PRESENT: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and 

Agee, JJ., and Stephenson, S.J. 

GAS MART CORPORATION, ET AL. 

 OPINION BY 

v. Record No. 041455 SENIOR JUSTICE ROSCOE B. STEPHENSON, JR. 

 March 3, 2005 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF 

 LOUDOUN COUNTY, ET AL. 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LOUDOUN COUNTY 

Thomas D. Horne, Judge 

 In this interlocutory appeal, numerous complainants 

challenge the validity of revisions to a county's zoning 

ordinance. 

I 

 On January 6, 2003, the Board of Supervisors of Loudoun 

County (the Board) enacted comprehensive amendments to the 

Loudoun County Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map (the ZOAs). 

Within thirty days thereafter, more than 200 suits in equity 

were filed against the Board and the County of Loudoun 

(collectively, the County), challenging the validity of the ZOAs 

on various grounds. By a decree, the trial court consolidated 

all of the suits pursuant to the Multiple Claimant Litigation 

Act, Code §§ 8.01-267.1 through –267.9, and directed the 

formation of a Litigation Steering Committee (the LSC) to 

represent all complainants in the consolidated cases with 

respect to common issues of law and fact. 
 With leave of court, the LSC filed on behalf of all 

complainants an amended supplemental bill of complaint for 

declaratory judgment and other relief with respect to the common 

issues. Two counts of that bill of complaint, Counts IV and IX, 

are at issue in this appeal. 

 In Count IV, the complainants alleged that the ZOAs were 

void ab initio because the Board had failed to comply with the 

public notice requirements of Code § 15.2-1427(F). In 

sustaining the County's demurrer to Count IV, the trial court 

concluded that Code § 15.2-1427(F) is inapplicable to the 

enactment or amendment of zoning ordinances. 

 In Count IX, the complainants asserted that the Board had 

failed in a number of ways to satisfy the public hearing notice 

requirement of Code § 15.2-2204(A). With one exception, the 

trial court rejected the complainants' assertion, holding that 

the notice satisfied the requirements of Code § 15.2-2204(A). 

 After the trial court issued its letter opinion, the 

complainants requested the court to certify two "controlling 

questions of law" as appropriate for an interlocutory appeal, 

pursuant to the provisions of Code § 8.01-267.8(B). By decree 

entered June 14, 2004, the trial court certified the two 

questions presented in this appeal, stating that there are 

"controlling questions of law as to which there is substantial 

ground for difference of opinion, and . . . an immediate appeal 

2
. . . may materially advance the ultimate termination of this 

litigation." We awarded the complainants an interlocutory 

appeal on the two questions of law certified by the trial court, 

concluding that they were appropriate for an interlocutory 

appeal pursuant to the Multiple Claimant Litigation Act. 

 These are the two questions presented in this appeal: 

 1. Whether the trial court erred in holding that the Board 

was not required to comply with the procedures set forth in Code 

§ 15.2-1427(F), as a condition precedent to the valid enactment 

or amendment of a zoning ordinance under Code § 15.2-2285(C); 

and 

2. Whether the trial court erred in holding that, with the 

lone exception noted above, the notices published by the Board 

satisfied the requirements of Code § 15.2-2204(A). 

II 

 On January 6, 2003, the Board adopted the ZOAs. The 

process began on January 5, 2000, when the Board passed a 

resolution directing the County Planning Commission to initiate 

a review and revision of the County's comprehensive land use 

plan. 

 On July 23, 2001, the Board adopted extensive modifications 

of the County comprehensive land use plan, which became known as 

"the Revised General Plan." Thereafter, the Board, the Planning 

Commission, the County staff, and outside experts prepared 

3
revisions to the Zoning Ordinance to implement the policies of 

the Revised General Plan. 

 On July 15, 2002, the Board passed another resolution 

stating that it had "placed as its highest priority, in 

implementing the Revised General Plan, the comprehensive 

remapping and necessary amendments to the Zoning Ordinance." 

This resolution directed the Planning Commission "to conduct a 

review of the proposed remapping and the amended Zoning 

Ordinance text language" and present its findings and 

recommendations to the Board by October 15, 2002. 

 The Planning Commission held public hearings on the 

proposed amendments on August 14 and 17, 2002, after publishing 

the required legal advertisement and mailing a notice letter to 

each of approximately 64,000 County landowners regarding the 

hearings. A revised draft of the proposed amendments, together 

with the Planning Commission's recommendations, was forwarded to 

the Board on October 16, 2002. 

 After receiving the Planning Commission's recommendations, 

the Board published an advertisement in the Loudoun Times-Mirror

on October 16 and 23, 2002, announcing that it would conduct 

public hearings on November 2 and 6, 2002, to consider the 

proposed amendments. The advertisement read as follows: 

PUBLIC HEARING

4
The LOUDOUN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS will hold a 

public hearing in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting 

Room, County Government Ctr., 1 Harrison Street, S.E., 

Leesburg, Virginia on Saturday, November 2, 2002, at 

9:00 a.m. and Wednesday, November 6, 2002, at 3:00 

p.m. and 6:00 p.m. to consider the following: 

ZOAM 2002-0003 

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ALL ARTICLES OF THE 1993 

ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPLEMENTING 

THE POLICIES OF THE REVISED GENERAL PLAN 

Pursuant to Sections 15.2-2204 and 15.2-2285 of the 

Code of Virginia and a Resolution regarding Review of 

the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance adopted by 

the Board of Supervisors on January 5, 2000, the 

Loudoun County Board of Supervisors hereby gives 

notice that it will consider comprehensive amendments 

to the 1993 Loudoun County Zoning Ordinance (the 

"Ordinance"). Such amendments would revise the entire 

Ordinance in conjunction with a comprehensive 

amendment to the Zoning Map. Such amendments would 

add, replace, modify, delete and add to various 

Articles and Sections of the Ordinance as necessary to 

implement policies of the Revised General Plan adopted 

by the Board of Supervisors on July 23, 2001. 

Provisions that are proposed to be added or amended 

include, without limitation, the following: 

• New and revised requirements for the proposed new 

AR-1 and AR-2 Agricultural Rural zoning 

districts; the proposed new TR-1 (including subdistricts TR1UBF, TR1LF), TR-2, TR-3 (including 

sub-districts TR3UBF, TR3LBR, TR3LF) and TR-10 

Transitional Residential zoning districts; the 

proposed new JLMA-1, JLMA-2, JLMA-3 and JLMA-20 

Joint Land Management Area zoning districts; the 

proposed new TREC Transit Related Employment 

Center zoning district; the proposed new Village 

Overlay District; the CLI Commercial Light 

Industry zoning district and the RC Rural 

Commercial zoning district; 

• Provisions to implement the Conservation Design 

policies in the Revised General Plan; 

5
• Provisions to implement the Green Infrastructure 

policies in the Revised General Plan by various 

means including, without limitation, imposition 

of environmental overlay districts such as a 

River and Stream Corridor Overlay District and a 

Limestone Overlay District and amending the 

Mountainside Development Overlay District; and 

• Provisions to encourage and support rural 

economic development. 

The public purposes for these amendments include 

those purposes of zoning set forth in Section 

15.2[-]2200 and 15.2[-]2283 of the Code of 

Virginia. 

ZMAP 2002-0014 

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE COUNTYWIDE 

ZONING MAP FOR THE PURPOSE OF 

IMPLEMENTING THE POLICIES OF 

THE REVISED GENERAL PLAN 

Pursuant to Sections 15.2-2204 and 15.2-2285 of the 

Code of Virginia and a Resolution regarding Review of 

the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance adopted by 

the Board of Supervisors on January 5, 2000, the 

Loudoun County Board of Supervisors hereby gives 

notice that it will consider comprehensive amendments 

to the Countywide Zoning Map. Such amendments would 

change the zoning district designations, including 

zoning overlay districts, on the County Zoning Map for 

the purpose of implementing the Revised General Plan

(the "Plan") adopted by the Board of Supervisors on 

July 23, 2001. Major revisions would include, without 

limitation, the following revisions to conform to 

recommended densities and policies of the Plan: 

• Remapping most of the existing Agricultural 

Residential (A-3), Agriculture (A-10) and 

Countryside Residential (CR-1 through CR-4) 

properties in the western portion of the County 

to Agricultural Rural AR-1, at a density of 1 

dwelling unit ("d.u.") per 20 acres (or, if 

clustered, 1 d.u. per 10 acres), and AR-2 at a 

density of 1 d.u. per 50 acres (or, if clustered, 

1 d.u. per 20 acres); 

6
• Remapping the A-3, CR-1 and CR-2 districts within 

the Joint Land Management Areas (JLMA) to new 

JLMA districts with densities generally unchanged 

except for proposed reduction in density to 1 

d.u. per 20 acres for properties lying generally 

in the vicinity of the Leesburg Airport; 

• Remapping the residential CR areas in the 

vicinity of Arcola to PD-GI General Industrial 

with Floor Area Ratio ("FAR") up to a maximum of 

0.4; 

• Remapping the Planned Development-Industrial Park 

(PD-IP), A-3 and CR areas west of Dulles Airport 

to PD-GI General Industrial with FAR up to a 

maximum of 0.4; 

• Remapping the Broad Run Farms area and 

substantial areas lying generally south of the 

Dulles Greenway and east of Goose Creek where 

recommended by the Plan for residential use from 

A-3 and CR to R-1 at a density of 1 d.u. per 

acre; 

• Expansion of the existing Commercial Light 

Industry CLI district and remapping of certain CR 

property to CLI for properties lying generally on 

the south side of Route 50 east of Lenah Run at 

densities generally up to 0.35 FAR; 

• Remapping much of the A-3 property lying 

generally south of Sycolin Creek and west of 

Goose Creek and east of Evergreen Mills Road 

(Route 621) to Transitional Residential TR-10 at 

a density of 1 d.u. per 10 acres with required 

clustering; 

• Remapping much of the A-3 property lying 

generally east of Route 15 and south of Braddock 

Road (Route 705) to Transitional Residential TR-3 

(sub-district TR3UBF) at a density of 1 d.u. per 

3 acres with required clustering; 

• Remapping much of the A-3 property lying 

generally north of Route 50 and east of Watson 

Road (Route 860) and south of Evergreen Mills 

Road (Route 621) to Transitional Residential TR-3 

7
(sub-district TR3UBF) at a density of 1 d.u. per 

3 acres with required clustering; 

• Remapping much of the A-3 property lying 

generally south of Braddock Road (Route 620) and 

west of Fairfax County to Transitional 

Residential TR-3 (sub-district TR3LF) at a 

density of 1 d.u. per 3 acres with required 

clustering; 

• Remapping much of the A-3 property lying 

generally south of Braddock Road (Route 620) to 

the east of Prince William County and west of 

Fairfax County to Transitional Residential TR-3 

(sub-district TR3LBR) at a density of 1 d.u. per 

3 acres with required clustering; 

• Remapping CR properties in the vicinity of Lenah 

lying generally on the north and south sides of 

Route 50 and north and south of Braddock Road 

(Route 705 & Route 620) and east of Route 15 to 

Transitional Residential TR-1 (sub-district 

TR1UBF) at a density of 1 d.u. per acre with 

required clustering; 

• Remapping the strip of CR properties generally on 

the south sides of Braddock Road (Route 620) and 

west of Fairfax County to Transitional 

Residential TR-1 (sub-district TR1LF) at a 

density of 1 d.u. per acre with required 

clustering; 

• Imposing a new Village Overlay district upon the 

existing villages in the rural areas and upon the 

village of Ashburn to achieve continuity and 

consistency of future development in the villages 

with existing development. 

The public purposes for these amendments include those 

purposes of zoning set forth in Section 15.2[-]2200 

and 15.2-2283 of the Code of Virginia 

Unless otherwise noted in the above notices, full and 

complete copies of the above-referenced applications 

and related documents may be examined in the Loudoun 

County Building and Development Department, 1 Harrison 

Street, S.E., 2nd Floor, Leesburg, Virginia, from 9:00 

8
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday or call (703) 

777-0397.

All members of the public will be heard as to their 

views pertinent to these matters. Citizens are urged 

to call to sign up to make a presentation at the 

public hearing. Individual citizen comments and 

organizations will be limited to three minutes so that 

all in attendance may have the opportunity to speak. 

Written comments are encouraged and may be submitted 

to the Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. 

Please call the Board of Supervisors' Office at (703) 

777-0204 to register to speak. Registrations will 

begin Tuesday, October 22, 2002. Speakers who 

anticipate providing a written copy of their comments 

are kindly requested to provide 15 copies to the 

Deputy Clerk. 

Hearing assistance is available for meetings in the 

Board Room. If you require any type of reasonable 

accommodation as a result of a physical, sensory or 

mental disability to participate in this meeting, 

please contact County Administration at (703) 777-

0200. Three days notice is requested. FM Assistive 

Listening System is available at the meetings. 

BY ORDER OF: SCOTT K. YORK, CHAIRMAN 

 LOUDOUN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

 In addition to the newspaper advertisement, the Board 

mailed a notice letter to each of approximately 64,000 County 

landowners before the public hearings. The letters informed the 

landowners of the dates and times of the Board's public 

hearings. The letters also informed each landowner of the 

specific district proposed for that landowner's property and 

explained that the district included regulations governing the 

use and development of the property. In addition, the letters 

advised the location where copies of the proposed amendments 

were available for review. 

9
 Thereafter, the Board held public hearings on November 2 

and 6, 2002, at which the Board received numerous comments from 

the public. Following the public hearings, the Board continued 

to refine the amendments before their adoption on January 6, 

2003. 

III 

 The complainants contend that the public hearing notices 

did not satisfy the requirements of Code § 15.2-2204(A), which, 

in pertinent part, provides the following: 

 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. 

 The local planning commission shall not recommend 

nor the governing body adopt any plan, ordinance or 

amendment thereof until notice of intention to do so 

has been published once a week for two successive 

weeks in some newspaper published or having general 

circulation in the locality. 

(Emphasis added.) In sum, this statute provides that public 

hearing notices must contain three specific elements: (1) a 

descriptive summary of the proposed amendments; (2) a reference 

to the place within the locality where the proposed amendments 

may be examined; and (3) notice of the governing body's 

intention to adopt the proposed amendments. According to the 

10
complainants, the public hearing notices published by the Board 

"satisfied none of these three requirements." 

A 

 First, we consider whether the public hearing notices 

provided a legally adequate "descriptive summary" of the Board's 

proposed zoning action. 1 In the recent case of Glazebrook v. 

Board of Supervisors, 266 Va. 550, 554-55, 587 S.E.2d 589, 591-

92 (2003), we stated, in pertinent part, the following: 

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. 

 . . . 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. 

 . . . [The language of Code § 15.2-2204(A)] 

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 hearing or to decide what their interests may be 

in a proposed amendment. 

 1

 The trial court held that the Board had failed to provide 

any "descriptive summary" of the environmental overlay district 

amendments. Therefore, the trial court declared the ZOAs 

relating to those districts void ab initio. The court severed 

those amendments from the remainder of the ZOAs, and they are 

not part of this appeal. 

11
 In Glazebrook, the challenged public hearing notices stated 

only that the "development standards" for certain specified 

zoning districts in a county would be amended. 266 Va. at 556, 

587 S.E.2d at 592. We explained that the term "development 

standards," as used in the county's ordinance, was "a heading 

within which are a number of subheadings describing specific 

regulations." Id. 

 We held, in Glazebrook, that 

the notice published by the Board did not contain a 

sufficiently descriptive summary of the proposed 

amendments to the . . . 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. 

Id., 587 S.E.2d at 592-93. 

(1) 

 In the present case, the public hearing notices listed a 

number of "[p]rovisions that [were] proposed to be added or 

amended." One of the proposals was titled "Provisions to 

implement the Conservation Design policies in the Revised 

General Plan." This is the only reference to "Conservation 

Design policies" stated in the notices. The complainants 

12
contend that this statement, standing alone, does not constitute 

a "descriptive summary" as required by Code § 15.2-2204(A), and 

we agree. 

 The name of the policies (i.e., "Conservation Design") 

provides the only clue regarding the Board's proposed action. 

There is no description or summary of the content of those 

policies, and the notices do not indicate the particular areas 

of the County that would be affected by the proposed policies.2 

Clearly, the lone statement fails to cover the main points in a 

manner that informs the public regarding the content of the 

policies and the affected areas of the County. We hold, 

therefore, that the statement in the notices fails to satisfy 

the "descriptive summary" requirement of Code § 15.2-2204(A), as 

defined and explicated in Glazebrook, and that the trial court 

erred in holding that the notices were satisfactory in this 

regard. 

(2) 

 The complainants also contend that the public hearing 

notices contained an inadequate description of the areas of the 

County proposed to be rezoned to the AR-1 and AR-2 districts. 

 2

 According to complainants, the Conservation Design 

regulations impose significant restrictions on landowners' 

ability to develop their properties in the following districts: 

AR-1, AR-2, JLMA, and Transitional Residential. These districts 

encompass approximately two-thirds of the area of the County. 

13
The notices state that "most of" the existing A-3, A-10, and CR 

properties "in the western portion of the County" would be 

redesignated to either AR-1 or AR-2 zoning districts. 

In setting forth a description of the areas proposed to be 

rezoned, the Board failed to state any specific geographic 

boundaries or landmarks that would have allowed the public to 

ascertain the areas that would be affected by these amendments. 

Thus, landowners were compelled to try to determine what the 

Board meant by "most of . . . the western portion of the 

County." In addition, the description also proved to be 

inaccurate and misleading, as shown by the new zoning map that 

became effective when the Board adopted the ZOAs. The new 

zoning map shows that the areas now zoned AR-1 and AR-2, 

described as located in the western portion of the County, 

actually extended as far east as the northeastern border of the 

County along the Potomac River. 

 We said, in Glazebrook, that a citizen must be able 

"reasonably [to] determine, from the notice, whether he or she 

was affected by the proposed amendments." 266 Va. at 556, 587 

S.E.2d at 592. A citizen could not reasonably make that 

determination from the description at issue in the present case. 

We hold, therefore, that, for this reason, the public hearing 

 

The County contends that the regulations "do not in themselves 

impose any zoning restrictions affecting the use of the land." 

14
notices, as to the areas of the County affected by the rezoning 

to the AR-1 and AR-2 districts, failed to satisfy the 

requirements of Code § 15.2-2204(A). Thus, the trial court 

erred in holding that the notices were satisfactory in this 

regard. 

B 

(1) 

 We next consider the complainants' contention that the 

public hearing notices were defective because the notices stated 

that the Board would hold public hearings to "consider" the 

proposed zoning amendments. The complainants assert that Code 

§ 15.2-2204(A) required the Board to publish notice of its 

intention to "adopt," not merely to "consider," the proposed 

amendments. 

 In rejecting this contention, the trial court concluded 

that 

the use of the word "consider", when read with the 

remaining provisions of the publication, denotes the 

same deliberative process as acting upon the proposed 

amendments. No particular words are required to 

satisfy the statute. It may be reasonably inferred 

that the Board intended to take some action as to the 

proposed amendments and that action would be favorable 

to the adoption of the amendments. 

We agree with the trial court and reject the complainants' 

contention. 

(2) 

15
 We now consider the complainants' contention regarding 

notice of the availability for review of the proposed zoning 

amendments. Code § 15.2-2204(A) provides, inter alia, that the 

advertisement "shall contain . . . a reference to the place or 

places within the locality where copies of the proposed plans, 

ordinances or amendments may be examined." (Emphasis added.) 

The advertisement in the present case stated that "full and 

complete copies of the . . . applications and related documents

may be examined in the Loudoun County Building and Development 

Department, 1 Harrison Street, S.E., 2nd Floor, Leesburg, 

Virginia." (Emphasis added.) The complainants contend that, 

because the Board failed to use the statutory language and used 

the term "applications and related documents," the advertisement 

failed to satisfy the requirements of Code § 15.2-2204(A). We 

do not agree. Again, we agree with the trial court's 

conclusion: 

 While the notice should have referenced the 

". . . place or places within the locality where 

copies of the proposed plans, ordinances or amendments 

may be examined", the failure to so state is not fatal 

to the amendments. A fair reading of the notice would 

indicate that the full text of the amendments and map 

was available at the Building and Development Office. 

IV 

 Finally, we consider whether the Board was required to 

publish, in addition to the notice prescribed by Code §§ 15.2-

2204(A) and –2285(C), the notice mandated by Code § 15.2-

16
1427(F). The complainants contend that the Board was required 

to publish such notice. The County, on the other hand, contends 

that zoning ordinances are governed solely by Code §§ 15.2-

2204(A) and –2285(C), which apply specifically to zoning. 

 Code § 15.2-2285 is the enabling statute for zoning 

ordinances. Subsection C thereof reads, in pertinent part, as 

follows: 

 Before approving and adopting any zoning 

ordinance or amendment thereof, the governing body 

shall hold at least one public hearing thereon, 

pursuant to public notice as required by § 15.2-2204, 

after which the governing body may make appropriate 

changes or corrections in the ordinance or proposed 

amendment. . . . However, no land may be zoned to a 

more intensive use classification than was contained 

in the public notice without an additional public 

hearing after notice required by § 15.2-2204. Zoning 

ordinances shall be enacted in the same manner as all 

other ordinances. 

(Emphasis added.) 

 Code § 15.2-1427(F) prescribes the general procedures for 

advertising the proposed adoption, amendment, or repeal of an 

ordinance. It reads, in pertinent part, as follows: 

 In counties, except as otherwise authorized by 

law, no ordinance shall be passed until after 

descriptive notice of an intention to propose the 

ordinance for passage has been published once a week 

for two successive weeks prior to its passage in a 

newspaper having a general circulation in the 

county. . . . The publication shall include a 

statement either that the publication contains the 

full text of the ordinance or that a copy of the full 

text of the ordinance is on file in the clerk's office 

of the circuit court of the county or in the office of 

the county administrator. 

17
(Emphasis added.) 

 The complainants rely on the statement in Code § 15.2-2285 

mandating that "[z]oning ordinances shall be enacted in the same 

manner as all other ordinances." They claim that the adoption 

of a zoning ordinance requires a two-step notice procedure; 

i.e., notice of public hearings under Code §§ 15.2-2204 and -

2285 and notice of adoption under Code § 15.2-1427(F). 

 The County relies upon the language in Code § 15.2-1427(F) 

which states that it shall apply "except as otherwise authorized 

by law." Zoning matters, the County asserts, are otherwise 

authorized by Code §§ 15.2-2204 and –2285. 

 It is firmly established that, "when one statute speaks to 

a subject generally and another deals with an element of that 

subject specifically, the statutes will be harmonized, if 

possible, and if they conflict, the more specific statute 

prevails." Commonwealth v. Brown, 259 Va. 697, 706, 529 S.E.2d 

96, 101 (2000). This is so because "a specific statute cannot 

be controlled or nullified by a statute of general application 

unless the legislature clearly intended such a result." Id. 

 Code §§ 15.2-2204 and –2285 address the notice and hearing 

requirements as they relate specifically and in detail to zoning 

ordinances. Code § 15.2-1427(F), on the other hand, applies 

generally to county ordinances "except as otherwise authorized 

by law." We conclude, therefore, that Code § 15.2-1427(F), a 

18
statute of general application, does not apply to the adoption 

of zoning ordinances. Accordingly, in the present case, we hold 

that the Board was not required to comply with Code § 15.2-

1427(F) and that the trial court was correct in so ruling. 

V 

 In sum, we will reverse the trial court's rulings with 

respect to the sufficiency of the descriptive summaries in the 

public hearing notices as they related to the "Conservation 

Design policies" and to the areas of the County affected by the 

rezoning to AR-1 and AR-2 districts. In all other respects, we 

will affirm the trial court. We will remand for further 

proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

Affirmed in part, 

reversed in part,

 and remanded. 

19