Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/03/2014

Home

Zoning Bulletin February 25, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 4 WL 92178 (Va. 2014) VIRGINIA (01/10/14)—This case addressed the issue of whether a county zoning administrator's "compliance" letter constituted a "significant affirmative governmental act" a threshold to vested rights to develop under the local zoning code. The Background/Facts: John B. McQueen ("McQueen") owned a large tract of land in Prince George County (the "County"). In May 2008, McQueen initiated plans to develop his property as a cluster subdivision. He first met informally, and then formally, with the County's zoning administra- tor (the "ZA"). Following their meeting, in June 2008, the ZA sent McQueen a "compli- ance" letter. The compliance letter recited the four general standards set forth in the County's CLO Cluster Overlay District (the "CLO Ordinance"). The CLO Ordinance peiinitted the development of cluster subdivisions. Under the CLO Ordinance, a cluster subdivision proposed in accordance with the standards contained in the CLO Ordinance was a "permitted use by -right." The ZA's letter indicated that McQueen's property met the CLO Ordinance standards, but advised that McQueen would need to meet all other applicable federal, state, and local codes. The letter also advised that McQueen would need to obtain final approval of the proposed development through the CLO Ordinance, as well as Site Plan Approval and a Land Dis- turbance Permit. Several months after the ZA issued the compliance letter, the County's Board of Supervisors (the "Board") repealed the CLO Ordinance. McQueen then filed a declaratory judgment action in court against the County and the Board (hereinafter, collectively, the "County"). He asked the court to de- clare that he had obtained a vested right under the CLO Ordinance to develop his property "as a by -right" cluster subdivision in accordance with the terms of the CLO Ordinance. Under the County Zoning Code, a landowner could establish a vested right in a land use when he/she: • "(i) obtain[ed] or [was] the beneficiary of a significant affirmative governmental act which remain[ed] in effect allowing development of a specific project;" "(ii) relie[d] in good faith on the significant affirmative governmental act;" and "(iii) incur[red] extensive obligations or substantial expenses in diligent pursri%t of the specific project in reliance on the significant affirmative governmental act." (Code § 15.2-2307.) The statute did not'define what constituted a signifi- cant affirmative governmental act. Instead, ifprovided a list of seven acts "deemed to be significant affirmative governmental acts," but expressly provided that the list was "without limitation." McQueen asserted that: the ZA's compliance letter constituted a signifi- cant affirmative governmental act; he relied in good faith on that act; and he incurred extensive obligations and substantial expenses in diligent pursuit of developing his property as a cluster subdivision. Therefore, McQueen concluded that he met the three elements set forth in the County Code for the vesting of a right to use his property for that purpose. 2014 Thomson Reuters