Case Title: Lilly v. Caroline County

Citation: 

Docket Number: 990746

State: virginia

Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Date: 2000-03-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
Present:  Carrico, C.J., Compton,∗ Lacy, Hassell, Keenan, Koontz, 
and Kinser, JJ. 
 
 
ALBERT J. LILLY, JR., 
ET AL. 
 
 
 
OPINION BY JUSTICE A. CHRISTIAN COMPTON 
v.  Record No. 990746 
March 3, 2000 
 
CAROLINE COUNTY, ET AL. 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CAROLINE COUNTY 
Richard J. Jamborsky, Judge Designate 
 
 
In this appeal in a land use controversy, the issue is 
whether the trial court correctly ruled that landowners, 
aggrieved by a zoning administrator's oral decision, failed to 
exhaust administrative remedies by not filing a timely appeal to 
the board of zoning appeals, as required by statute. 
 
The controversy involves the effort to construct a 
broadcast studio and office building, a 500-foot tower, and 
transmitting facilities for an FM radio station on a two-acre 
parcel in rural Caroline County.  In April 1998, the County's 
board of supervisors granted a special exception and a zoning 
ordinance amendment at the request of those seeking to establish 
the business. 
 
In June 1998, appellants Albert J. Lilly, Jr., and 
Judith G. Lilly, owners of realty "in the vicinity" of the 
subject property and opponents of the project, filed the present 
                     
∗ Justice Compton participated in the hearing and decision of 
this case prior to the effective date of his retirement on 
"Motion for Declaratory Judgment."  Appellees Caroline County; 
Michael A. Finchum, as Director of Planning and Community 
Development and as the County's Zoning Administrator; and others 
(who have not appeared on appeal) were named defendants.  
 
According to the motion, it "contests . . . the 'decision'" 
of the zoning administrator "in determining that the 
construction of a radio tower was a use permitted by right" in 
the County's zoning ordinances. The motion sought various 
relief, including a ruling that the zoning administrator's 
determination "is without basis in the zoning ordinance, is 
contrary to the terms of the zoning ordinance and is null and 
void." 
 
The County and Finchum (hereinafter, the defendants) filed 
a special plea in bar seeking dismissal of the motion and 
asserting that the plaintiffs' attempt to contest the decision 
of the zoning administrator "is time barred." 
 
In an October 1998 bench trial, the court considered 
various documents, including copies of minutes of planning 
commission and board of supervisors meetings.  The only witness 
testifying was Finchum, who was called by the defendants.  
Following the trial, the court sustained the plea and dismissed 
the action in a January 1999 final order, from which we awarded 
the landowners this appeal. 
                                                                  
February 2, 2000. 
 
2
 
There are very few disputed facts.  When there is dispute, 
however, we will apply settled principles of appellate review 
and summarize the facts in the light most favorable to the 
defendants, the prevailing parties below. 
 
In 1996, one Walter Abernathy came to Finchum's office 
explaining that he "had been working on trying to get an 
application and a permit for a radio station in Caroline County 
for several years and inquired as to the permitting procedure 
that would be necessary to get a facility at the location in 
question."  Finchum told Abernathy that he "thought the tower 
and the transmitting facilities were permitted by right under 
the county's public utilities definition of the zoning 
ordinance, however a broadcast studio and any other structures 
would require a text amendment to the zoning ordinance." 
 
Subsequently, after site plans had been filed for the tower 
and for the broadcast studio, Finchum prepared a text amendment 
to the ordinance that would permit by special exception in a 
rural preservation district the additional use of a radio/TV 
studio and office. 
 
At a meeting held on December 17, 1997, the County's 
planning commission held a public hearing on the proposed 
amendment and on Abernathy's application for a special exception 
permit that would allow creation of the radio station, office, 
and broadcasting studio.  During the public hearing, the 
 
3
question whether construction of the radio tower was a "by-
right" use, permitted under the zoning ordinance without any 
special exception permit, was posed by a commission member to 
Finchum.  He responded "that it is conceivable that the tower 
can be placed anywhere without a special exception permit.  He 
stated that he would research that prior to the next Planning 
Commission meeting," according to the minutes of the meeting. 
 
Both plaintiffs were present at the December meeting, and 
Mr. Lilly, an attorney at law, spoke against construction of the 
tower.  The commission voted to defer action on the two items 
until its January 1998 meeting. 
 
During the commission meeting held January 28, 1998, the 
issue about the radio tower again arose in the context of the 
proposed ordinance amendment and application for a special 
exception permit.  In response to a question from the chairman, 
Finchum stated that the tower "is a permitted use by right 
within the RP District," according to the minutes of the 
meeting. 
 
Both plaintiffs were present at the January meeting.  The 
commission then voted to forward both items to the County's 
board of supervisors. 
 
During its meeting on February 24, 1998, the board of 
supervisors held a public hearing on the two items related to 
the proposed radio station.  The question whether construction 
 
4
of the radio tower was permitted under the zoning ordinance 
arose again.  Responding to a supervisor's question, Finchum 
"stated that he would investigate whether or not the tower and 
transmitting facility falls under the ordinance."  The County 
Attorney then said that such a determination would be made by 
the zoning administrator, whose interpretation could be appealed 
to the County's board of zoning appeals. 
 
Both plaintiffs were present at the February meeting and 
both spoke against the proposed radio station and tower.  The 
board deferred action on the proposed zoning ordinance amendment 
and special exception application until its next meeting in 
March. 
 
At the board meeting on March 10, 1998, action on the 
subject items was deferred to allow an absent supervisor to be 
present and to vote on the matters. 
 
The board's next meeting was held on April 14, 1998.  
During the meeting, Finchum reminded the board that, during its 
February public hearing, it had "expressed concerns" about the 
"by-right use" issue. 
 
According to the minutes of the meeting, the zoning 
administrator stated "that he had determined that the radio 
tower was a by-right use in the Rural Preservation zoning 
district."  The minutes further reflect that Finchum "explained 
that the radio tower, but not the office and broadcasting 
 
5
facilities, could be built on the present site with or without 
approval of the special exception request.  He added that his 
ruling could be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals." 
 
Both plaintiffs were present at the April meeting.  As we 
previously have noted, the board approved the zoning ordinance 
amendment and application for the special exception permit at 
that meeting.  No one, including the plaintiffs, appealed the 
zoning administrator's April determination with respect to the 
radio tower being a "by-right" use. 
 
The applicable law is clear.  "In the land use context, a 
landowner may be precluded from making a direct judicial attack 
on a zoning decision if the landowner has failed to exhaust 
'adequate and available administrative remedies' before 
proceeding with a court challenge."  Vulcan Materials Co. v. 
Board of Supervisors, 248 Va. 18, 23, 445 S.E.2d 97, 100 (1994) 
(quoting Rinker v. City of Fairfax, 238 Va. 24, 29, 381 S.E.2d 
215, 217 (1989)).  A zoning administrator has "all necessary 
authority on behalf of the governing body to administer . . . 
the zoning ordinance."  Code § 15.2-2286(A)(4).  And, a person 
aggrieved by any decision of the zoning administrator has the 
right to appeal to the board of zoning appeals.  Code § 15.2-
2311.  If this mandatory appeal is not timely filed, the 
administrative remedy has not been exhausted and the zoning 
administrator's decision becomes a "thing decided" not subject 
 
6
to court challenge.  Dick Kelly Enter. v. City of Norfolk, 243 
Va. 373, 378, 416 S.E.2d 680, 683 (1992). 
 
The focus of this dispute is upon Code § 15.2-2311(A).  As 
pertinent, that statute provides that an appeal to the board of 
zoning appeals "may be taken by any person aggrieved . . . by 
any decision of the zoning administrator."  There is no 
requirement in the statute that the administrator's decision be 
in writing.  The statute further provides that "[t]he appeal 
shall be taken within thirty days after the decision appealed 
from by filing with the zoning administrator, and with the 
board, a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof." 
 
The landowners contend the trial court erred in sustaining 
the special plea and in dismissing the motion for declaratory 
judgment.  They argue:  That "Finchum's decision was made prior 
to the commencement of the first public hearing of December 
1997"; that the "comments made by Finchum at public meetings did 
not constitute notice of the decision"; that they were "not 
required to appeal a decision to the board of zoning appeals 
when such decision was made without their knowledge and without 
notice to them"; and that they were "not required to appeal a 
'decision' to the board of zoning appeals which was voiced as to 
a matter not then pending before Finchum or [the] County." 
 
7
 
We do not agree with any of these contentions. They are 
contrary to the evidence in the record and the trial court's 
findings of fact. 
 
The trial court, in sustaining the special plea, found that 
a decision was made on April 14, 1998; that the decision "was 
communicated to" the landowners, who "had actual notice of that 
decision"; and that the landowners "did not comply with the 
code."  These findings are based upon credible evidence. 
 
The landowners' assertion that Finchum's decision was made 
prior to the December meeting has no support in the record.  
They argue that Finchum's testimony shows that "his decision 
that the tower was a use permitted by right was possibly made 
prior to November 1997, he had so stated to Abernathy in 1996; 
the tower site plan was approved November 10, 1997; and the 
building and zoning permits for the tower, issued by him or 
someone at his direction, could have been filed before December 
1997." 
 
However, the evidence is clear that the "decision" was made 
at the April meeting, when Finchum stated "that the radio tower 
was a by-right use in the Rural Preservation zoning district."  
A zoning administrator must make clear the basis of the 
decision, see Gwinn v. Alward, 235 Va. 616, 622, 369 S.E.2d 410, 
413 (1988), and the foregoing statement complies with that 
requirement.  The intended finality of that opinion was 
 
8
buttressed by Finchum's April statement that his ruling could be 
appealed to the board of zoning appeals. 
 
The landowners' assertion that the decision was made 
without their knowledge and without notice to them completely 
disregards the fact that they were present at the April board 
meeting when Finchum announced his decision.  Indeed, they were 
present and participated in the December, January, and February 
meetings when the radio tower issue was discussed. See Code 
§ 15.2-2204(B) (party's active participation in proceeding 
waives right of party to challenge validity of proceeding due to 
failure to receive written notice required by statute).  At 
those meetings, arguably there was no finality to Finchum's 
opinion because, unlike the April meeting, decision on the issue 
was deferred until each succeeding meeting. 
 
The landowners' final assertion that the decision was 
rendered in "a matter not then pending before" the zoning 
administrator or the County is also unsupported by the record.  
At each meeting, the radio-tower issue arose within the 
framework and within the context of the proposed zoning 
amendment and application for the special exemption. 
 
This fact distinguishes the present case from Vulcan 
Materials, upon which the landowners rely.  There, we held that 
because no application was pending before any county 
administrative department for specific relief, the person was 
 
9
not "aggrieved" within the meaning of the statute.  Thus, we 
said, any oral comments by county officials merely were advisory 
and no appeal to the board of zoning appeals was required.  248 
Va. at 24, 445 S.E.2d at 100.  Here, there were applications for 
specific relief pending at the time Finchum announced his 
decision. 
 
Consequently, we hold that the trial court did not err in 
sustaining defendants' special plea, and the judgment below 
dismissing the declaratory judgment motion will be 
Affirmed. 
 
10