Justia Zoning, Planning & Land Use Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, owners of garaged lots in a subdivision, filed a complaint against the homeowners' association (HOA) alleging that the unequal treatment resulting from the HOA's assignment of parking spaces only to ungaraged lots in an amendment violated the subdivision's declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (the Declaration). The circuit court determined that the amendment was invalid and ruled that the reservation of parking spaces in the common area for use solely by owners of ungaraged lots violated the Declaration. The court also found Plaintiffs were entitled to attorneys' fees. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in ruling the Declaration requires that parking spaces in the common area be assigned equally among all lot owners; (2) did not err in ruling that the amendment was invalid; (3) erred in its award of certain compensatory damages but did not err in awarding other compensatory damages; and (4) did not err in ruling that Plaintiffs were entitled to attorneys' fees and in determining the amount of that award. Remanded for a determination of attorneys' fees incurred by Plaintiffs subsequent to the court's entry of the judgment appealed from. View "Manchester Oaks Homeowners Ass'n v. Batt" on Justia Law

In this case, Long Lane Associates Limited Partnership challenged ordinances adopted by the town council of the Town of Lessburg concerning property owned by an adjoining landowner. The challenged ordinances rezoned property owned by Cornerstone Chapel, amended the Town Plan to remove a portion of a public road, and approved a special exception to permit Cornerstone to operate a day care center on its property. The circuit court concluded that the amendment to the Town Plan was null and void, ruling that the Town lacked authority to approve Cornerstone's request to rezone its property or amend its zoning conditions without Long Lane's consent because Long Lane had a vested right in the completion of the road and the development set forth in the proffered conditions. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Long Lane did not have vested rights in the zoning classification or land uses of its neighbor, even where the property was subdivided from a parcel which was rezoned subject to proffered conditions; and (2) Long Lane did not have a vested right in the construction of a road shown on the Town Plan, and the Town did not need Long Lane's consent to amend its plan. View "Town of Leesburg v. Long Lane Assocs." on Justia Law

Geoff Livingston and 134 other homeonwers or renters (collectively Plaintiffs) in a Fairfax County subdivision brought an inverse condemnation suit against the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) after their homes were flooded during a severe storm. The circuit court dismissed the suit on demurrer, holding that a single occurrence of flooding could not support an inverse condemnation claim under Va. Const. art. I, 11. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the facts alleged in Plaintiffs' complaint, if taken as true, established that their homes and personal property were damaged by VDOT's operation of, and failure to maintain, the relocation of a tributary stream, the circuit court erred in dismissing their inverse condemnation suit on VDOT's demurrer. Remanded. View "Livingston v. Va. Dep't of Transp." on Justia Law

Appellants in this case were several individuals comprising the Committee of Petitioners of the Buckroe Beach Bayfront Park Petition (the Committee). The Committee filed a complaint against POH 2010 LLC (POH) and the City of Hampton seeking an order declaring that POH's proposed development of a certain residential subdivision located in the City was unlawful and enjoining such development. The circuit court dismissed the Committee's complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Committee lacked standing to bring the action based on the limited authority granted to the Committee by the City Charter, which, under its referendum provisions, restricted the Committee's activities to pursuing a petition to repeal a newly enacted City zoning ordinance permitting the proposed development. View "Deerfield v. City of Hampton" on Justia Law

Albemarle County enacted a zoning ordinance governing construction on slopes within the county. Under the waiver provision of the county code, the planning commission was authorized to grant a waiver from the restrictions otherwise imposed by the ordinance. Kent Sinclair, who owned property in the county, filed a complaint seeking, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that the county exceeded the power delegated to it by the General Assembly in violation of the Dillon Rule because its procedure for considering waiver applications was not authorized by state law. The circuit court granted summary judgment against Sinclair. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's judgment that the decision to grant or deny waiver applications may be delegated to the planning commission, as the delegation was legislative in nature and not authorized by state law. Accordingly, in enacting the waiver provision, the county exceeded its authority from the General Assembly in violation of the Dillon Rule and the waiver provision was void. Remanded. View "Sinclair v. New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC" on Justia Law

An unincorporated association purporting to represent the general public filed a complaint for injunctive relief against several property owners, alleging that the property owners blocked access to a public road by the general public by erecting pole gates. In their answer, the property owners denied that the road was a public road. The circuit court granted injunctive relief to the association after finding that the association had proven that the general public was entitled to unrestricted use of the road. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in finding there had been no dedication and acceptance of the road as a public road; (2) the circuit court erred in finding that the association had established that the road was public solely by virtue of its long and continuous use by the general public and recognition of that use by the county; and (3) the circuit court erred in its ruling insofar as it would allow a traditional prescriptive easement could be created in favor of the general public, but the court's ruling that prescription had not been proven was nonetheless a correct result in light of its finding that there had been no acceptance. View "Dykes v. Friends of the C.C.C. Road" on Justia Law

In this action, the trial court granted summary judgment against a locality, holding it liable to landowners under the State Water Control Law, Va. Code Ann. 62.1-44.2 through -44.34:28, in particular Code 62.1-44.34:18(C) of the Oil Discharge Law, for the contamination of groundwater by leachate and landfill gas. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the trial court erred in awarding summary judgment to the landowners and finding the locality liable under the Oil Discharge Law, as the Oil Discharge Law does not apply to the passive, gradual seepage of leachate and landfill gas into groundwater. View "Campbell County v. Royal" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a property owner within the Lee's Crossing subdivision, sought declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of monetary damages against Defendants, the Lee's Crossing Homeowners Association, the developer of the subdivision, and the general partner, alleging that the Association had perpetrated the misuse of power and other unlawful activities by permitting the developer and general partner to exercise authority under the Lee's Crossing Homeowners Association Declaration to unilaterally amend the Declaration's provisions to the detriment of the individual property owners within Lee's Crossing. At issue between the parties was whether certain provisions of the Virginia Property Owners' Association Act (POAA) restricted the declarant of a recorded declaration creating a property owners' association from unilaterally amending that declaration under its express term providing for such authority. The circuit court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Defendants, concluding that the POAA did not bar a declarant from providing in a declaration the power to unilaterally amend the declaration. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in concluding that the Declaration provision at issue was not inconsistent with the provisions of the POAA.

In 2008 the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner of Virginia condemned the Taco Bell restaurant building located near a federal highway. Taco Bell argued that approximately 42 pieces of equipment used in the restaurant as part of Taco Bell's business were fixtures and therefore should be included in determining the just compensation for the property taken. The trial court held that the items in question were personal property and there was no factual determination to be made by the jury because the evidence showed that the items could have been removed from the property. Taco Bell appealed, arguing that the trial court did not properly apply the Danville Holding Corp. v. Clement test for determining whether sufficient evidence was presented to submit the issue to the jury. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that while the items in question were moveable, there was evidence the items were of the type needed for the purpose to which the property was devoted, and therefore the evidence on the issue whether the items were fixtures or personalty for condemnation purposes was sufficient to submit to the jury.