Barley Mill, LLC v. Save Our County, Inc.
2014 Del. LEXIS 143
| Del. | 2014Background
- Barley Mill sought rezoning for the Second Plan, enabling a large mixed-use development including a regional mall on about 37 acres.
- Council members were advised that traffic information was unavailable to them and not legally relevant before the discretionary vote, a view later found incorrect.
- The Court of Chancery invalidated the Council’s rezoning vote as arbitrary and capricious due to a mistaken legal regime governing traffic information.
- The rezoning process intersects with the UDC and § 2662, which require traffic analyses but whose timing and availability to the Council were contested.
- An amendment to the UDC in 2010 changed the two-step process but did not expressly bar traffic consideration at the preliminary stage for this case.
- The Supreme Court affirmatively upheld the Chancery decision on the narrow ground that a mistaken law deprived the Council of material traffic information before the vote.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether traffic analysis must precede the vote | Barley Mill argues traffic information was legally available and should have been considered. | Save Our County/NCC contends traffic analysis need not be considered before the vote. | Issue not reached; Court declines to address statutory timing. |
| Whether a mistake of law invalidates a rezoning vote | Weiner’s dispositive vote was tainted by missing information caused by legal error. | Vote validity should be judged by record and final statements, not errors. | Held: Court affirmed; mistaken law rendered the vote arbitrary and capricious. |
| Scope of Tate review | Court should limit review to final statements made when voting. | Court may review entire record to determine if law and process were properly followed. | Held: Court properly reviewed the record beyond the final statement; Tate's framework applied case-specifically. |
| Whether § 2662 or the UDC mandate traffic analysis before the vote | Both statutes require consideration of traffic data prior to the vote. | No mandatory pre-vote traffic analysis is required by these provisions. | Held: Court declined to address these questions on appeal; affirmed on other grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tate v. Miles, 503 A.2d 187 (Del. 1986) (court review when reasons for decision are not on record)
- Willdel Realty, Inc. v. New Castle County, 281 A.2d 612 (Del.1971) (arbitrary and capricious standard in zoning)
- Deptula v. Horace Mann Ins. Co., 842 A.2d 1235 (Del.2004) (addressing a narrow issue and deferring broader questions)
- CCS Investors, LLC v. Brown, 977 A.2d 301 (Del.2009) (de novo review standard for zoning decisions)
- Sagarra Inversiones, S.L. v. Cementos Portland Valderrivas, S.A., 34 A.3d 1074 (Del.2011) (court affirmed on narrow grounds; broader issues left for legislature)