Court Opinion

ID: 9699141
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:11:32.647414+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:46.861180
License: Public Domain

RIDGELY, Justice,
dissenting:
The majority correctly recognizes that the Kent County Regional Planning Commission is vested with quasi-judicial power to review Ashburn’s subdivision application. In 9 Del. C. § 4811, the General Assembly expressly authorized the Regional Planning Commission of Kent County (the “Commission”) to “approve, approve with conditions, disapprove or table” a subdivision application.27 By holding that the Commission may not reject Ashburn’s subdivision application, the majority incorrectly deprives the Commission of the power the General Assembly conferred upon it to “disapprove” an application that fails to coordinate with regional planning in Kent County.
“For the purpose of promoting health, safety, prosperity and general welfare,” the General Assembly required that Kent County establish a Regional Planning Commission.28 The Commission must review and approve all subdivision plans before they are recorded.29 The Commission is specifically charged with securing “coordinated plans for roads ... commercial, industrial and residential developments, water supplies, sewers and sewage disposal, drainage and other improvements and utilities....”30
In carrying out its function, the Commission is not constrained in its review of the submitted subdivision application to a mere compliance check with the Kent County subdivision ordinance. Instead, it is expressly “empowered to act in conjunction and cooperation with representatives, agencies, or officers of the United States government, this State, any other state, or any county, city or town within or without this State.”31 This cooperation is mandatory,32 By enacting the statute and ordinance, State and local governments have placed each property owner on notice that coordination with plans for roads, other developments and utilities is a condition for any subdivision approval. Specifically, “[a]s part of its review of a rezoning or subdivision application, the county government through its designated planning agency shall request and review information for all state and local agencies and local school districts.... If the planning agency makes recommendations that are *244in conflict with the information supplied by state and local agencies or local school districts, it must explain its reasons for doing so in writing.”33
Under this statutory scheme, it is the Commission which enforces coordinated regional planning.34 The statutory charge of the Commission is frustrated if the Commission must approve a subdivision application regardless of any objections made before it relating to the matters that all are on notice that it must consider under § 4802.
The cases relied upon by the majority are either distinguishable or support the Commission’s position. DiFrancesco v. Mayor and Town Council of Elsmere35 is distinguishable because it involved the planning commission of an incorporated town in New Castle County. DiFrancesco involved a statutory framework different from 9 Del. C. Chs. 48 and 49. JNK, LLC v. Kent County Regional Planning Commission 36 supports the Commission’s argument that it has quasi-judicial authority to apply general standards to the particular facts of a proposed subdivision. The Superior Court’s reversal in JNK was not because of a lack of power to disapprove a subdivision application. Rather, it was due to the lack of any reference to specific facts or legal provisions that would allow the court to determine whether substantial evidence existed on the record to support the Commission’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.37
There is substantial evidence in the record before us to support the Commission’s findings that 1) infrastructure is not in place to support this subdivision, 2) the subdivision is outside the Kent County Growth Zone, and 3) the subdivision would adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the community, especially the Amish community. The evidence before the Commission demonstrated that the proposed subdivision plan does not coordinate with the plans of the state, county or school district which the Commission was required to consider. In my view, the Commission’s denial of the subdivision application was a proper exercise of the limited discretion expressly conferred upon it by the General Assembly.
I respectfully dissent.

. 9 Del. C. § 4811 (emphasis added).

. 9 Del. C. §§ 4802, 4803.

. 9 Del. C. §§ 4810, 4811.

. 9 Del. C. § 4802.

. 9 Del. C. § 4813(b).

. 9 Del. C. §§ 4819, 4961. 9 Del. C. Ch. 49 provides zoning statutes specific to Kent County.

. 9 Del. C. § 4961(b) (emphasis added).

. See 9 Del. C. §§ 4802, 4813, 4819, 4961.

. 2007 WL 1874761 (Del.Super. June 28, 2007), aff'd 947 A.2d 1122 (Del.2008).

.2007 WL 1653508 (Del.Super. May 9, 2007); 2007 WL 2319471 (Del.Super. July 11, 2007).

.2007 WL 1653508, at *6.