Defending Local Control Against State Overreach

Delaware State Republicans

May 13, 2025

Delaware State Senate Chamber

The Delaware State Senate Republican Caucus is raising alarms about two pieces of legislation—Senate Bill 75 (SB 75) and Senate Bill 87 (SB 87)—that threaten the fundamental principle of local control.

These bills, while addressing different issues, share a troubling commonality: they encroach on the ability of local governments and communities to make decisions that best reflect their unique needs and values.

Below, we outline our concerns and why these bills represent a concerning trend of state overreach.

Senate Bill 75: Undermining County Authority on Retail Marijuana Stores SB 75, which amends Title 4 of the Delaware Code, seeks to regulate the operation of retail marijuana stores by imposing strict limits on the authority of counties to control their placement and operation. While the bill purports to balance state and local interests, it significantly erodes counties’ ability to tailor regulations to their communities’ specific needs.

A particularly concerning amendment to SB 75 prohibits counties from banning retail marijuana stores in areas zoned for commercial or industrial use simply because they are within 500 feet of a place of worship. This restriction dismisses the valid concerns of communities that may wish to protect the sanctity and character of religious spaces. Places of worship are often central to community identity, and local governments should retain the flexibility to decide whether a marijuana retail store is appropriate in such proximity. Moreover, SB 75 preempts and supersedes all existing and future county ordinances regarding marijuana establishments, effectively stripping counties of their ability to adapt regulations over time. The bill mandates minimum operating hours for retail marijuana stores (9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and noon to 8 p.m. on Sundays) and prohibits counties from banning indoor marijuana cultivation facilities in agricultural or industrial zones. It also restricts counties from prohibiting retail marijuana stores in commercial or industrial zones, except under narrow conditions, such as being within a half-mile of another store or 500 feet of specific facilities like schools, childcare centers, or parks.

By imposing these one-size-fits-all rules, SB 75 disregards the diversity of Delaware’s counties. What works for an urban area may not suit a rural community, yet this bill ties the hands of local leaders who are best positioned to understand their constituents’ priorities. Local control ensures that decisions reflect the values and circumstances of individual communities—not a top-down mandate from Dover.

Senate Bill 87: Threatening HOA Autonomy Over Accessory Dwelling Units SB 87, which amends Title 25 of the Delaware Code, mandates that local governments permit accessory dwelling units (ADUs)—such as in-law suites or garage apartments—without “prohibitive barriers or onerous application or zoning requirements.”

While we recognize the need to address Delaware’s housing shortage, our caucus is deeply concerned about a provision in this bill that could undermine the rights of homeowners’ associations (HOAs) to govern their communities. Lines 58–63 of SB 87 state that any covenant, restriction, or condition in a deed, contract, or other instrument affecting property transfer—or any rule based on such covenants—that is created or takes effect after June 30, 2027, and prohibits or unreasonably restricts ADUs on single-family residential lots is “void and unenforceable.”

What is concerning is the lack clarity surrounding the language regarding HOAs not governed by the Unit Property Act with rules already in place. Many HOAs in Delaware have existing covenants that prohibit ADUs to maintain the aesthetic, functional, or economic character of their neighborhoods. If SB 87 is interpreted to invalidate these covenants for HOAs not under the Unit Property Act, it would strip these private communities of their contractual rights to self-governance. Homeowners choose to live in HOA-governed neighborhoods precisely because of the agreed-upon rules that protect property values and community standards.

By potentially overriding these covenants, SB 87 could disrupt the expectations of thousands of Delaware homeowners. The lack of clarity in this provision only heightens our concern. Without explicit assurance that existing HOA covenants are protected, SB 87 risks imposing a state-level mandate that overrides private agreements, effectively dictating how communities must operate. This is a clear overreach and an affront to the principle of local control, which extends to the private governance structures that homeowners voluntarily adopt.

The Broader Threat to Local Control Both SB 75 and SB 87 reflect a troubling trend in Delaware’s legislature: the erosion of local decision-making authority in favor of centralized state control. Local governments are closest to the people they serve. They understand the nuances of their jurisdictions—whether it’s the cultural significance of a place of worship, the practical needs of a rural county, or the shared vision of a neighborhood. When the state imposes blanket regulations, it risks alienating communities and undermining the democratic process.

Our caucus believes that Delaware thrives when its counties, municipalities, and private communities have the freedom to govern themselves. We are committed to defending local control and ensuring that the voices of Delawareans are heard in the decisions that shape their communities.