County and town brought action against the State, the Governor, and company whose application for a conditional use permit to build an electrical substation on its property that would receive power from planned offshore wind turbine project was denied by the county, challenging constitutionality of recently adopted statute that had the effect of approving company’s permit, alleging the statute violated the separation of powers doctrine, state constitutional provisions that authorized the General Assembly to enact laws that allowed municipalities and counties to adopt zoning ordinances and that provided that no bill shall embrace more than one subject, as well as the public’s due process rights.
The Court of Chancery entered summary judgment for the defendants. County and town appealed.
The Supreme Court held that:
- The statute did not violate the separation of powers doctrine;
- In enacting the statute, General Assembly did not violate constitutional provision authorizing it to enact laws allowing municipalities and counties to adopt zoning ordinances and other land use regulations;
- Statute’s title satisfied the constitutional requirement of particularization in the title of legislation; and
- Statute did not violate Constitution’s one-subject limitation.