Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/07/2017

Home

Zoning Bulletin October 25, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 20 The court rejected the Board's arguments. The court determined that the Certificate issued by Quicke to the Rhoadses was not void ab initio because it granted a right to use prop- erty in a manner that otherwise would not have been allowed under the Zoning Ordinance. "Considering the plain language and remedial nature of the statute" (i.e., "to provide relief and protection to property owners. ..who would otherwise suffer loss because of their reliance on the zon- ing administrator's error"), the court held that "Code § 15.2-2311(C) manifestly creates a legislatively -mandated limited exception to the judicially -created general principle that a building permit issued in violation of applicable zoning ordinances is void." The court also determined that the issuance of the Certificate by Quicke "clearly constitute[d] a decision or determination by the zoning administrator that the building plans complied with the Zoning Ordinance." The court found that the Certificate was a written determi- nation that affirmatively approved the zoning for the Garage project, and was a "final determination," not simply a zoning interpretation. Finally, the court held that Code § 15.2-2311(C) and its vesting pro- visions "must be considered and enforced by a BZA, a board of supervi- sors, or a court in making a zoning determination or reviewing its cor- rectness, if the prerequisites for the application of the statute are satisfied." Rejecting the Board's assertion that Code § 15.2-2311(C) only applied to bar the subsequent actions of a zoning administrator or other administrative office, the court noted that a zoning administrator is a representative of the board of supervisors, and when he or she acts, that action also finds the board of supervisors. Accordingly, the court concluded that the prerequisites for the ap- plication of Code § 15.2-2311(C) were present in this case. Quicke's approval of the Certificate was an action within the scope of the author- ity delegated by the Board to the zoning administrator, and the issuance of the Certificate constituted a determination within the meaning of Code § 15.2-2311(C). Also, more than 60 days had elapsed after Quicke issued his determination that the Garage complied with the Zoning Ordinance, and the Rhoadses had materially changed their position in reliance upon that determination. Thus, the Rhoadses' rights in con- structing their Garage had vested and were not subject to alteration by the zoning administrator, the BZA or the Board. See also: Norfolk 102, LLC v. City of Norfolk, 285 Va. 340, 738 S.E.2d 895 (2013). See also: James v. City of Falls Church, 280 Va. 31, 694 S.E.2d 568 (2010). © 2017 Thomson Reuters 5