Town of Cheswold v. Central Delaware Business Park
2017 WL 2463689
Del. Super. Ct.2017Background
- In 2005 the Town of Cheswold adopted a comprehensive zoning code that reclassified the former M-1 Industrial District into I-1 and I-2. CDBP objected and proposed Article 5A to preserve M-1 and continue governance under the 1977 Ordinance.
- The Town published the 2005 Ordinance without Article 5A; CDBP sued in Superior Court (mandamus) and Court of Chancery (declaratory relief asserting vested rights).
- The parties settled by Stipulated Orders (approved by both courts): Town acknowledged Article 5A (incorporated/republished), recognized CDBP’s vested development rights under the 1977 Ordinance for the Business Park, and agreed to process pending permits; CDBP dismissed its claims.
- In 2013 the Town sought to downzone vacant lots in the Business Park and filed for declaratory relief (and alternatively Rule 60 relief) asking clarification whether the Stipulated Orders prevent future legislative amendments affecting CDBP.
- The Superior Court (sitting with vice-chancellor designation) held that the 2005 Stipulated Orders recognized CDBP’s vested rights; res judicata and law-of-the-case preclude the Town from relitigating that issue; Rule 60(b) relief was denied on the present record.
Issues
| Issue | Town's Argument | CDBP's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2005 Stipulated Orders created perpetual vested development rights for CDBP | Orders only required publishing Article 5A and processing permits; they did not and could not create perpetual vested rights or bind future councils | Settlement and incorporated Article 5A expressly recognized vested development rights for the Business Park; consent orders resolved the vested-rights claim | Court: Stipulated Orders recognized vested rights; res judicata and law-of-the-case bar Town from relitigating |
| Whether res judicata/collateral estoppel bar Town’s challenge | Orders were not a final adjudication on vested rights; collateral estoppel inapplicable to consent decrees | Consent orders incorporated Article 5A and thus decided the claim; res judicata applies to consent decrees | Court: Res judicata applies (consent orders final); collateral estoppel not required but law-of-the-case also bars relitigation |
| Whether the settlement/Article 5A was illegal (binding future councils/contract zoning) and thus unenforceable | Agreement illegally bound future legislative bodies and constituted unlawful contract zoning; unenforceable | Town could validly adopt Article 5A in public process; recognition of vested rights is permissible and not per se contract zoning | Court: Even if one provision were ultra vires it is severable; overall agreement and recognition of vested rights enforceable; not illegal contract zoning on these facts |
| Whether Town is entitled to relief from the 2005 judgments under Rule 60(b) | Changed circumstances and public-safety gaps in 1977 Ordinance justify relief under 60(b)(5) or (6) | No relief; vested rights continue absent extraordinary circumstances | Court: Town failed to meet heavy Rule 60(b) burden (no concrete evidence of manifest injustice or extraordinary hardship); relief denied (without prejudice) |
Key Cases Cited
- Burkhart v. Davies, 602 A.2d 56 (Del. 1991) (summary judgment standard)
- LaPoint v. AmerisourceBergen Corp., 970 A.2d 185 (Del. 2009) (purpose of res judicata and preclusion policy)
- Dover Historical Soc’y, Inc. v. City of Dover Planning Comm’n, 902 A.2d 1084 (Del. 2006) (res judicata elements)
- In re 244.5 Acres of Land, 808 A.2d 753 (Del. 2002) (vested‑rights doctrine and reliance factors)
- Ezzes v. Ackerman, 234 A.2d 444 (Del. 1967) (finality of consent decrees; preclusive effect)
- Harman v. Buckson, 467 A.2d 694 (Del. Ch. 1983) (contract zoning is impermissible where municipality bargains away zoning power)
- State v. Wright, 131 A.3d 310 (Del. 2016) (law-of-the-case doctrine and when issues are precluded)