Case Title: City of Chesapeake v. Dominion SecurityPlus Self Storage, LLC

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: virginia

Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Date: 2016-04-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
PRESENT:  Lemons, C.J., Goodwyn, Mims, McClanahan, Powell, and Kelsey, JJ.1 
 
CITY OF CHESAPEAKE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    OPINION BY 
v.  Record No. 150328 
 
 
 
 
    JUSTICE CLEO E. POWELL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    April 28, 2016 
DOMINION SECURITYPLUS SELF 
STORAGE, L.L.C. 
 
 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF CHESAPEAKE 
Randall D. Smith, Judge 
 
 
In this appeal from a condemnation award, we consider whether the circuit court erred in 
admitting certain expert testimony on damages, in awarding damages to the landowner for loss 
of visibility of its property, and in awarding damages as a result of loss of direct access to the 
highway abutting the property. 
I.  BACKGROUND 
 
Dominion SecurityPlus Self Storage, L.L.C. (“Dominion”) operates a self-storage facility 
located on Dominion Boulevard in the City of Chesapeake (“City”).  In 2001, Dominion’s 
predecessors in interest, Nathan and Margaret Eure (the “Eures”) applied to the City’s Planning 
Commission for permission to subdivide their six-acre parcel abutting Dominion Boulevard.  At 
the time, Dominion desired to purchase 4.5 acres of the Eures’ property to develop a self-storage 
facility.  The Eures hired engineer Robert Kellam (“Kellam”) to prepare a site plan for the self-
storage facility.  The City initially rejected the site plan and required the Eures to obtain a 
variance because the proposed 4.5 acre parcel lacked sufficient frontage on Dominion Boulevard.  
The City also required that the property be subdivided and that the subdivision plat reserve a 50-
foot right of way in favor of the City for purposes of future expansion of Dominion Boulevard. 
                         
1 Justice Roush participated in the hearing but not in the decision of this case.  The 
expiration of her term on the Court preceded the issuance of this opinion. 
2 
 
 
The Eures agreed to the City’s requests in order to obtain site plan approval.  A 
subdivision plat was prepared that contained Note 7, as required by the City.  Note 7 provided: 
The owner and/or their heirs, assigns, lessee, grantees or 
successors in interest agrees to reserve for future purchase by the 
City the area hereby designated on the plat and shall convey same 
to the City by deed containing general warranty and English 
Covenants [of] Title.  The purchase value of said area is to be 
based on the fair market value as of the date the City exercises its 
right to purchase the area designated as reserved with no 
compensation for any improvements placed within the area.  The 
owners agree that it shall not make or have any claims for damage 
to the said improvements or damages to the residue [of] the 
owners’ property by reason of the said purchase. 
 
The Planning Commission granted the variance related to the frontage on 
Dominion Boulevard.  In a letter addressed to the Eures’ attorney, the Planning 
Commission conditioned its approval of the variance on the stipulation that the existing 
access to Dominion Boulevard may be closed in the future and that an access road would 
provide road frontage to the rear of the property.  Kellam, the engineer, told Dominion 
about the stipulation. 
 
The subdivision plat containing Note 7 was recorded in the land records of the 
City on December 27, 2001.  On January 14, 2002, a deed was recorded conveying to 
Dominion the 4.5 acre parcel “subject to all of the terms, conditions, rights, obligations, 
restrictions, easements and reservations set forth in the duly record[ed] deeds, plats, 
declarations and other instruments constituting constructive notice in the chain of title to 
the property.” 
 
In 2011, the Chesapeake City Council, by resolution, authorized the acquisition “by 
purchase or condemnation” of property necessary for the Dominion Boulevard Improvements 
Project (the “Project”).  The Project, which was intended to spur development in the southern 
part of the City, involved the widening of Dominion Boulevard from a two-lane roadway to a 
3 
 
multi-lane, limited access highway, and the replacement of a drawbridge across the Elizabeth 
River with a new, fixed-span bridge that would be 95 feet at its apex.  The City determined that 
the Project required it to either purchase from Dominion or condemn the 50-foot right of way 
reservation, some additional land in fee, a permanent utility easement, a permanent waterline 
easement, and a temporary construction easement. 
 
After attempts to purchase the property and easements from Dominion failed, the City, on 
March 12, 2012, filed a certificate of take in the amount of $39,310.  The fee take consisted of 
4,943 square feet, which was entirely in the area subject to the reservation under Note 7.  Also 
included in the reservation area was the 345 square feet taken for the waterline easement.  The 
permanent utility easement contained 3,180 feet, of which 1,549 square feet were in the 
reservation.  The temporary construction easement consisted of 1,898 square feet, of which 1,361 
feet were within the reservation.  Accordingly, 1,631 square feet of the permanent utility 
easement and 537 square feet of the temporary construction easement were not within the 
reservation. 
 
Prior to the Project, Dominion’s entrance was at grade with Dominion Boulevard.  As 
part of the Project, Dominion Boulevard was raised more than 30 feet above Dominion’s 
property.  No part of the widened Dominion Boulevard included property taken from Dominion 
as part of the condemnation, as the City already owned the right of way needed for the widened 
highway.2  Because of the raised elevation of the roadway, Dominion’s storage facility is no 
longer visible from Dominion Boulevard.  In addition, Dominion no longer has direct access to 
Dominion Boulevard.  Instead, access to Dominion’s self-storage facility is now achieved by 
way of an access road reached by exiting Dominion Boulevard. 
                         
2 The reservation area taken in the condemnation was used for utility easements and to 
construct a new service road to provide access to the properties that had direct access to 
Dominion Boulevard prior to the condemnation. 
4 
 
 
On May 7, 2012, the City filed its petition for condemnation in the circuit court, asking 
for a determination of just compensation for the property taken and damages to the residue.  
Dominion filed its answer and grounds of defense in which it alleged that it was not bound by the 
50-foot right of way reservation because it was “an unlawful exaction of property without due 
process which action is beyond the authority of [the City].”  Dominion also alleged that the 
condemnation resulted in “a reduction in market value to the remaining property due to loss of 
reasonable access, visibility, and other causes.” 
 
On August 6, 2012, the City filed a motion in limine to exclude all evidence of damage to 
the residue resulting from the take of land and easements in the reservation.  The City argued that 
Note 7 constituted a valid and enforceable contract between the City and Dominion by which 
Dominion agreed to waive any damages to the residue caused by the purchase or take of the land 
in the reservation.  In response, Dominion argued that the reservation was an unconstitutional 
taking without due process, or, alternatively, was void and unenforceable.  The circuit court 
granted the City’s motion in limine in part, ruling that Dominion “is only precluded from arguing 
damage to the residue because the ‘sale of the reserved area’ resulted in a reduction of the total 
size of the remainder of [Dominion’s] real property.”  The circuit court explained: 
[A]t the time of entering into the agreement neither the City nor 
[Dominion] had any idea what or how the new road would be 
constructed.  The only foreseeable damage was the existence of the 
residue without the reserved area.  As such, [Dominion] is 
precluded from claiming damage to the residue solely because it is 
now 4,943 square feet less than it would have been had the City 
not purchased the land. 
The circuit court also concluded that the 2,168 square feet outside the reservation acquired for 
the utility easement and the construction easement were not subject to Note 7. 
 
On May 28, 2013, the City filed a second motion in limine to exclude Dominion’s 
evidence of damage to the residue caused by the loss of visibility of Dominion’s self-storage 
5 
 
facility and signage from Dominion Boulevard.  The City argued that Virginia has never 
recognized loss of visibility as a compensable item of damage in a partial taking case.  Further, 
the City maintained, any loss of visibility to the residue or signage did not flow directly from the 
take.  Instead, the loss of visibility was caused by the elevation of Dominion Boulevard, which 
was not constructed on any part of the property taken from Dominion.  In response, Dominion 
argued that it is entitled to compensation for damages to the residue arising from the Project as a 
whole, even if the damages did not result directly from the take.  The circuit court denied the 
City’s second motion in limine on November 7, 2013, explaining that: 
It appears to the [c]ourt that any claim of loss of visibility arises 
from the project as a whole and [Dominion’s] residue property is 
being impacted by the project.  Therefore, the [c]ourt will permit 
[Dominion] to offer evidence of loss of visibility in support of its 
claim of damage to the residue arising from the project as a whole. 
 
On August 21, 2014, the City filed a third motion in limine to prevent Dominion from 
presenting evidence of damages to the residue resulting from loss of direct access to Dominion 
Boulevard.  The City maintained that in return for the grant of a variance from frontage 
requirements, the Eures stipulated that the property’s access to Dominion Boulevard might be 
closed in the future.  According to the City, the stipulation ran with the land and was binding on 
Dominion.  Also, the City contended that the Planning Commission was authorized to place 
conditions on the grant of a variance for public road frontage, including a stipulation that access 
may be limited in the future.  In opposition to the City’s third motion in limine, Dominion argued 
that, when it acquired the property, its knowledge that the property might lose its direct access to 
Dominion Boulevard was irrelevant, because damages to the residue are to be determined as of 
the date of the take.  Dominion further maintained that the Planning Commission had no 
authority to impose any conditions on the variance as to the frontage requirements.  The circuit 
court denied the third motion in limine, finding that the stipulation was not valid. 
6 
 
 
On October 22, 2014, following a bench trial, the circuit court awarded Dominion 
$44,141 for the value of the fee take, and $2,156,789.18 for the damages to the residue, including 
loss of visibility and loss of direct access.  The City appealed. 
II.  ANALYSIS 
 
 
On appeal, the City argues that the circuit court erred in allowing Dominion to present 
evidence of damages to the residue resulting from the condemnation of the fee take and the 
temporary and permanent easements within the area of the 50-foot right-of-way.  “We review 
issues of contract interpretation de novo.”  Bailey v. Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office, 288 Va. 
159, 169, 762 S.E.2d 763, 766 (2014). 
Note 7 provided, in relevant part, that: 
The owner and/or their heirs, assigns, lessee, grantees or 
successors in interest agrees to reserve for future purchase by the 
City the area hereby designated on the plat . . . .  The owners agree 
that [they] shall not make or have any claims for damage to the 
said improvements or damages to the residue [of] the owners’ 
property by reason of the said purchase. 
The City maintains that Note 7 of the subdivision plat was a valid contract by which the 
landowner waived any damages to the residue as the result of the purchase or condemnation of 
the reservation area.  Dominion responds that, in allowing evidence of damages to the residue 
contrary to Note 7, the circuit court “reached the right result . . . in part for the right reason.”  
Dominion argues that Note 7 is not applicable because the City did not act pursuant to its terms.  
First, the City did not “purchase” the property within the reservation; the City took it by eminent 
domain.  Second, the City took more area than contained within the 50-foot reservation.  
According to Dominion, “[a]s the City had no choice but to take more area, the trial court had no 
choice but to allow the landowner to present evidence of residue damage.”  We agree with the 
City. 
7 
 
 
The circuit court recognized that Note 7 created a valid contract between the City and the 
Eures that was binding on all subsequent owners of the 4.5 acre lot created by the subdivision, 
including Dominion.  Nonetheless, the circuit court imposed a condition that the landowner 
waived only its right to claim damages that were foreseeable at the time of the recordation of the 
subdivision plat containing Note 7.  The circuit court opined that, when the subdivision plat was 
recorded in 2002, the only foreseeable damage to the residue of the property as a result of future 
purchase of the reservation area was that the property would be smaller.  Accordingly, the circuit 
court allowed Dominion to present evidence of damages to the residue for such matters as loss of 
visibility and loss of direct access. 
 
Our resolution of this issue is governed by familiar principles: 
We construe [a contract] as written, without adding terms that were 
not included by the parties.  When the terms in a contract are clear 
and unambiguous, the contract is construed according to its plain 
meaning.  Words that the parties used are normally given their 
usual, ordinary, and popular meaning. 
Squire v. Virginia Hous. Dev. Auth., 287 Va. 507, 516, 758 S.E.2d 55, 60 (2014) (quoting 
Uniwest Constr. v. Amtech Elevator Servs., 280 Va. 428, 440, 699 S.E.2d 223, 229 (2010)).  
“Courts will not rewrite contracts; parties to a contract will be held to the terms upon which they 
agreed.”  Dewberry & Davis, Inc. v. C3NS, Inc., 284 Va. 485, 496, 732 S.E.2d 239, 244 (2012) 
(quoting Bank of Southside Virginia v. Candelario, 238 Va. 635, 640, 385 S.E.2d 601, 603 
(1989)). 
 
Pursuant to Note 7, the landowner waived “any claim for . . . damages to the residue [of] 
the owners’ property by reason of the said purchase” (emphasis added).  The parties to the 
contract did not impose a term of foreseeability on the landowner’s waiver of damages to the 
residue, therefore, it was error for the circuit court to insert such a term into Note 7.  See 
Lansdowne Dev. Co. v. Xerox Realty Corp., 257 Va. 392, 400-01, 514 S.E.2d 157, 161 (1999) 
8 
 
(holding that a court “will not insert by construction, for the benefit of a party, a term not express 
in the contract”).  In this case, having waived “any claim for damages” the landowner’s waiver 
was broad enough to include the damages to the residue sought by Dominion at trial, including 
loss of visibility and loss of direct access to Dominion Boulevard. 
 
We are unpersuaded by Dominion’s argument that Note 7 did not apply to the City’s 
acquisition of Dominion’s property because the City obtained the property by exercise of the 
City’s power of eminent domain rather than by “purchase.”  Significantly, Dominion cites no 
authority in support of its argument.  The City did offer to purchase the property.  That offer was 
refused by Dominion.  Therefore, the City proceeded to acquire the property through 
condemnation.  In light of the fact that the City’s attempts to purchase the property were rebuffed 
by Dominion, we conclude that Note 7 was applicable to the City’s acquisition of the property 
within the reserved area by means of eminent domain.3 
 
Similarly, we reject Dominion’s argument that the waiver of damages contained in Note 
7 was voided by the City’s acquisition of some easements outside of the reserved area.  As noted 
above, 1,631 square feet of the permanent utility easement and 537 square feet of the temporary 
construction easement were not within the reservation.  Again, Dominion cites no authority in 
support of its argument that the waiver of damages to the residue contained in Note 7 was voided 
by the City’s acquisition of property rights outside of the reserved area.  The plain language of 
Note 7 limited its applicability to “damages to the residue [of] the owners’ property by reason of 
the said purchase [of the reserved area].”  Therefore, as the circuit court ruled, the “City’s 
additional take of land [was] not governed by the agreement” and Note 7 did not apply to any 
take outside the reserved area.  However, Dominion failed to present any evidence by which any 
                         
3 A condemnor is required by law to make a bona fide, but ineffectual, effort to purchase 
the property prior to instituting condemnation proceedings.  See Code § 25.1-204(A). 
9 
 
of over $2,100,000 in damages that the circuit court awarded could be apportioned to the City’s 
take of a utility easement and a temporary construction easement outside of the area of 
reservation.  Because of this failure of proof, the entire judgment for damage to the residue must 
be reversed. 
 
Because our resolution of the first assignment of error is dispositive, we need not reach 
the remaining four assignments of error and reserve for another day the substantive questions 
raised by the parties as to whether and to what extent loss of visibility is a compensable damage 
to the residue in a condemnation proceeding in Virginia.  See Blake v. Commonwealth, 288 Va. 
375, 380, 764 S.E.2d 105, 107 (2014) (addressing only one assignment of error that is 
dispositive); DurretteBradshaw, P.C. v. MRC Consulting, L.C., 277 Va. 140, 142 n.*, 670 S.E.2d 
704, 705 n.* (2009) (same); Umstattd v. Centex Homes, G.P., 274 Va. 541, 545, 650 S.E.2d 527, 
530 (2007) (same). 
III.  CONCLUSION 
 
For the foregoing reasons, we will reverse the judgment of the circuit court awarding 
Dominion damages to the residue in the amount of $2,156,789.18, which consisted of 
compensation for loss of visibility and loss of direct access, and enter final judgment in favor of 
the City on that claim. 
Reversed and final judgment.