Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/07/2017

Home

Zoning Bulletin October 25, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 20 owners argue their rights to use vested Citation: Board of Supervisors of Richmond County v. Rhoads, 803 S.E.2d 329 (Va. 2017) VIRGINIA (08/31/17)—This case addressed the issue of whether property owners had a vested right, under Virginia statutory law Code § 15.2-2311(C), to the use of their property in violation of a zoning ordinance, when more than 60 days elapsed after the zoning administra- tor issued a determination which allowed that use, and the property owners materially changed their position in good faith reliance upon that determination. More specifically, the case addressed whether a cer- tificate of compliance issued by a zoning administrator for a use that was in violation of the zoning ordinance was void ab initio (i.e., treated as invalid from the outset) and/or did not qualify as a "written order, requirement, decision or determination" necessary for the use to vest under the statute. The Background/Facts: Janie Rhoads, Edmund Rhoads, Crystal Rhoads, and Meade Rhoads (collectively, the "Rhoadses") owned prop- erty (the "Property") in Richmond County (the "County"). In November 2013, the Rhoadses filed an application for a Zoning Certificate of Compliance (the "Application") to build a "2-story all unfinished detached garage" (the "Garage") on the Property. The County zoning administrator, Morgan Quicke ("Quicke"), visited the Property, which had a one-story primary dwelling, before checking the box for "Ap- proved" on the Application and signing the Certificate of Compliance (the "Certificate") on November 18, 2013. The Certificate included instructions regarding how to appeal if the Application was denied. The Rhoadses completed the Garage in June 2014 at a cost of approximately $27,000. In July 2014, Joseph Quesenberry, the new County zoning administra- tor ("Quesenberry"), informed the Rhoadses that the previously ap- proved Garage was in violation of the County Zoning Ordinance Sec- tion 2-3-6 (the "Ordinance"), because it was taller than the primary structure on the Property. A written notice of zoning violation (the "No- tice") was sent to the Rhoadses. The Rhoadses appealed the Notice to the County Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA"). In their appeal, the Rhoadses argued that under Vir- ginia statutory law —Code § 15.2-2311(C), their "rights [had] vested and the permits for erection of the [Garage] [were] not subject to revo- cation or reversal." Code § 15.2-2311(C) specifically provides: "In no event shall a written order, requirement, decision or determination made by the zoning administrator or other administrative officer be subject to change, modification or reversal by any zoning administrator or other administrative officer after 60 days have elapsed from the date of the writ- © 2017 Thomson Reuters 3