Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/02/2009

Home

March 10,2009\ Volume 31 No.5 Zoning Bulletin fect the Ordinance's prohibition on construction of certain structures. ESDC had contended that "Condominium" meant a multiple unit structure. It argued therefore that a multiple unit structure could be constructed if a special use permit was issued by the Board. The court agreed with -the county's interpretation of the Ordinance. The court explained that in interpreting ordinances, it could not "render any words [of an ordinance] meaningless." The court found that reading the ordinance as ESDC advocated "would give effect only to the word 'Condominium' in the phrase ['Condominium-type owner- ship'], rendering the remaining five words [("-type ownership (see VA Code))"] meaningless." Additionally, the court said it had to consider the "clear intent" of theCD-Rl district, which it found was to limit residential density. The court concluded that the classification of "condominium-type ownership" (allowed by special permit) applied to the legal form of land tenure to be adopted; it did not apply to the' physical structure of the buildings to be erected. The Ordinance unconditionally pro- hibited new construction of apartment buildings in the "CD-Rl" dis- trict. "Apartments" were defined by the Ordinance as "[a] buil~ing containing three or more dwelling units . . . ." Since ESDC proposed construction of buildings with eight units, ESDC proposed construc- tion of "apartments." Accordingly, ESDC's proposed construction was prohibited by the Ordinance. The Board's grant of a special use permit to ESDC did not alter that prohibition. Since the Board's grant of a special use permit to ESDC for its proposed development was in con- flict with the Ordinance, that grant exceeded the Board's authority and wa$ void and of no effect. See also: Corns v. School Bd. of Russell County, 249 Va. 343, 454 S~E.2d 728,97 Ed. Law Rep. 1166 (1995). '" See also: Renkey v. County Bd. of Arlington County, 272 Va. 369, 634 S.E.2d 352 (2006). Case Note: The court noted that although the Board "might have amended the [Ordinance] after following the proper procedure," "it was not at liberty to disregard it." 12 @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 1"14 :'\.