Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/16/2010 - Special Meeting

Home

July 25, 2010 ( Volume 41 No. 14 Zoning Bulletin town's accounting indicated all but $13,716.90 of the bond fund was, in ( fact, attributable to the capital improvements for which the bond fund was collected. As to the $13,716.90 of the fund that the town paid to the road construction contractor, but which was not adequately accounted for as re- quired by statute: the court found that it had to be returned to Clare. See also: Simonsen v. Town of Derry, 145 N.H. 382, 765 A.2d 1033 (2000). Validity of Ordinance —Landowners contend historic district ordinance that refers only to an "area" is invalid under state law They claim ordinance must identify existing landmarks, buildings, or structures Citation: Cove/ v. Town of Vienna, 2010 WL 2305860 (Va. 2010) VIRGINIA (06/10/10)—This case involved a challenge to the validity of an historic district ordinance. The Background/Facts: This case involved the consolidated actions of multiple landowners (the "Landowners") who had requested that the parcels they owned in the town be removed from the town's historic dis- trict (the "Historic District"). After the town council denied all of their requests, the Landowners appealed the denial to court. On appeal, among other things, the Landowners asked the court to de- clare that the town's Historic District Ordinance (the "HDO") was inval- id because it was not adopted in accordance with the authorizing statute. They argued that the statute in effect at the time the HDO was enacted into law, former Virginia Code Annotated ("VCA") § 15.1-503.2: "al- lowed a locality to enact a historic district ordinance only if it set forth a historic landmark established by the Virginia Historic Landmarks Com- mission or some other building or structure with historic, architectural, or cultural significance." They contended that the HDO was invalid under the statute because it referred only to an "area" and did not "identify ex- isting landmarks, buildings, or structures." Section 15.1-503.2 provided that a town could adopt an historic dis- trict ordinance "setting forth the historic landmarks within the county or municipality as established by the Virginia Historic Landmarks Com- mission, and any other buildings or structures within the county or mu- nicipality having an important historic, architectural or cultural interest, and any historic areas within the county or municipality as defined by § 15.1-430(b) ...." Section 15.1-430(b) defined "[historic area" to mean "an area containing buildings or places in which historic events occurred or having special public value because of notable architectural or other features relating to the cultural or artistic heritage of the community ...." (,� The circuit court found in favor of the town, upholding the HDO as valid. The Landowners appealed. 4 © 2010 Thomson Reuters 102