the future impact of a proposed development. The Commission relies upon 9 Del. C. § 4802 to support its claim that its discretion is much broader, and includes the power to deny a conforming application based on concerns presented by other agencies. That statute describes the Commission's purpose as being to: [P]romot[e] health, safety, prosperity and general welfare, as well as for the purpose of securing coordinated plans for roads, airways, railways, public buildings, parks, playgrounds, civic centers, airports, commercial, industrial and residential developments, water supplies, sewers and sewage disposal, drainage and other improvements and utilities... as well as for the purpose of preventing the unnecessary duplication of such improvements or utilities.... Additionally, the Commission relies on 9 Del. C. § 4961(b), which states: As part of its review of ... subdivision application[s], the county government through its designated local planning agency shall request and review information from all state and local agencies and local school districts ... and shall file as part of the record any written information provided by such state and local agencies or local school districts with respect to the ... subdivision application. Based on these two statutory provisions, the Commission argues that its discretion includes the power to deny a subdivision application based on concerns relating to the health, safety and welfare of the community, even if the application otherwise complies with all State and County Code requirements. The issue is whether the Commission's argued-for statutory interpretation is correct. An ambiguous statute should be construed `in a way that will promote its apparent purpose and harmonize it with other statutes' within the statutory scheme. [19] The Commission here claims statutory authority to deny applications based on comments from state agencies that implicate the health, welfare and safety of the community. But, the very statutes upon which the Commission relies provide only that the Commission consider that information. The statutes do not, either expressly or by implication, give the Commission unfettered discretion to deny an otherwise legally conforming subdivision application based on impact-related concerns expressed by commenting state agencies. The provisions in force at the time Ashburn's application was considered do support the view that the Commission may consider non-Code factors (such as comments by other state agencies) to inform Commission approval of a conforming subdivision application with conditions. Those provisions do not, however, support a conclusion that such factors establish grounds to deny a subdivision application that otherwise fully conforms to all applicable Zoning and Subdivision Code provisions. Delaware case law supports this conclusion. In DiFrancesco v. Mayor and Town Council of Elsmere, a local planning commission argued that it has the power to completely reject a site plan for a project that complies with the zoning ordinance if it is fairly debatable that the project would adversely impact the public health, safety, welfare, comfort, and convenience of the neighborhood. [20] That argument was essentially the same as that being advanced by the Commission here, and the DiFrancesco court rejected it, stating: When people purchase land zoned for a specific use, they are entitled to rely on the fact that they can implement that use provided the project complies with all of the specific criteria found in ordinances and subject to reasonable conditions which the Planning Commission may impose in order to minimize any adverse impact on nearby landowners and residents. To hold otherwise would subject a purchaser of land zoned for a specific use to the future whim or caprice of the Commission by clothing it with the ability to impose ad hoc requirements on the use of land not specified anywhere in the ordinances. The result would be the imposition of uncertainty on all landowners respecting whether they can safely rely on the permitted uses conferred on their land under the zoning ordinances. [21] The reasoning of DiFrancesco is persuasive and we adopt it here. If the Commission is empowered to deny proposals that meet all applicable statutory and Code criteria, purchasers of land would be left unable to predict whether they can develop their land in accordance with the pertinent zoning ordinances, or whether instead the County may prevent development based upon non-Code related ad hoc determinations. Here, Ashburn purchased land zoned AC, a classification that permits the kind of subdivision development that Ashburn was proposing. Upholding a denial of Ashburn's plan even though it complied with all Kent County Code criteria, would upset Ashburn's reasonable development expectations when it purchased the land for development. Similarly, in JNK, LLC v. Kent County Regional Planning Commission a land owner submitted to the Commission a plan to subdivide property that, like Ashburn's property, was zoned AC and fell outside the Growth Zone. [22] The Commission denied the application based on infrastructure, health, safety, and welfare concerns. [23] Moreover, the Commission did not identify any aspect of the application that failed to conform to the requirements in the County Code. The Superior Court initially remanded the case to the Commission so that the Commission can make its determination based on the subdivision regulations, the zoning regulations and any other pertinent regulations contained within the KCC. [24] After the case returned to the Superior Court, the court instructed the Commission as follows: (1) [I]f the Commission finds that all the regulations are complied with, the plan is approved; (2) if the Commission finds that all the regulations are complied with, but the Commission has some concerns it desires to condition final plan approval on, the approval is made contingent on the completion of those requirements; (3) if the Commission finds that some regulation is not complied with, the plan is denied; or (4) if the Commission finds that in order to determine if the regulations have been complied with more information is required, the plan is tabled until the information has been provided. [25] That court's instruction was legally correct. The dissent implies that our interpretation of 9 Del. C. § 4811 reduces the Commission to conducting a mere compliance check of a subdivision application to verify conformity with the County Code. This mischaracterizes our position. To summarize, the Commission may condition its approval of Ashburn's subdivision application based on non-Code factors, such as agency recommendations, school capacity issues, and concerns regarding the health, safety and welfare of the community. The Commission may consider these issues and has discretion in formulating conditions on approval designed to harmonize and coordinate regional planning. But, the Commission's power to impose conditions cannot be administratively enlarged to a power to deny a conforming application outright. [26] In this case the Commission did not approve the application with conditions. Therefore, in denying Ashburn's application, which fully complied with all provisions of the Kent County Code, the Commission exceeded its statutory power. Because we conclude that the Superior Court and the Commission legally erred for the reasons stated above, we do not reach the issue of whether the Commission had substantial evidence to support its decision.