Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/03/2009

Home

. \ } Zoning Bulletin July 10, 20091 Volume 31 No. 13 After holding a meeting on the subject, the county zoning administra- tor issued a zoning verification letter to Crucible. The letter stated that Crucible's proposed facility "would be classified as a 'schoo1.'" It also stated that "[v]ermcation [wa]s ... subject to change." In July 2005, Crucible purchased the Property for $2,250,000. On August 24, 2005, the county's Board of Supervisors adopted a zoning ordinance (the "Ordinance") that requited a conditional use per- mit for the location of a school in an A-1 zoning district. After theadop- tion of the Ordinance, Crucible, which did not have an approved site plan, could no longer operate a school on its. property on a "by right" basis, unless it was determined that it had a vested right to do so. Without requesting a vested rights determination frdm the zoning ad- ministrator, Crucible filed an action in court. It asked the coutity's circuit court to determine whether it had a vested right to develop a school on its property on a "by right" basis. The Board of Supervisors and the county (hereinafter collectively, the "Board) argued that the court did not have jurisdiction over the issue. It argued this was because Crucible had not exhausted its administra- tive remedies. The Board contended that Crucible was required to seek a '. vested rights determination from the county zoning administrator before filing an action in court. The circuit court held that: (1) Crucible was not required to first seek a vested rights determination from the zoning administrator before fil- ing an action in court; and (2) Crucible had a vested right to develop a school on the Property on a "by right" basis because the zoning verifica- . tion letter constituted a "significant affirmative governinental act." The Board appealed. DECISION: Affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Supreme Court of Virginia held that Crucible was not required to seek a vested rights determination from the zoning administrator before filing its action in circuit court. The court explained that, historically, cir- cuit courts had been empowered to make vested rights determinations. In 1993, the Virginia General Assembly had, under current Code ~ 15.2- 2286, granted zoning administrators the authority to make vested rights determinations. The court noted that Code ~ 15.2-2286 did not: (1) take away the courts power to make vested rights determinations; (2) require a zoning administrator to make a vested rights 'determination before a party could seek a vested rights determination from a circuit court; or (3) make the zoning administrator's authority exclusive. Accordingly, the court concluded that zoning administrators and circuit courts had con- current jurisdiction to make vested rights determinations. Thus, Cru- cible could obtain a vested rights determination from the county's cir- 'f ) '~ @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 11 53