Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/03/2009

Home

July 10, 20091 Volume 31 No. 13 Zoning Bulletin cuit court without first obtaining a vested rights determination from the county zoning administrator. The court also held that Crucible did not acquire a vested right to de- velop a school on the Property as a result of the zoning verification letter. The court explained that under Virginia Code S 15.2-2307, a landowner could obtain a vested right when he or she: (1) was the beneficiary of a significant affirmative governmental act that remained in effect allowing development of a specific project; (2) relied in good faith on that act; and (3) incurred "extensive obligations or substantial expenses in dili- gent pursuit of the specific project in reliance on [that act]." The court emphasized that each of those three conditions had to be met before a landowner's right to maintain a permissible use in the future vested. Looking at the. first of those conditions, the court noted that Code S 15.2-2307 enumerated six examples of significant affirmative govern- mental acts. The court said that list was not exhaustive. A particular act would be a "significant affirmative governmental act" if it involved: af- firmative governmental action upon specific rights that were "clear, ex- press, and unambiguous." "[T]he mere reliance on a particular zoning classification, whether created by ordinance or variance, creates no vest- ed right in the property owner." Here, the court found the zoning verifi- cation letter was not a "significant affirmative governmental act." In the letter, the zoning administrator did not affirmatively approve the project in the letter and the letter contained no commitment. The letter merely provided a statement of zoning classification. See also: City of Suffolk ex ref. Herbert v. Board of Zoning Appeals for City of Suffolk, 266 Va. 137, 580S.E.2d 796 (2003). See also: Hale v. Board of Zoning Appeals for Town of Blacksburg, 277 Va. 250,673 S.E.2d 170 (2009). Case Note: The court also said that zoning board statements offer- ing general support of a plan and informal assurances did not con- stitute "significant affirmative governmental acts." 12 @ 2009 Thomson Reuters . 54 ') I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I )