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

Home

July 25, 2010 ( Volume 4 j No. 14 Zoning Bulletin density residential district). Also, three of the lots contained historic structures subject to the city's Historic and Cultural Conservation Dis- trict ("HCC") ordinances. In furtherance of the proposed consolidation, the Church first request- ed "a zoning interpretation" from the city's zoning administrator (the "ZA") as to whether the consolidation would be permissible under the city ordinances. The ZA responded that the consolidation would be per- missible under applicable city ordinances. The ZA pointed to city code (the "Code") § 48-800(a), which stated that a lot in the R-1A district on which an HCC-designated structure was located "shall not be reduced in size such that it no longer meets the minimum lot size, frontage, and set- back requirements of a lot in the R-1A district." The ZA concluded that the Church's consolidation plan "results in a much larger lot and does so without reducing setbacks." Thus, the ZA found the plan satisfied the requirements of that ordinance. The Church then filed a consolidation application and plat with the city's Planning Division. A senior planner reviewed the application and submitted a report to the city's Planning Commission (the "Commission"). That report found that the Church's proposed consolidation would result in the reduction in size to zero of several of the Church's lots that were sub- ject to the HCC district regulations. The report concluded that reduction would violate Code § 48-800(a). The report recommended that the Com- mission deny the Church's consolidation application. The Commission ultimately denied the application "for the reasons set forth in the [s]taff report ...." The Church appealed the Commission's decision to court. Among oth- er things, the Church argued that the Commission was required to follow the ZA's interpretation that the proposed consolidation would not violate the zoning ordinances, specifically Code § 48-800(a). The Church said this was because the ZA's interpretation was a "decision or determina- tion" under Virginia Code ("VCA") § 15.2-2311(C), which, since it was not appealed within 60 days, could not be rejected by the Commission. Section 15.2-2311(C) provided that: "[i]n no event shall a written or- der, requirement, decision or determination made by the zoning adminis- trator or other administrative officer be subject to change, modification or reversal by any zoning administrator or other administrative officer after 60 days have elapsed ..." The Commission argued that § 15.2-2311(C) was not applicable in this case. The circuit court found in favor of the Commission. . The Church appealed. The Court's Decision: Judgment of circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court of Virginia held that the Commission could, con- trary to the Church's argument, disregard the ZAs interpretation of the zoning ordinance. 6 ©2010 Thomson Reuters 104