Present: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, 

 and Millette, JJ., and Russell, S.J. 

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY BOARD 

OF ZONING APPEALS, ET AL. OPINION BY 

 SENIOR JUSTICE CHARLES S. RUSSELL 

v. Record No. 080126 January 16, 2009 

EASTERN SHORE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY 

Glen A. Tyler, Judge 

 This appeal turns upon the interpretation of the language 

of a county zoning ordinance. 

Facts and Proceedings

 The pertinent facts are undisputed. In 2003, Eastern 

Shore Development Corporation (ESDC), as contract purchaser of 

a 48.25-acre parcel of land in Northampton County, submitted 

an application for the rezoning of a part of the land from the 

“A1” (Agricultural 1) zoning district to the “CD-R1” 

(Community Development – Single-Family Residential) zoning 

district. The Board of Supervisors of Northampton County 

approved the application on August 12, 2004 and also granted a 

special use permit for condominium development on the site. 

Later, ESDC submitted a site plan for the development of the 

rezoned land, showing the proposed construction of eight 8-

unit multi-family residential buildings.1

 1

 The site plan described the proposed development as: “1 

Parcel with 8 Condominiums having 8 Units each.” 
 The county’s zoning administrator disapproved the site 

plan on the ground that newly constructed apartment buildings 

were prohibited in the “CD-R1” district. ESDC appealed to the 

county’s board of zoning appeals (BZA), which affirmed the 

decision of the zoning administrator. ESDC filed a petition 

for a writ of certiorari in the circuit court, seeking 

reversal of the BZA’s decision. By leave of court, the 

Northampton County Board of Supervisors intervened in the case 

as a party respondent in support of the position of the BZA. 

The parties agreed that the case presented a pure question of 

law, involving the interpretation of the language of the 

zoning ordinance. Upon the record, briefs and arguments of 

counsel, the circuit court reversed the decision of the BZA, 

holding that the “Zoning Ordinance . . . permits eight eightunit condominiums of the type shown on Petitioner’s Plat . . . 

when the . . . Board of Supervisors expressly grants a special 

use permit for such a use.” We awarded the respondents an 

appeal.2

Analysis

 The question presented by this appeal depends entirely 

upon the interpretation to be given to the phrase 

“Condominium-type ownership (see VA Code)” as used in the 

 2

 Respondents BZA and the board of supervisors are 

hereinafter collectively described as “the County.” 

2
Northampton County Zoning Ordinance. The interpretation of 

legislative language presents a pure question of law, subject 

to review de novo on appeal. Horner v. Dept. of Mental 

Health, 268 Va. 187, 192, 597 S.E.2d 202, 204 (2004). 

 The applicable sections of the Northampton County Zoning 

Ordinance (NCZO) divide the territory of the county into five 

“principal zoning districts,” four of which are further 

subdivided into “secondary zoning districts.” NCZO 

§ 154.081(A),(B). The secondary zoning classification in 

which the property in question was contained after its 

rezoning in 2004 was the “Single-Family Residential District 

(CD-R1).” NCZO § 154.081(B)(3)(b). The ordinance contained 

“statements of intent” describing the purposes of these 

classifications. The intent of the CD-R1 district was stated 

as: 

1. To provide for single-family residential uses at 

a density sufficient to support public water and 

sewage systems; 

2. To protect the residential character of the 

district from the encroachment of commercial, 

industrial, or other uses likely to generate large 

concentrations of traffic, dust, odor, smoke, light, 

noise, and other influences which would adversely 

impact residential uses. 

NCZO § 154.082(D)(2)(b). 

 The ordinance itemizes for each district the uses 

prohibited, permitted as a matter of right, or permitted only 

by special use permit. The uses are set forth in tabular form 

3
in columns under the headings of the respective districts to 

which they apply. In the “CD-R1” district, “Apartments, new 

construction” are prohibited, as are “Quadraplex structures” 

and “Triplex structures.” Permitted as a matter of right are 

“Single family” and “Apartments in existing buildings.” 

Permitted only with a special use permit are “Duplex 

structures,” “Townhouses or row houses,” “Zero lot line 

single-family units” and the category in question here, 

“Condominium-type ownership (see VA Code).” NCZO 

§ 154.125(C). 

 The County argues that “Condominium-type ownership (see 

VA Code)” means exactly what it says, that title to property 

in the district may be held in condominium form if a special 

use permit is granted authorizing that form of ownership.3 The 

reference to the Code of Virginia, the argument continues, is 

a cross-reference to the Condominium Act, Code §§ 55-79.39 et 

seq., which defines “condominium” and prescribes the legal 

 3

 Code § 55-79.43(A) prohibits discrimination against 

condominium ownership by any local land use ordinance. The 

Northampton County Zoning Ordinance treats all zoning 

districts alike in this respect, permitting such ownership in 

all districts subject to special use permit. We construe that 

requirement of a special use permit to refer only to 

nonconforming conversion condominiums, which are not involved 

in this case, because those are the only types of condominiums 

for which Code § 55-79.43(E) makes an exception, expressly 

authorizing localities to impose special use permit 

requirements upon them. 

4
aspects of that form of ownership, including its creation, 

management, administration, operation, and sale. As the 

County points out, the Condominium Act has no application to, 

and makes no mention of, the physical structure of buildings. 

 ESDC contends that “condominium” refers to a multiple 

unit structure, and points to the definition in NCZO 

§ 154.003(C): “Condominium. Ownership of single units in a 

multiple unit structure or complex having common elements.” 

ESDC argues that if that definition is inserted into the table 

of uses in the ordinance, its project would be permitted. We 

do not agree. The definition, by its very terms, defines a 

form of “ownership.” Further, the definition is fully 

consistent with the classification in the zoning ordinance 

permitting “Condominium-type ownership,” (emphasis added), 

without any reference to the type of structure permitted. 

 The same section of the ordinance defines “Apartment 

house” as: “A building containing three or more dwelling 

units which serves as the residence of three or more families 

living independently of each other.” (Emphasis added.) 

 The clear intent of the zoning ordinance is to limit 

residential density. Thus, only single-family homes and 

apartments within existing buildings were permitted as a 

matter of right in the CD-R1 district. Uses of greater 

density, (e.g., duplex and townhouse structures) are permitted 

5
only with a special use permit. Uses of the greatest density 

(e.g., triplex, quadraplex and apartment buildings) are 

unconditionally prohibited. All of these classifications 

apply to the physical structure of buildings to be erected 

within the district. The classification in question, 

“Condominium-type ownership,” applies instead to the legal 

form of land tenure to be adopted, not to the physical 

structure of buildings to be erected. 

 It is the duty of the Court to read legislative 

enactments to give meaning to all the words used. We cannot 

read them “to render any words meaningless.” Corns v. School 

Board of Russell County, 249 Va. 343, 349, 454 S.E.2d 728, 732 

(1995); Equity Investors, Ltd. v. West, 245 Va. 87, 91, 425 

S.E.2d 803, 806 (1993). This rule of construction applies to 

local ordinances and acts of the General Assembly alike. See

Monument Associates v. Arlington County Board, 242 Va. 145, 

149, 408 S.E.2d 889, 891 (1991). The reading of the ordinance 

advocated by ESDC would give effect only to the word 

“Condominium” in the phrase in question, rendering the 

remaining five words meaningless. 

 Although the board of supervisors might have amended the 

zoning ordinance after following the proper procedure, it was 

not at liberty to disregard it. Acts of a local governing 

body that are in conflict with its own ordinances exceed its 

6
7

authority and are void and of no effect. Thus the County's 

granting of a special use permit was not effective to alter 

the provisions of the zoning ordinance. Renkey v. County Bd. 

of Arlington County, 272 Va. 369, 376, 634 S.E.2d 352, 356 

(2006); Board of Sup. of Washington County v. Booher, 232 Va. 

478, 481-82, 352 S.E.2d 319, 321 (1987). 

Conclusion

 We conclude that the zoning ordinance unconditionally 

prohibited new construction of apartment buildings in the CDR1 district, that ESDC’s proposed construction was of the kind 

so prohibited, that the BZA correctly so ruled, and that the 

circuit court erred in reversing the decision of the BZA. 

Accordingly, we will reverse the judgment appealed from and 

enter final judgment here affirming the decision of the BZA. 

Reversed and final judgment.