Delaware Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control v. Sussex County
34 A.3d 1087
| Del. | 2011Background
- DNREC promulgated PCS Regulations in 2008 to implement the Inland Bays PCS; Sections 4 (Buffer Zone Established) and 5 (Sediment and Stormwater Controls) create a 100-foot water quality buffer affecting land uses near Inland Bays.
- Sussex County and several landowners challenged DNREC arguing the PCS Regulations exceed state authority and encroach on local zoning power; Superior Court voided Sections 4 and the related parts of Section 5 as illegal zoning.
- DNREC argued the buffers are pollution-control measures promulgated under title 7, chapter 60, not zoning, and thus within DNREC’s authority.
- The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed whether the PCS Regulations constitute zoning and conflict with Sussex County Zoning Ordinance § 115-193; standard of review is de novo for questions of law.
- Court held that the PCS Regulations do constitute zoning and directly conflict with Sussex County’s zoning authority; therefore DNREC exceeded its statutory powers and the Superior Court’s voiding of Sections 4 and 5 was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Sections 4 and 5 constitute zoning? | Sussex County argues they are zoning; PCS buffers regulate land use. | DNREC contends buffers are pollution-control measures, not zoning. | Yes; they constitute zoning. |
| Do the PCS Regulations directly conflict with Sussex County’s Zoning Ordinance? | Conflict exists because PCS imposes buffers and site-plan requirements restricting local land use. | Two regulations can operate concurrently if no direct conflict. | Yes; direct conflict exists. |
| Does DNREC have authority to enact zoning-like restrictions? | General pollution-control authority does not authorize zoning. | Statutory authority to effect pollution control includes related land-use restrictions. | No; DNREC lacks zoning authority; regulations exceed powers. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cantinca v. Fontana, 884 A.2d 468 (Del. 2005) (State and subdivision regulations may coexist so long as no conflict exists)
- Hayward v. Gaston, 542 A.2d 760 (Del. 1988) (setbacks/buffers are part of zoning and land-use regulation)
- New Castle Cnty. Council v. BC Dev. Assocs., 567 A.2d 1271 (Del. 1989) (home-rule framework preserves county zoning authority and local decision-making)