Title: Committee of Petitioners v. City of Norfolk

State: virginia

Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court

Document:

Present:  All the Justices 
 
COMMITTEE OF THE PETITIONERS FOR 
REFERENDUM, BY WILLIAM S. KERRY, 
AND OTHERS 
 
v.  Record No. 061329     OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY 
 
 
 
June 8, 2007 
CITY OF NORFOLK, ET AL. 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK 
Alfred W. Swersky, Judge 
 
 
In this appeal we consider whether the circuit court 
erred in holding that a petition filed in a referendum process 
did not comply with the requirements of that process and in 
allowing certain parties to intervene and challenge the 
validity of the petition. 
Facts and Proceedings 
 
Since the 1980s, the City of Norfolk has targeted the 
Ocean View area for revitalization.  As part of that effort, 
on July 19, 2005, the Norfolk City Council adopted four 
related ordinances affecting 17 acres of land owned by the 
Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority (NRHA) and 3 
privately owned acres (the Property).  The first, Ordinance 
No. 41,934, closed a portion of 4th Bay Street that runs 
directly through the Property.  The second, Ordinance No. 
41,935, amended the City's zoning ordinance to include a new 
planned development district designed specifically for the 
Property.  The third, Ordinance No. 41,936, mandated certain 
 
2
open space and public area and facility requirements.  The 
fourth, Ordinance No. 41,937, rezoned the property from R-12 
(medium-density residential) and IN-1 (institutional) to the 
new planned development zoning category created via Ordinance 
No. 41,935.  Under the ordinances, only single-family 
dwellings and town homes would be constructed and at least 
one-half of the Property would be dedicated as open space. 
A number of Norfolk residents opposed the development of 
the Property as a planned residential community.  The 
residents decided to utilize the referendum process set out in 
the Norfolk City Charter to repeal the ordinances by popular 
vote.  The referendum process required that the residents file 
documents announcing their intent to circulate the petition 
necessary to place the matter on the referendum ballot, secure 
a specified number of signatures for that petition, and 
present the petition to the City Council.  Norfolk City 
Charter § 35.  If the City Council did not repeal the 
ordinances within 30 days, the residents were required to 
request that the petition be sent to the circuit court for 
entry of an order placing the question on the ballot and 
setting the election date.  Norfolk City Charter § 36. 
The residents formed "The 'Bay Oaks Parks' Committee of 
the Petitioners" (the Committee) and filed an amended notice 
of intent to circulate and file a referendum petition (the 
 
3
Petition) on July 25, 2005.  The Petition stated that it was a 
petition "to repeal Ordinance No. 41,934, Ordinance No. 
41,935, Ordinance No. 41,936, and Ordinance No. 41,937 adopted 
on July 19, 2005."  The Committee filed the Petition with the 
clerk of the City of Norfolk on August 18, 2005.  The City 
Council did not repeal the ordinances within thirty days and, 
at the Committee's request, the Petition was sent to the Clerk 
of the Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk on September 20, 
2005.  After the Clerk of the Court certified that the 
Petition contained the requisite number of signatures of 
qualified voters, the Committee then presented the Petition to 
the Circuit Court. 
The City and NRHA each filed a motion to intervene, which 
the circuit court granted over the Committee's objections.  
The matter was set for an evidentiary hearing on February 23, 
2006.  At that hearing, the circuit court dismissed the claim 
raised by the City and NRHA that the Petition was invalid 
because the Committee used false and misleading statements and 
promotional materials in the circulation process but held, as 
a matter of law, that the Petition was invalid because it 
presented all four ordinances in a single petition.  The 
circuit court entered a final order declining to set a 
referendum election and dismissing the Petition with 
prejudice. 
 
4
The Committee filed a timely appeal to this Court 
asserting the circuit court erred in 1) granting the City and 
NRHA leave to intervene; 2) finding that the Petition was 
legally defective because the Petition sought repeal of four 
related Ordinances in a single petition instead of listing 
each of the four challenged ordinances in a separate petition; 
and 3) granting summary judgment for the City and NRHA sua 
sponte.  We granted the Committee an appeal. 
Discussion 
I.  Motion to Intervene 
We first address the Committee's assertion that the 
circuit court erred in granting the City's and NRHA's motions 
to intervene.  The Committee claims the motions to intervene 
were untimely because they were not filed until nearly two 
months after the City received notice that the Petition was to 
be circulated and over one month after the completed Petition 
was officially presented to the City Council. 
We apply an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a 
circuit court's decision to grant a motion to intervene.  See 
Hudson v. Jarrett, 269 Va. 24, 33, 606 S.E.2d 827, 831 (2005) 
(granting motion to intervene is within discretion of court 
but intervenor must meet requirements for intervention).  The 
Committee does not question the interests of the City and NRHA 
in the subject matter of these proceedings; its challenge is 
 
5
limited solely to the timeliness of the intervention. The 
circuit court found the interventions timely "since at any 
time prior to the City Council's completion of the 
reconsideration mandated by law, the issue could have been 
made moot and . . . there are no statutory, charter, or 
constitutional provisions requiring earlier filing." 
The circuit court's rationale reflects a reasoned 
evaluation of the circumstances.  The fact that the City or 
NRHA could have brought its objections to the Petition to the 
attention of the Committee at some earlier time is not 
relevant to whether the intervention in circuit court was 
timely.  Accordingly, we hold that the circuit court did not 
abuse its discretion in granting the motion to intervene. 
II.  Petition for Referendum 
"A referendum is 'an exercise by the voters of their 
traditional right through direct legislation to override the 
view of their elected representatives as to what serves the 
public interest.' "  R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. Committee for 
the Repeal of Ordinance R(C)-88-13, 239 Va. 484, 489, 391 
S.E.2d 587, 589 (1990) (quoting City of Eastlake v. Forest 
City Enters., Inc., 426 U.S. 668, 678 (1976)).  The referendum 
process "is a means for direct political participation, 
allowing the people the final decision, amounting to a veto 
 
6
power, over enactments of representative bodies."  Id. 
(quoting City of Eastlake, 426 U.S. at 673). 
Petitions for initiating the referenda process are the 
subject of § 35 of the City Charter.  That section states that 
a petition does not have to contain the text of the "ordinance 
or ordinances" sought to be repealed.  Norfolk City Charter 
§ 35.  This language implies but does not specifically address 
whether a single petition may be submitted for the repeal of 
more than one ordinance. 
In the absence of clear legislative direction on this 
issue, the City and NRHA argue, and the circuit court agreed, 
that because a referendum is "legislative in nature and 
effect," Collins v. City of Norfolk, 244 Va. 431, 434, 422 
S.E.2d 782, 783 (1992), the petition is subject to the same 
restrictions that apply to a City ordinance.  One of those 
requirements is that City ordinances "shall be confined to one 
subject."  Norfolk City Charter § 14.1.  Applying this 
section, the City contends that the circuit court was correct 
in concluding that because the four ordinances contained in 
the Petition could not be considered in a single ordinance, 
they likewise could not be combined in a single petition for 
referendum, and therefore, the Petition was invalid.  We 
disagree with this analysis. 
 
7
First, nothing in the City Charter indicates that the 
provisions applicable to City ordinances are also applicable 
to a petition for referendum.  Furthermore, the City and NRHA 
equate the petition for referendum with the referendum itself.  
However, the petition is the mechanism for placing the issue 
before the electorate; the referendum is the vote of the 
electorate.  More importantly, nothing in the Petition 
precludes a separate vote on each of the ordinances referenced 
in the Petition. 
The Committee contended at trial and reiterated here that 
the Petition only ensures the placement of the ordinances on 
the ballot and that each ordinance could be voted upon 
independently.  Code § 24.2-684 specifically states that 
"[t]he court order calling a referendum shall state the 
question to appear on the ballot."  This provision does not 
reference the petition and, contrary to the argument of the 
City and NRHA, the language of the Petition reciting the 
ordinances in the conjunctive, does not require the circuit 
court to structure the ballot to require a single vote on the 
combined ordinances. 
The Committee's Petition complied with all stated 
requirements of the City Charter and the Code.  The Petition 
was not invalid because it listed multiple ordinances and the 
Committee was not required to circulate a separate petition 
 
8
for each of the four challenged ordinances.  Accordingly, the 
circuit court erred in finding the Petition invalid and in 
declining to certify and order the referendum requested by the 
Committee.* 
In summary, we will affirm that portion of the judgment 
of the circuit court allowing the City and NRHA to intervene.  
We will reverse that portion of the judgment holding that the 
Petition was invalid, and remand the case for further 
proceedings. 
Affirmed in part, 
reversed in part, 
 and remanded. 
 
                     
* In light of this holding, we need not address whether 
the circuit court improperly granted summary judgment for the 
City and NRHA.