It also halts the art league’s plans to expand the Chambers Studio. Several years ago, the art league determined it needed additional space. After being advised that renovating existing structures was not economically feasible, the art league decided to demolish the Chambers Studio and erect a larger building in its place.

Since the plan would disrupt the nonconforming use of the property, the plans required variances from the town.

During the planning process, a question arose as to whether the art league’s two lots should be considered a single lot. Town Manager Thomas Roth determined they were two separate lots and should be considered as such. On Oct. 20, 2006, the art league appealed Roth’s decision to the board of adjustment.

The board held public hearings Aug. 21, 2007, and Nov. 7, 2007, and denied the art league’s requests. The art league appealed the matter to the Delaware Superior Court where it has been in litigation ever since.

While Judge T. Henley Graves upheld the board’s decision to deny the variances, he overturned the board’s decision on the one-lot/two lot question, saying the property should be considered one parcel.

“If a property owner owns two separate but adjacent lots as originally plotted as of 1973 or 1998 [when the town passed and then amended its zoning code, respectively], those properties are automatically merged for zoning purposes and cannot be re-separated into two building lots without appropriate approvals from the town to accomplish that goal,” the court decision said.

Still, the court denied the art league’s request to build an expanded Chambers Studio. Once the request to build an expanded studio was denied, the court and the board determined the parking variance was moot.

“RAL has not shown that it cannot derive a reasonable return without a variance. Indeed, the fact that RAL has not only survived, but has flourished, since its inception in the late 1930s, militates against such a proposition. The structures are no more functionally or structurally obsolete now than they were when RAL was first formed,” the court said. “RAL has grown steadily and increased its activities and membership over time, which is evidence that it has been successful in its use of the property.

“The court recognizes the significant benefit RAL brings to the community, but the court must also recognize that RAL is located in a residential community.”

Karen McGrath, executive director of the art league, said, “We are still analyzing the opinion and meeting with our advisors to see what our next steps will be.”

McGrath said she and the art league’s representatives would like to sit down with town officials to iron out a compromise that will make everyone happy, instead of continuing to play things out in the courts.

To facilitate a solution, the art league proposed creating a four-person working group – consisting of a board member, a town commissioner and two homeowners not affiliated with the art league or the town – but this proposal was rejected by the town, McGrath said. She said the art league is still open to negotiations with the town. The art league also has the option to appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court.

Mayor Wanda Davis said she was delighted with the decision because it keeps the character of the town as it is and upholds the zoning ordinance. As for negotiating a solution with the art league, Davis said she didn’t see that there is anything to negotiate, although she is willing to listen.

She said the art league has to follow the same zoning rules as everyone else because it is bound by residential-use restrictions – the art league is a special exception to the residential zoning code.

Davis said several years ago the town commissioners discussed reclassifying the art league as a conditional use, meaning it would have been able to come before the commissioners for any building changes. However, she said, the art league did not want that at the time.

Art league President Marcia DeWitt said the conditional-use proposal was restrictive and removed many of the privileges the art league has.

She said she was still open to working with town officials to work out a solution and hopeful both sides can work something out.

Art league attorney Vince Robertson said while he were pleased the court agreed the property was one parcel, he was disappointed the variances were not granted because the art league spent a great deal of time coming up with the plans for the Chambers Studio. Robertson said he did not know at this time what the art league’s next step would be.