Summary
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the invalidation of a New Castle County Council rezoning vote concerning the redevelopment of Barley Mill Plaza. The court held that the Council’s vote was arbitrary and capricious because erroneous legal advice led it to believe that traffic information was unavailable and irrelevant before the discretionary rezoning vote, even though the information could have been obtained and considered. The court did not reach related cross-appeal questions concerning whether applicable statutes or the Unified Development Code required consideration of the traffic analysis.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Court of Chancery properly invalidated the County Council's rezoning vote as arbitrary and capricious because erroneous legal advice caused the Council to vote without legally available, material traffic information.
- Whether the Supreme Court should reach the cross-appellants' arguments that 9 Del. C. § 2662 or the Unified Development Code required the Council to obtain and consider a traffic analysis before its discretionary rezoning vote.
Holdings
- The Council's rezoning vote was arbitrary and capricious because a mistake of law caused the Council to vote without obtaining traffic information that was legally available, objectively relevant, and material to the deliberative process, including to the dispositive vote of Councilman Weiner.
- The Court declined to decide whether § 2662 or the UDC required the Council to receive and consider a traffic analysis before its discretionary rezoning vote because affirmance rested on the narrower mistake-of-law ground.
Key quotations
“The Court of Chancery, therefore, was correct to conclude that this mistake of law rendered the ultimate vote of the Council arbitrary and capricious.” (at 64)
“Instead, we rest our affirmance solely on the same narrow ground on which the Court of Chancery itself premised its invalidation of the Council’s rezoning vote and leave open the important questions of whether either § 2662 or the UDC requires a transportation analysis to be provided to the Council before its discretionary vote.” (at 65)
Factual background
Barley Mill purchased a 92-acre office-park property and proposed redeveloping it into a larger office complex with a regional shopping mall and other commercial uses. The redevelopment required rezoning approximately 37 acres from Office Regional to Commercial Regional. During the Council's consideration, members were repeatedly advised that traffic information was unavailable or legally irrelevant before the discretionary rezoning vote, although no legal obstacle prevented the Council from obtaining or considering it. The Council approved the rezoning seven to six, and Councilman Weiner cast a dispositive vote after expressly stating that the absence of traffic information was material to his decision.
Procedural history
Barley Mill sought to rezone approximately 37 acres of its property to permit an expanded office complex and regional shopping mall. The County Council approved the rezoning by a seven-to-six vote. The Court of Chancery held that the Council's vote was arbitrary and capricious because erroneous legal advice caused the Council to vote without traffic information that was legally available and material to the deliberative process. The Supreme Court affirmed on that narrow ground and declined to reach the cross-appeal concerning whether § 2662 or the UDC required the Council to obtain and consider the traffic analysis before voting.