COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judge Benton, Senior Judges Cole and Hodges 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

THOMAS LEWIS HARLOW, JR. 

v. Record No. 2073-93-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

 JUDGE WILLIAM H. HODGES 

CITY OF RICHMOND MAY 9, 1995 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND 

Thomas N. Nance, Judge 

 Gary R. Hershner (Morrissey, Hershner & 

Jacobs, on brief), for appellant. 

 (Michele Anne Gillette, Assistant City 

Attorney, on brief), for appellee. 

 Appellee submitting on brief. 

 The appellant, Thomas Lewis Harlow, Jr., contends that the 

trial court erred in refusing to strike the evidence on charges 

that he violated Richmond city ordinances in (1) failing to 

obtain a Certificate of Zoning Compliance for property at 4302 

Patterson Avenue on February 11, 1993, (2) failing to obtain a 

Certificate of Zoning Compliance for property at 3533 Grove 

Avenue on October 1, 1992, and (3) for engaging in construction 

work without a valid Building Permit at the Patterson Avenue 

property on February 11, 1993. He argues that the City failed to 

prove that he was the owner of the two parcels of property and 

that it failed to prove a building permit issued in 1985 was not 

valid. We agree with appellant and reverse. 

 "In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence . . . the 

evidence [must] be viewed in the light most favorable to the 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010, this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 -2- 

Commonwealth . . . granting to it all reasonable inferences, and 

the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed unless it 

appears plainly wrong, or without evidence to support it." 

Beavers v. Commonwealth, 245 Va. 268, 281-82, 427 S.E.2d 411, 421 

(1993). 

 The evidence revealed that on February 5, 1994, Todd Stoudt, 

a Building Inspector for the City of Richmond, saw the appellant 

exiting premises known as 4302 Patterson Avenue. Harlow was 

dressed in work clothes covered with dust and wearing a dust 

mask. Stoudt could see the interior of the premises and observed 

that the building was gutted with no plaster or sheetrock on the 

walls. After some discussion, Stoudt advised Harlow that the 

building permit displayed in the window on the property was 

invalid and requested that he obtain a new one. At the same time 

Stoudt issued a Stop Work Order. 

 Later Stoudt researched the records of the Bureau of Permits 

and Inspections to ascertain the status of Harlow's permit. He 

found that a permit had been issued in 1987. Stoudt testified 

that building permits are only valid for a period of six months 

unless construction is commenced or an extension is granted. The 

records further disclosed that no extensions were requested or 

granted for the permit. His testimony was that the holder of a 

permit is required to request inspections at certain stages of 

the construction and that none had been requested by Harlow. 

 The evidence further disclosed that by deed of R. Kenneth 
 -3- 

Luck dated December 27, 1984, the appellant and his wife were 

vested with title to the Patterson Avenue property. On four 

occasions the appellant was notified of the necessity to obtain a 

Certificate of Zoning Compliance but made no response. In either 

1985 or 1987 he did obtain the building permit in question. 

 The Grove Avenue property was deeded to the appellant on 

September 11, 1973, and he was notified on three occasions of the 

necessity to obtain a certificate. He made no apparent effort to 

obtain the certificate but at an undisclosed time, Harlow applied 

or offered to apply for a variance. 

 In its prosecution of the appellant on the two charges of 

failing to obtain the Certificate of Zoning Compliance, the City 

was required to prove that the appellant was the owner of the 

property in question. On these charges, the appellant's sole 

defense is the sufficiency of the City's evidence to prove this 

element. Appellant argues that proof of the recordation of a 

deed, in one instance almost nineteen years before the date of 

the alleged offense and in the other more than eight years prior 

to the alleged offense, does not sufficiently establish ownership 

to meet the City's burden. 

 The City counters that the recordation of the deeds coupled 

with the evidence that the appellant applied or offered to apply 

for a variance on one parcel and the fact that he obtained a 

building permit and was seen exiting the building wearing a dust 

mask and dusty clothes on the other is sufficient to prove beyond 
 -4- 

a reasonable doubt that appellant was the owner of the property. 

 We disagree. Except for the observation of the appellant 

exiting the building, the other evidence was either indefinitive 

or too remote in time to prove ownership. Because ownership was 

an essential element of the violations, we reverse the two 

convictions for failure to obtain the Certificates of Zoning 

Compliance. 

 Next, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in 

refusing to strike the City's evidence on the charge of engaging 

in construction work without a valid permit. He argues that the 

City introduced no evidence to show that the work did not 

commence within six months of the issuance of the permit and that 

there was no evidence to show that the project was discontinued 

or abandoned. The evidence discloses that the appellant did in 

fact obtain a permit and that work was commenced. We agree with 

the appellant that there is no evidence to show cessation of 

activities. 

 Patrick Murphy, the Chief Electrical Code Administrator for 

the City of Richmond, was called as an expert on the Uniform 

Statewide Building Code by the City. On cross-examination he 

testified as follows concerning the code section on which the 

City relied: 

 Q. Could you show me one of the code sections 

upon which you are relying? 

 A. The underlined one, sir. 

 Q. Could you read 109.9 that you have 

highlighted? 
 -5- 

 A. Any permit issued shall become invalid if the 

authorized work is not commenced within six 

months after issuance of the permit, or if 

the authorized work is suspended or abandoned 

for a period of six months after the time of 

commencing the work. Upon written request 

the building official may grant one or more 

extensions of time not to exceed six months 

per extension. 

 Q. Does it say anywhere in that what you just 

read that the owner is to call for 

inspections? 

 A. Not in this section; no. 

 The evidence discloses a permit was issued and work was 

commenced. There is no evidence to show cessation or that the 

construction reached a stage that required an inspection. 

Accordingly, we hold that the City has failed to sustain its 

burden to show the invalidity of the building permit. 

 For the reasons stated, the convictions are 

 Reversed and dismissed.