Case Title: Ace Temporaries v. City Council of Alexandria

Citation: 

Docket Number: 062012

State: virginia

Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Date: 2007-09-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
Present:  Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and 
Agee, JJ., and Lacy, S.J.* 
 
ACE TEMPORARIES, INC., ET AL. 
 
v.  Record No. 062012  
OPINION BY JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS 
 
 
 
September 14, 2007 
CITY COUNCIL OF THE  
CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, ET AL. 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA 
Lisa B. Kemler, Judge 
 
 
In this appeal, we consider whether Code § 15.2-
2286(A)(7) requires the text of an amendment to be in written 
format at the time of its initiation.  We also consider 
whether Ordinance No. 4337 to amend the City of Alexandria 
Zoning Ordinance was properly enacted pursuant to the 
requirements of the Code of Virginia. 
I. 
Facts and Proceedings Below 
 
ACC Holdings, LLC was the landlord of Ace Temporaries, 
Inc. (collectively "Ace") that operated a day labor agency at 
717 Pendleton Street in the City of Alexandria.  On October 7, 
2003, the Alexandria Planning Commission (the "Planning 
Commission") approved a motion to initiate a text amendment to 
"readopt the day labor agency definition" and to amend the 
Special Use Permit ("SUP") "regulations for day labor agencies 
in appropriate commercial zones."  On November 6, 2003, the 
                     
* Justice Lacy participated in the hearing and decision of 
this case prior to the effective date of her retirement on 
August 16, 2007. 
 
2
Planning Commission voted to "recommend approval of the text 
amendment, with an amendment."  Text Amendment #2003-0006 (the 
"Text Amendment"), approved by the Planning Commission, 
included an eighteen-month abatement period for non-conforming 
day labor agencies that had not been granted a SUP.  At a 
public hearing on November 15, 2003, the City Council of 
Alexandria (the "City Council") approved the Planning 
Commission's recommendation "with an amendment that abatement 
of existing agencies be no more than 12 months."  On January 
13, 2004, the City Council introduced and had a first reading 
of the proposed ordinance to adopt the Text Amendment.  Before 
the meeting, the City Council received copies of the 
ordinance.  The copies of the ordinance that the City Council 
received contained the original eighteen-month abatement 
period instead of the version as amended with a twelve-month 
period. 
 
At a public hearing on January 24, 2004, the City Council 
had a second reading and final passage of the ordinance to 
adopt the Text Amendment.  The Text Amendment was passed as 
Ordinance No. 4328.  When passed, the ordinance contained the 
original eighteen-month abatement period, not the twelve-month 
abatement period adopted as an amendment by the City Council 
at the November 15th meeting. 
 
3
 
Then, on February 10, 2004, the City Council had an 
introduction and first reading of a proposed ordinance to 
reduce "the abatement period for nonconforming day labor 
agencies from 18 months to 12 months, as approved by Text 
Amendment No. 2003-0006."  At a public hearing on February 21, 
2004, the City Council had a second reading and final passage 
of Ordinance No. 4337 which reduced the abatement period for 
nonconforming day labor agencies from eighteen to twelve 
months. 
 
Three days after Ordinance No. 4337 was enacted, the City 
of Alexandria's Director of the Department of Planning and 
Zoning sent Ace a letter stating that "your day labor agency 
at 717 Pendleton Street is considered a nonconforming use."  
The letter further stated that Ace was "required to cease its 
operation within twelve months" from the date of the letter.  
Ace appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of 
Alexandria ("BZA").  Ace also filed a request for an extension 
of the twelve-month abatement period.  Both requests were 
denied. 
 
Ace then filed a "Motion for Declaratory Judgment and 
Injunctive Relief," which was later amended, against the City 
of Alexandria and the City Council challenging the adoption of 
Ordinance No. 4328 and Ordinance No. 4337.  The City of 
Alexandria and the City Council filed a "Cross-Bill for 
 
4
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief" asking the trial court to 
determine that Ace had violated Ordinance No. 4337 and to 
"permanently enjoin Ace from continuing its use and operation 
at 717 Pendleton Street." 
 
Ace also filed a suit against the BZA.  Upon a "Consent 
Motion for Consolidation of Suits in Equity," Ace's suit 
against the BZA was consolidated with its case against the 
City of Alexandria and the City Council (defendants 
collectively referred to as the "City").  Both Ace and the 
City filed motions for summary judgment.  After a hearing, the 
trial court ordered that Ace was "PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from 
continuing their operation of a day labor agency at 717 
Pendleton Street in violation of City Ordinance Nos. 4328 and 
4337." 
 
Ace appeals to this Court upon four assignments of error: 
 
 
1.  The trial court erred by holding that the 
Planning Commission's adoption of a motion to initiate a 
zoning text amendment on October 7, 2003, was valid, 
despite the fact that no text of an amendment was extant 
at the time of the adoption. 
 
 
 
2.  The trial court erred by holding that the City 
satisfied the procedural requirements of Va. Code Ann. 
§ 15.2-2286(A)(7) for the enactment of Ordinance No. 
4328, because Ordinance No. 4328 was not properly 
initiated. 
 
 
 
3.  The trial court erred by holding that the City 
satisfied the procedural requirements of Va. Code Ann. 
§ 15.2-2286(A)(7) for the enactment of Ordinance No. 
4337, because Ordinance No. 4337 was never initiated by 
motion or resolution. 
 
5
 
 
 
4.  The trial court erred by holding that the City 
satisfied the procedural requirements of the City Charter 
and City Code for the enactment of Ordinance No. 4328, 
given that the amendment thereto of the provisions 
relating to an amortization period was not in fact read 
at the second reading and final passage of Ordinance No. 
4328. 
 
II. Analysis 
Only assignments of error 1 and 3 are now before the 
Court for resolution on appeal.  Assignment of error 2 is 
procedurally barred because it was not included in Ace's 
petition for appeal.  Rule 5:17(c) ("Only errors assigned in 
the petition for appeal will be noticed by this Court.").  
Additionally, at oral argument, Ace withdrew assignment of 
error 4. 
Interpretation of a statute is a pure question of law 
subject to de novo review by this Court.  Renkey v. County 
Bd., 272 Va. 369, 373, 634 S.E.2d 352, 355 (2006). 
With regard to assignment of error 1, Code § 15.2-
2286(A)(7) states in relevant part: 
Whenever the public necessity, convenience, 
general welfare, or good zoning practice 
requires, the governing body may by ordinance 
amend, supplement, or change the regulations, 
district boundaries, or classifications of 
property. Any such amendment may be initiated 
(i) by resolution of the governing body; (ii) 
by motion of the local planning commission; or 
(iii) by petition of the owner, contract 
purchaser with the owner's written consent, or 
the owner's agent therefor, . . . .  Any such 
resolution or motion by such governing body or 
 
6
commission proposing the rezoning shall state 
the above public purposes therefor. 
Upon consideration of Ace's challenge, the trial court held 
that: 
 
Regarding the failure to present the 
actual text of the amendment at the time of the 
Planning Commission's adoption of the motion to 
initiate a text amendment on October 7, 2003, I 
find that there is no such requirement in the 
statute and that the statute only requires that 
an amendment be initiated by motion or 
resolution. 
The General Assembly did not include a requirement in 
Code § 15.2-2286(A)(7) that the text of an amendment be in 
written format at the time of initiation.  "Courts cannot add 
language to the statute the General Assembly has not seen fit 
to include."  Janvier v. Arminio, 272 Va. 353, 366, 634 S.E.2d 
754, 761 (2006).  Therefore, the trial court did not err in 
holding that the October 7, 2003 adoption of the motion to 
initiate the Text Amendment was valid. 
 
With regard to assignment of error 3, Ace argues that the 
City failed to initiate Ordinance No. 4337, to shorten the 
abatement period to twelve months, "in accordance with any 
statutory requirements."  Code § 15.2-2286(A)(7) states that 
the governing body may by ordinance amend the regulations, 
district boundaries, or classifications of property 
"[w]henever the public necessity, convenience, general 
welfare, or good zoning practice requires."  The Code permits 
 
7
any such amendment to be initiated "by resolution of the 
governing body" or "by motion of the local planning 
commission."  Pursuant to Code § 15.2-2286(A)(7), "[a]ny such 
resolution or motion by such governing body or commission 
proposing the rezoning shall state the above public purposes 
therefor." 
 
In this case, without an initiating motion or resolution 
and without a stated public policy reason, on February 10, 
2004, the City Council introduced and had a first reading of 
an ordinance to reduce the abatement period of non-conforming 
day labor agencies from eighteen to twelve months.  The City 
argues that the Text Amendment which had been properly 
initiated pursuant to Code § 15.2-2286(A)(7) and was approved 
by City Council on November 15, 2003, was also the "text 
amendment supporting the enactment of Ordinance 4337."  Also, 
the City argues that:  "Because Text Amendment 2003-0006, 
containing the 12-month amortization period approved by [the 
City] Council, already existed, there was no legal requirement 
under Virginia Code Section 15.2-2286(A)(7) to initiate a new 
text amendment before enacting Ordinance 4337." 
Adopting the rationale of the City, the trial court 
concluded that the "City satisfied the procedural requirements 
under . . . Code § 15.2-2286(A)(7) for the proper enactment of 
Ordinance No. 4337 in that initiation of Text Amendment 
 
8
# 2003-0006 on October 7, 2003 related to both Ordinance No. 
4328 and Ordinance 4337 because each of these ordinances were 
enacted to adopt that single text amendment."  In its holding, 
the trial court erroneously dispensed with the requirements 
specifically mandated by Code § 15.2-2286(A)(7).  Code § 15.2-
2286(A)(7) requires that each time an amendment to the Zoning 
Ordinance is made, the amendment must be properly initiated. 
Additionally, Code § 15.2-2285(C) states that "[z]oning 
ordinances shall be enacted in the same manner as all other 
ordinances."  "An ordinance may be amended or repealed in the 
same manner, or by the same procedure, in which, or by which, 
ordinances are adopted."  Code § 15.2-1427(D).  The City 
failed to initiate Ordinance No. 4337 pursuant to the 
requirements specified in Code § 15.2-2286(A)(7).  As such, 
the trial court erred in finding that the City satisfied the 
procedural requirements necessary to enact Ordinance No. 4337. 
III. Conclusion 
 
For the reasons stated, that portion of the judgment of 
the trial court holding that the text of the amendment did not 
have to be in written format at the time of its initiation 
will be affirmed.  The judgment of the trial court holding 
that the procedural requirements of Code § 15.2-2286(A)(7) 
were met when enacting Ordinance No. 4337 will be reversed.  
 
9
The case will be remanded for entry of an order consistent 
with this opinion. 
Affirmed in part, 
reversed in part, 
                                           and remanded.