Case Title: Glazebrook v. Board of Supervisors

Citation: 

Docket Number: 022937

State: virginia

Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Date: 2003-10-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
Present: All the Justices 
 
RAYNOLD C. GLAZEBROOK, JR., TRUSTEE, ET AL. 
 
 
 
                                  OPINION BY 
v.  Record No. 022937                 JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS 
 
 
 
           October 31, 2003 
 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY 
William H. Ledbetter, Jr., Judge 
 
 
In this appeal, we consider whether the Board of 
Supervisors for Spotsylvania County (“the Board”) provided 
adequate notice pursuant to Code § 15.2-2204(A) prior to 
holding a hearing and voting on text amendments to the 
County’s zoning ordinances. 
I.  Facts and Proceedings 
 
In response to the perceived threat to the infrastructure 
of Spotsylvania County posed by rapid growth, the Board 
scheduled hearings for February 6 and 12, 2002 to amend the 
County’s zoning ordinances.1  The advertisements stated the 
time, date, and location of the hearing.  They also listed the 
zoning districts to be affected, the zoning ordinance section 
numbers and titles, and stated that the hearing would affect 
“development standards.”  A reference to the location of the 
                     
1 The Board published advertisements in the Fredericksburg 
Free Lance-Star on January 23, 2002 and January 30, 2002 for 
the hearing on February 6, 2002.  The Board published 
advertisements in the same newspaper on January 30, 2002 and 
February 6, 2002 for the hearing on February 12, 2002. 
 
2
full text of the amendment proposals was also included.  Of 
importance to the case before us, the published notices 
contained the following:  
Amendment(s) 
  02-A Board of Supervisors:  Amendments to 
Chapter 23, Zoning, Article 6, Zoning 
Districts, of the Code of the County of 
Spotsylvania, as follows: 
Section 23-6.2.4.  Development standards.  
Amend development standards for the 
agricultural 1(A-1) district. 
Chapter 23, Article 6, Division 2, subparagraph 4 (§ 23-
6.2.4 of the Code of the County of Spotsylvania) is entitled 
“Development standards” and encompasses regulations addressing 
maximum density, road frontage, open space requirements, 
minimum lot requirements, and other characteristics.  On 
February 12, 2002, the Board voted to amend these “development 
standards.” 
Raynold C. Glazebrook and Realco-Route 3, L.L.C. 
(collectively, “Glazebrook”), along with a number of parties 
not before us at this time, brought suit against the Board on 
multiple grounds including a claim that the Board had failed 
to publish adequate notice of its proposed amendments as 
required by Code § 15.2-2204(A).  The Board demurred and the 
trial court sustained the Board’s demurrer on all but two 
counts, which did not apply to Glazebrook.  On appeal, 
 
3
Glazebrook’s two assignments of error challenge the sustaining 
of the demurrer and encompass only one issue.  Glazebrook 
maintains that the publication in the Fredericksburg Free 
Lance-Star provided insufficient notice in violation of Code 
§ 15.2-2204(A).  Glazebrook asserts that the Board’s notice 
that it would “[a]mend development standards” for the named 
zoning districts was not specific enough to satisfy the 
requirement that the Board publish a “descriptive summary” of 
the action it planned to consider at its hearing.  Because of 
the defect in notice, Glazebrook argues that the ordinance is 
void ab initio. 
II.  Standard of Review 
A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of facts alleged 
in pleadings, not the strength of proof.  We accept as true 
all facts properly pleaded in the bill of complaint and all 
reasonable and fair inferences that may be drawn from those 
facts.  W.S. Carnes, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors, 252 Va. 
377, 384, 478 S.E.2d 295, 300 (1996); Burns v. Board of 
Supervisors, 218 Va. 625, 627, 238 S.E.2d 823, 824-25 (1977); 
Chippenham Manor, Inc. v. Dervishian, 214 Va. 448, 450, 201 
S.E.2d 794, 796 (1974).  Because appellate review of the 
sustaining of a demurrer involves a matter of law, we review 
the trial court’s judgment de novo. 
 
4
III.  Analysis 
The heart of this controversy is the meaning of the 
phrase “descriptive summary” in Code § 15.2-2204(A) which 
provides: 
Plans or ordinances, or amendments thereof, 
recommended or adopted under the powers 
conferred by this chapter need not be 
advertised in full, but may be advertised by 
reference.  Every such advertisement shall 
contain a descriptive summary of the proposed 
action and a reference to the place or places 
within the locality where copies of the 
proposed plans, ordinances or amendments may be 
examined. 
(emphasis added).  If the notice published by the Board did 
not meet the requirements of Code § 15.2-2204, the Board acted 
outside the authority granted by the General Assembly and the 
amendments are void ab initio.  See City Council of the City 
of Alexandria v. Potomac Greens Assoc., 245 Va. 371, 378, 429 
S.E.2d 224, 228 (1993)(failure to give required notices 
rendered an ordinance “void ab initio”). 
A.  Definition of “Descriptive Summary” 
Parsing the phrase “descriptive summary” into its 
component parts, the word “descriptive” modifies the word 
“summary.”  “Descriptive” means “serving to describe.”  
“Describe” means “to represent by words written or spoken for 
the knowledge or understanding of others.”  Webster’s Third 
New International Dictionary 610 (1993).  A summary “cover[s] 
 
5
the main points concisely” but “lack[s] detailed explanation.”  
Id. at 2289.  Thus, a “descriptive summary” is a statement 
that covers the main points concisely, but without detailed 
explanation, in a manner that serves to describe an object for 
the knowledge and understanding of others. 
This literal definition of the phrase establishes the 
foundation for interpretation of what satisfies the 
requirements of Code § 15.2-2204(A).  If the notice does not 
cover the main points of the proposed amendment and does not 
accurately describe the proposed amendment, it does not 
satisfy Code § 15.2-2204(A).  However, the notice need not 
contain the full text of the proposed amendment, nor explain 
the proposed amendment in detail. 
Other language of Code § 15.2-2204(A) requires that the 
notice published by a locality “specify the time and place of 
hearing at which persons affected may appear and present their 
views.”  Code § 15.2-2204(A).  This language suggests that the 
intent of the statute is to generate informed public 
participation by providing citizens with information about the 
content of the proposed amendments and the forum for debate 
concerning those amendments.  There is no indication that the 
General Assembly expected affected citizens to engage in legal 
research in order to decide whether to participate in the 
 
6
hearing or to decide what their interests may be in a proposed 
amendment.  See also Lawrence Transfer & Storage Corp. v. 
Board of Zoning Appeals of Augusta, 229 Va. 568, 571, 331 
S.E.2d 460, 462 (1985) (determining that the intent of 
subsection B of the statute replaced by Code § 15.2-2204 was 
“to afford property owners who are closest to the land 
involved an opportunity to be heard by the Board.”). 
In City of Portsmouth v. County of Suffolk, 198 Va. 247, 
251, 93 S.E.2d 296, 300-01 (1956), we held that former Code 
§ 15.1-152.5, requiring publication of an “informative 
summary” of proposed annexations, was designed to “supply 
those who may be affected thereby, or interested therein, with 
certain information from which they may determine whether or 
not to act in support of or against the proposed annexation.”2  
Although it involves a different portion of the Code, the 
opinion expresses the same concerns that drive the need for 
adequate public notice in the zoning context.  We have 
previously stated that, as a whole, Virginia’s zoning statutes 
are designed to prevent zoning changes from being made 
“suddenly, arbitrarily, or capriciously.”  Bd. of Supervisors 
                     
2 The General Assembly has since changed the language to 
require a “descriptive summary” of the annexation ordinance.  
Code § 15.2-3204.  The motivation for the change is not clear 
and the two phrases are not, on their faces, significantly 
different. 
 
7
of Fairfax County v. Snell Construction Corp., 214 Va. 655, 
658, 202 S.E.2d 889, 892 (1974). 
The history of Code § 15.2-2204(A) adds further 
illumination.  Prior to 1992, the statute did not require the 
notice published by the locality to contain a “descriptive 
summary” or a summary of any kind.  In 1992, the General 
Assembly inserted the “descriptive summary” requirement.  Acts 
1992 ch. 757.  This change by the General Assembly suggests 
that it is not enough to provide information that will merely 
direct readers to the physical location of the actual text of 
the proposed amendments.  The “descriptive summary” 
requirement goes beyond referral to the primary document. 
B.  The Notice 
 
We must determine whether the notice published by the 
Board in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star contained a 
“descriptive summary” as required in Code § 15.2-2204(A).  The 
notice merely stated that the “development standards” for the 
specified zoning districts in question would be amended.  
“Development standards,” as the phrase is used in the 
ordinance, is a heading within which are a number of 
subheadings describing specific regulations.  In other words, 
“development standards” is the umbrella title for regulations 
including minimum road frontage, residential and non-
 
8
residential densities, lot areas for various uses, minimum lot 
width, and maximum height of structures on the land. 
 
We hold that the notice published by the Board did not 
contain a sufficiently descriptive summary of the proposed 
amendments to the Spotsylvania County zoning ordinances.  No 
citizen could reasonably determine, from the notice, whether 
he or she was affected by the proposed amendments except in 
the most general sense of being located in a particular type 
of zoning district.  Nor could a citizen determine whether the 
proposed amendments affected zoning issues that were of 
interest or concern to the citizen.  Given the number of 
issues subsumed under the heading “development standards,” 
using that heading as a descriptive summary fails to inform 
citizens of the universe of possible zoning ordinance 
amendments in any meaningful way.  Both the evolution of the 
statute and the treatment of analogous statutes illustrate 
that such a notice is inadequate under Code § 15.2-2204(A). 
 
We do not, in this opinion, attempt to dictate the exact 
language of future notices, nor do we seek to establish a 
bright line rule.  However, considering the intent and 
language of the statute, the notice in this case was 
inadequate.  Because the notice was inadequate in failing to 
provide a “descriptive summary,” the Board acted outside the 
 
9
powers granted to it.  See Code § 15.2-2204; Potomac Greens 
Assoc., 245 Va. at 378, 429 S.E.2d at 228.  Consequently, the 
zoning ordinances passed pursuant to the notices published on 
January 23, January 30, and February 6, 2002 and at issue in 
this case are void ab initio. 
IV.  Conclusion 
 
For these reasons, we reverse the judgment of the trial 
court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this 
opinion. 
Reversed and remanded.