New Castle County v. Pike Creek Recreational Services, LLC
82 A.3d 731
| Del. Ch. | 2013Background
- 1964 Agreement and 1969 Amendatory Agreement establish a Master Plan with open space set-asides and a specific golf-course use restriction binding the original owners and their successors, with the Levy Court as a third-party beneficiary.
- The 130-acre golf-course set-aside is identified as a specific land-use restriction, to be applied irrespective of ultimate zoning; this restricts use to development of an 18-hole golf course.
- In 1970-71 County Council approved rezonings and the Master Plan/open-space provisions; private plans subsequently labeled the land as private open space related to Pike Creek Valley.
- Three Little Bakers acquired the golf course site and, in 1985, recorded a Declaration restricting uses; in 2008 the County removed deed restrictions on the commercial portion, while the golf course remained subject to the Master Plan.
- PCRS acquired the golf course property in 2008 and planned the Terraces and Hogan Drive development; the County argued the Master Plan barred such development and invoked UDC § 40.31.130, the Restriction Change Statute.
- County filed Chancery action seeking enforcement of the restrictions; PCRS filed a mandamus action in Superior Court; cross-motions for summary judgment and an intervention motion by residents followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the Master Plan restrictions run with the land for 130 acres? | County asserts express covenants bind successors and create a 130-acre golf-set-aside. | PCRS contends no binding covenant runs with the entire tract or 130 acres for ongoing golf-use. | Yes; a 130-acre restrictive covenant runs with the land. |
| Does an implied servitude expand the restriction beyond 130 acres? | County contends implied servitude extends to 177 acres via common development plan. | PCRS argues no implied servitude enlarging the restriction exists. | No; no valid implied servitude enlarging beyond 130 acres. |
| Does the doctrine of merger extinguish the Master Plan restrictions? | County argues merger could erase non-deeded restrictions. | PCRS relies on merger to void Master Plan restrictions not contained in the deed. | No; merger does not extinguish the 130-acre Master Plan restriction. |
| Is mandamus appropriate to compel County review under the Restriction Change Statute? | PCRS seeks mandamus to force review/approval, claiming futility of Restriction Change process. | County asserts exhaustion of administrative remedies and lack of futility; mandamus not warranted. | Mandamus denied; exhaustion and futility considerations defeat relief. |
| May Interested Parties intervene or rely on ancillary claims to enlarge the restriction? | County and Interested Parties claim implied servitude and common plan support their standing. | PCRS argues intervention is untimely and claims lack of merit in implied servitude. | Intervention denied; implied servitude claim rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- New Castle County v. Richeson, 347 A.2d 135 (Del. 1975) (master-plan conformity is a judicial question, not planning board)
- G.R.G. Realty Co. v. New Castle County, 1981 WL 697909 (Del. Super. Ct. 1981) (review of master plan issues as content; not controlling for covenant scope)
- Gannett Co. v. Kanaga, 750 A.2d 1174 (Del. 2000) (principles of summary judgment and evidence in land-use disputes)
- Remedio v. City of Newark, 337 A.2d 317 (Del. 1975) (exhaustion of administrative remedies and mandamus standards)
- Hartman v. Buckson, 467 A.2d 694 (Del. Ch. 1983) (contract zoning vs. conditional zoning distinctions)