Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/03/2014

Home

Zoning Bulletin March 10, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 5 See also: Sussex Community Services Ass'n v. Virginia Soc. for Mentally Retarded Children, Inc., 251 Va. 240, 467 S.E.2d 468 (1996). See also: Buenson Div., Aeronca, Inc. v. McCauley, 221 Va. 430, 270 S.E.2d 734, 736 (1980). Case Note: The court clarified that the statute did not alter "retroactively" the proffers agreed to by the Developers and Williamsburg. Rather, the court said the statute acted to limit the time during which the County could demand or accept payments under those proffers. Case Note: The Developers and Williamsburg had asked to be awarded reasonable attorney's fees, expenses, and court costs in addition to the refund of any and all monies collected or accepted by the County in violation of § 15.2-2303.1:1, plus interest. The Develop- ers had also filed a counterclaim seeking "the refund of any and all monies accepted or collected by the County in violation of [Code] § 15.2-2303.1:1 " and attorney's fees and costs. (The claim for fees and costs was based upon an amendment to Code § 15.2- 2303.1:1 effective July 1, 2011, which permitted a court to "award reasonable at- torney fees, expenses, and court costs . . . in an action successfully challenging an ordinance, administrative or other action as being in conflict with this section.') The circuit court later entered a final order of judgment awarding attorney's fees and costs to the developers and Williamsburg. The Supreme Court of Virginia held that Wil- liamsburg was not entitled to an award of attorney's fees under the zoning proffer stat- ute because it had not successfully challenged an ordinance, administrative, or other action of the county. However, the court held that the Developers, who had prevailed on their counterclaim against the County and thus had successfully challenged a County action, were entitled to an award of attorney's fees under the conditional zon- ing cash proffer statute. Zoning News from Around the Nation GEORGIA The state House of Representatives recently voted in favor of House Bill 176, the "Mobile Broadband Infrastructure Leads to Development Act." Among other things, the bill would allow previously approved wireless sup- port structures and wireless facilities to be modified without additional zoning or land use review "beyond what is typically required by the local governing authority that issues electrical permits." HB 176 will now go to the Senate for consideration. Source: Savannah Morning News; http://savannahnow.com © 2014 Thomson Reuters 11