Case Name: Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County v. Alexander Lukinson, Et Al.
Court: Supreme Court of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1973-08-30
Citations: 214 Va. 239
Docket Number: Record No. 8209
Parties: Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County v. Alexander Lukinson, Et Al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 214
Pages: 239–239

Head Matter:
Richmond
Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County v. Alexander Lukinson, Et Al.
August 30, 1973.
Record No. 8209.
Present, All the Justices.
John M. Ferren [D.C.] (Collister Johnson, Assistant County Attorney for Fairfax County; Allen R. Snyder [D.C.]; Hogan & Hartson [D.C.], on brief), for plaintiff in error.
Nathan L. Silberberg (Howard B. Silberberg, on brief), for defendants in error.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This is a companion case to Fairfax County Board of Supervisors v. DeGroff Enterprises, 214 Va. 235, 198 S.E.2d 603, this day decided.
The question here is the validity of amendment 156 to the Fairfax County Zoning Ordinance, which we considered in DeGroff, as it applies to Planned Development Housing (PDH) zones. The parties agree that PDH zoning, which they describe as a "unique concept of the important new technique of planned development zoning districts in contrast to more conventional zoning," is valid, so that question is not before us and we express no opinion thereon.
As it applies to a PDH zone, however, the amendment has the same infirmities which we found in the zones at issue in DeGroff and for the same reasons expressed there, we affirm the trial court in holding the amendment invalid.
Affirmed,