| Author | Post |
|---|
grolfe
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 696 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 21st, 2009 06:47 pm |
|
By Glenn Rolfe
Leader & State Register
LAUREL – Sussex County’s Court of Chancery has ruled in the 2007 lawsuit brought against the town of Laurel and other property defendants that challenged annexation process and development of a proposed large-scale project known as Discovery.
The civil action was filed in early 2007 by John and Sylvia Brohawn and Rick and Felicia Culver, property owners whose lands border the annexation property. They are members of S.C.O.L.D.M. (Sussex County Organization to Limit Development Mistakes), a citizens watch group that was a co-plaintiff in an initial lawsuit filed by Mr. Brohawn Jan. 8, several hours before Laurel’s governing body formally annexed close to 500 acres of predominantly farmland earmarked for Discovery property – and The Car Store property, that was the contiguous link – located east of U.S. 13.
In his ruling dated May 13, Court of Chancery Chancellor William B. Chandler III concluded the “plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the annexation of properties,” while language in ordinances relating to commercial zoning is “invalid because the ordinances are inconsistent with the town of Laurel’s comprehensive plan.”
In summation, Chancellor Chandler granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in regard to annexation issues, and the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment relating specifically to the zoning provisions of three ordinances tied to annexation approved by the town governing body.
“Basically, they ruled we did not have standing to challenge the annexations but we did have standing to dispute the zoning changes, which he declared invalid,” said W.D. Whaley, a S.C.O.L.D.M. member. “Basically what we have got is annexed property that has no zoning applied to it right now – which is illegal under state law. You have to apply zoning when you annex properties.”
“The annexations of the parcels were upheld,” said Laurel town solicitor James Waehler. “He (Chancelor Chandler) said the lands were zoned commercial-business, and that did not accord with the comprehensive plan that called for a mixed use development for the area.”
As presented, Discovery was to feature large-scale commercial, residential, athletic and recreational components with build-out over a period of 12 years or more.
Discovery was a very hot topic, drawing huge public turnout at meetings and hearings. Supporters welcomed the project with open arms, citing economic growth, employment and increased tax base for the town.
Opponents contended this large project was not properly planned, would disrupt or destroy rural lifestyle, have a potential adverse impact on traffic, town services and in general did not mesh with the town growth plan and town charter.
Developers abandoned Discovery’s plans.
“We were against the Discovery project and we killed that, so we are already winners in this,” Mr. Whaley said. “But I don’t know where we go from here.”
Mr. Waehler said he briefly discussed the case with the attorney for the new developer of the property, Michael Pouls, adding that zoning will have to be changed in any event.
“The town should be pleased that the lands are now in town and are subject to future development,” Mr. Waehler said.
News Editor Glenn Rolfe can be reached at 629-5505 or grolfe@newszap.com.
Click on “Reply” to express your views about this story.
|
Current time is 04:24 am | |
|
|
|