MIDDLECAP ASSOCIATES, LLC v. THE TOWN OF MIDDLETOWN

MIDDLECAP ASSOCIATES, LLC v. THE TOWN OF MIDDLETOWN

2026 WL 253093, No. CV N23C-03-181 CEB (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 30, 2026)

Superior Court of Delaware, C.A. No. N23C-03-181 CEB

Relevant Facts

• Middlecap Associates owns approximately fifteen acres of land in Middletown zoned C-3 Employment/Regional Retail

• Middlecap proposed a big box shopping center on the site approximately twenty years prior to the dispute

• The Town approved the original shopping center proposal

• Middlecap changed its development plan and sought a conditional use permit to develop the land as garden apartments

• The Planning Commission voted against the conditional use permit for garden apartments

• The Town Council held public hearings on Middlecap's application in February 2022

• The Town Council voted against the conditional use permit despite evidence that garden apartments would result in less peak traffic than the previously planned shopping center

• Middlecap filed a Verified Petition in the Court of Chancery to challenge the Town Council's decision

• The Chancery Court dismissed the case and transferred it to Superior Court

• On remand, the Town Council held a second hearing and again voted against granting the conditional use permit

Legal Issues

• Whether a writ of certiorari is available to review a Town Council's denial of a conditional use permit

• What constitutes a proper record for certiorari review of a quasi-judicial decision

• Whether the scope of certiorari review includes evaluating evidence and factual findings

• Whether the Town Council's denial was arbitrary and capricious

• Whether disparate treatment of similar conditional use applications constitutes grounds for reversal

• Whether procedural defects in the Town Council's vote are reviewable on certiorari

Positions of the Parties

• Middlecap argues: (1) the Town Council's decision was arbitrary and capricious in denying the conditional use permit; (2) the Council failed to give proper consideration to DelDOT studies showing garden apartments would create less traffic than the shopping center; (3) the Council was coached or prejudged its decision; (4) disparate treatment occurred as other garden apartment applications in C-3 zones received approval; (5) the record should include the hearing transcript and exhibits for meaningful review

• The Town of Middletown argues: (1) certiorari review is limited and cannot examine the merits or weigh evidence; (2) the record for certiorari review is limited to the initial complaint, answer or response, and docket entries; (3) the transcript of proceedings is not part of the reviewable record; (4) only the regularity of proceedings, not the wisdom of the Council's decision, may be examined; (5) the Council had discretion to consider the Gibson decision and weigh the competing interests; (6) the unilateral fee provision in the financial elder abuse statute does not apply to municipal zoning decisions

Decision of the Court and Reasons

The Superior Court affirmed the Town Council's decision and dismissed Middlecap's complaint in certiorari. The Court held that while certiorari review is available for quasi-judicial decisions of local government bodies, the scope of review is significantly limited compared to traditional appellate review. The proper record for certiorari review consists only of the initial complaint, answer or response, and docket entries, not the transcript of proceedings or evidence. The Court found that Middlecap's arguments regarding DelDOT traffic studies, prejudgment, and disparate treatment are all outside the record and therefore not reviewable on certiorari. The Court emphasized that certiorari review cannot be used as an end run around the General Assembly's decision to not permit full appellate review of conditional use permit decisions. Regarding the disparate treatment claim, the Court noted that conditional use permits granted in various C-3 locations do not bind the Town Council to grant all similar applications everywhere, as the legislative intent reflects a desire to limit judicial review of local government legislators' conditional use decisions. The Court concluded that the record does not support the allegation that the Council's decision was arbitrary and capricious, and therefore the Town Council's denial of the conditional use permit was properly upheld.