Robert Walker, Jr. v. Charles L. Williams
CA 9667-VCG
| Del. Ch. | Nov 4, 2016Background
- Defendant Charles Williams built a pole building (the "Pole Building" or "Shop") on his AR-1–zoned Sussex County property, obtained a building permit and certificate of occupancy, and uses it chiefly as a hobby auto‑repair shop.
- Plaintiffs (neighbors) challenged the use and construction, alleging Building Code and Zoning Code violations, nuisance‑in‑fact, nuisance per se, and seeking mandatory injunctive relief (removal of the Pole Building) and attorney fees.
- The Court previously found in Walker I that Williams’ use did not constitute a nuisance‑in‑fact; this Memorandum addresses the remaining claims (Building Code compliance, zoning violations, signs, and nuisance per se).
- County inspectors repeatedly found no County Code violations; the County denied a variance to permit commercial garage use and indicated the hobby use was permitted.
- Plaintiffs’ Building Code claims rely on alleged structural defects identified by their expert (missing fire separation, altered trusses, improper floor slope); Plaintiffs did not show they suffered any injury‑in‑fact from those alleged defects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to enforce County Building Code violations | Plaintiffs: Sussex County owners have statutory standing under 9 Del. C. § 6919(d) to sue over building/structure code violations | Williams: § 6919(d) applies to zoning regulations, not building codes; plaintiffs show no injury‑in‑fact | Held: Plaintiffs lack statutory standing to enforce the County Building Code and did not plead injury‑in‑fact; claims waived as to issues not briefed |
| Injunctive relief to remove or alter Pole Building for alleged Building Code violations | Plaintiffs: Mandatory injunction needed (remove building or alter to prevent garage use) | Williams: Plaintiffs cannot show irreparable harm or equities favoring mandatory relief; remedy is extraordinary | Held: Denied—plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm or equitable basis for mandatory injunction |
| Ornamental signs on property | Plaintiffs: Signs violate Zoning Code sign provisions | Williams: Signs are antique/ornamental, not informational or advertising; not "signs" under the Code definition | Held: Denied—ornamental signs are not ‘‘signs’’ under the Zoning Code and are permitted |
| Use of Pole Building (garage/auto repair) under Zoning Code | Plaintiffs: Shop is a private garage used for repair (not merely storage) and exceeds permitted uses in AR‑1 | Williams: Activity is a non‑commercial hobby that qualifies as a permitted "Home Occupation" (incidental/secondary to dwelling) | Held: Denied—court interprets Home Occupation broadly in favor of landowner; hobby auto repair in accessory building is permitted and not a prohibited use |
| Nuisance per se based on alleged zoning violations | Plaintiffs: Zoning violation (auto repair) creates nuisance per se | Williams: Nuisance per se applies only to violations of safety statutes or hazardous/abnormal uses; hobby auto repair is neither | Held: Denied—even if zoning violation existed it would not be one aimed at public safety, so nuisance per se not established |
Key Cases Cited
- Delaware Dep't of Nat. Res. & Envtl. Control v. Sussex Cnty., 34 A.3d 1087 (Del. 2011) (interpreting county zoning authority granted by statute)
- Dewey Beach Enters., Inc. v. [unspecified], 1 A.3d 305 (Del. 2010) (zoning ordinance ambiguities are resolved in favor of the landowner)
- McQuail v. Shell Oil Co., 183 A.2d 581 (Del. Ch. 1962) (explaining anticipatory nuisance and nuisance per se principles)