Title: Virginia Highlands Airport Authority v. Singleton Auto Parts
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 080286
State: Virginia
Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court
Date: January 16, 2009

P
 
resent: All the Justices 
VIRGINIA HIGHLANDS AIRPORT AUTHORITY 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OPINION BY 
v. 
Record No. 080286 
 
JUSTICE LEROY F. MILLETTE, JR. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  January 16, 2009 
SINGLETON AUTO PARTS, INC. 
 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY 
Larry B. Kirksey, Judge 
 
This appeal involves the interaction of a local zoning 
ordinance establishing an airport safety overlay zone and an 
avigation easement1 sought by the Virginia Highlands Airport 
Authority2 (Airport Authority) to remove obstructions on the 
property of Singleton Auto Parts, Incorporated (Singleton), 
which were preserved pursuant to a grandfather clause in the 
ordinance.  We are presented with the novel issue whether the 
easement constitutes a taking of airspace requiring compensation 
when the property was already subject to preexisting 
restrictions on development imposed by the ordinance. 
We hold that the easement constituted a taking only to the 
extent that it created a right in the Airport Authority to 
remove the grandfathered obstructions situated on the property 
which penetrated the existing approach zone for incoming and 
                                                 
1 An avigation easement is defined as “[a]n easement 
permitting unimpeded aircraft flights over the servient estate.”  
Black’s Law Dictionary 549 (8th ed. 2004). 
2 The Virginia Highlands Airport Commission’s name was 
changed to the Virginia Highlands Airport Authority by action of 
the Board of Supervisors of Washington County, Virginia. 
outgoing aircraft.  We therefore will reverse the trial court’s 
judgment entering the jury’s verdict and remand for a new trial 
on damages resulting from the limited taking. 
BACKGROUND 
In 1998, the Town of Abingdon enacted the Virginia 
Highlands Airport Safety Overlay Zone (the Ordinance), which was 
“designed to identify and regulate obstructions within that 
airspace” with the intent of “prevent[ing] any obstruction that 
has the potential for endangering the lives and property of the 
users of the Virginia Highlands Airport [(the Airport)] and the 
residents of the Town of Abingdon” or “reduc[ing] the size of 
areas available for landing, takeoff and maneuvering of 
aircraft, thus tending to destroy or impair the utility of the 
airport and the public investment therein.”  The Ordinance was 
enacted in compliance with former Code § 15.1-491.02, 
predecessor of Code § 15.2-2294 (“Airport safety zoning”).3 
                                                 
3 Code § 15.2-2294 reads in its entirety: 
 
Every locality (i) in whose jurisdiction a 
licensed airport or United States government or 
military air facility is located or (ii) over 
whose jurisdiction the approach slopes and other 
safety zones of a licensed airport, including 
United States government or military air facility 
extend shall, by ordinance, provide for the 
regulation of the height of structures and natural 
growth for the purpose of protecting the safety of 
air navigation and the public investment in air 
navigation facilities. The ordinance may be 
adopted regardless of whether the local governing 
 
2
“Approach zone” is defined by the Ordinance as “[a] zone that 
extends away from the end of the primary surface with the floor 
set by the approach surface for a distance set by the 
regulations” and “approach surface” is defined as “[a] surface, 
whose design standards are set by the regulations, 
longitudinally centered on a runway centerline, extending 
outward and upward from the end of the primary surface, and at 
the same slope as the approach zone height limitation slope.”  
(Emphasis added).  Pursuant to the Ordinance, both the approach 
surface and approach zone, which together provide an area of 
clearance for incoming and outgoing aircraft, are set by 
“regulations,” defined therein as “Part 77.25 et seq., 
Subchapter E (Airspace) of Title 14 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations and/or its successor federal regulations, as they 
may be amended or substituted from time to time.” 
The Ordinance also provides that  
in any zone created by th[e] ordinance . . . no 
vegetation shall be allowed to grow to a height so 
as to penetrate any referenced surface . . . of 
any zone provided for in this article at any 
point.  The height restrictions, or floors, for 
the individual zones shall be those planes 
                                                                                                                                                             
body has adopted a zoning ordinance applicable to 
other land uses in the locality. The ordinance may 
be designed and adopted by the locality as an 
overlay zone superimposed on any preexisting base 
zone. 
The provisions of the airport safety zoning 
ordinance shall be in compliance with the rules of 
the Virginia Aviation Board. 
 
3
delineated as surfaces in Part 77.25 et seq. . . . 
of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 
 
The Ordinance did, however, contain a grandfather clause 
preserving any nonconforming structure or vegetation within the 
approach zone so long as the structure or vegetation was in 
existence when the Ordinance was enacted. 
In April 2005, the Airport Authority filed a petition for 
condemnation of an avigation easement, seeking to condemn rights 
to airspace over property owned by Singleton.  The Airport 
Authority sought in its petition for the easement 
[t]he continuing perpetual right to clear, and 
keep clear, with the right to remove any natural 
growth or man-made structure to the ground . . . 
infringing upon or extending into that airspace 
about or above a plane on a slope . . . extending 
outward from the runway end at a distance of 
10,000 feet along the extended centerline of the 
runway . . . and extending at a slope of one (1) 
foot rise for every thirty four (34) feet 
horizontal distance along the extended centerline. 
 
(Emphasis added). 
 
The Airport Authority wanted to superimpose the dimensions 
of the easement on the dimensions of the Ordinance and thereby 
obtain the right to remove any vegetation or structure that had 
been grandfathered under the Ordinance and penetrated the 34 to 
1 approach slope.  According to the Airport Authority, the exact 
airspace dimensions included in the easement had already been 
restricted upon the enactment of the Ordinance.  In its Petition 
for Condemnation, the Airport Authority sought to remove some 
 
4
trees on Singleton’s property that existed on the effective date 
of the Ordinance, because they penetrated the 34 to 1 approach 
surface.4 
Singleton filed a motion in limine to “prohibit the 
[Airport Authority] from arguing that it does not need to take 
the easement because it already has the rights under the zoning 
ordinance.”  The Airport Authority filed motions in limine 
seeking to exclude evidence of damages to Singleton’s property 
that Singleton claimed from its inability to build into the 34 
to 1 approach surface above the property as a result of the 
easement.  The Airport Authority also sought to exclude evidence 
of damages to Singleton’s property caused by increased noise, 
vibrations, fumes, and traffic because of lower flights over the 
property due to the easement. 
The trial court ruled that the Airport Authority’s 
contention that the easement did not take any airspace rights 
from Singleton because the Ordinance had already created the 34 
to 1 approach zone was a “matter for [determination by] the 
finder of fact.”  The trial court allowed the Airport Authority 
to present evidence as to the existence of the Ordinance, but no 
opinion testimony as to its effect upon Singleton’s ownership 
rights.  Singleton was permitted to introduce evidence of 
                                                 
4 The top of the tallest tree on the Singleton property 
penetrated the 34 to 1 approach slope by approximately 12 feet. 
 
5
damages caused by restrictions on vertical development imposed 
by the easement regardless of the preexisting Ordinance, as well 
as evidence of the effect of lower flights and resultant 
increased noise, vibrations, fumes, and traffic. 
The issue for the jury was compensation to Singleton for 
the easement obtained by the Airport Authority.  The Airport 
Authority called Matthew D. Ripley as its expert real estate 
appraiser.  Ripley recognized that there were preexisting 
limitations on building on Singleton’s property imposed by the 
Ordinance.  Ripley demonstrated his understanding of the 
Ordinance when he testified that  
[t]he easement provides the ability to remove 
obstructions above the elevation of the existing 
zoning overlay zone. . . . The only obstructions 
that are outside of the zoning ordinance that 
would be [a]ffected by this easement are the pine 
trees . . . at the back of the property. 
 
Ripley placed no value on the existence of the easement or on 
the trees, because the trees were inconsistent with the 
property’s best use as commercial property.  Instead, Ripley 
valued just the right to go onto the property and remove the 
trees.  Based on this analysis, Ripley concluded: 
[T]he compensation should be nominal because you 
can’t – there’s not going to be any use that you 
couldn’t do after the easement is put in place 
. . . . So, the compensation is based – a nominal 
value on the underlying land and I put one percent 
of the underlying land value which is $1,600 based 
 
6
on the $160,000 of the land value at the 
beginning.5 
 
Singleton called two witnesses to testify about damages: 
Andrew Hargroves, an expert in real estate evaluations; and 
David Castle, an expert real estate appraiser.  Castle testified 
that the easement reduced the value of the Singleton property by 
$50,000, with $25,000 attributed to the rear portion of the 
property and $25,000 to the front portion of the property.6  
Castle opined that his damages figures represent the rights 
taken by the easement and that the damage is created by the 
easement’s proximity to the Singleton property. 
Hargroves valued Singleton’s damages at $100,000.  
Hargroves testified that the damages were based upon the height 
limitations on the rear portion of the property and upon the 
limitation of market interest in the property because of the 
noise factor associated with the property’s location directly 
under the flight path of the Airport.  However, Hargroves 
acknowledged that he did not understand the Ordinance. 
The jury returned a verdict in favor of Singleton for 
$130,000, comprised of $80,000 for the taking of Singleton’s 
property plus $50,000 for damages to the residue.  The Airport 
                                                 
5 Ripley valued Singleton’s 1.6 acres of land, exclusive of 
the auto parts building, at $100,000 per acre. 
6 The front half of the Singleton property is zoned 
commercial.  The rear portion is zoned residential, though it is 
used for commercial purposes. 
 
7
Authority filed exceptions to the jury’s verdict, asking the 
trial court to set it aside.  The trial court overruled the 
Airport Authority’s exceptions and entered judgment on the 
verdict.  This appeal followed. 
DISCUSSION 
 
The central dispute in this case is whether the easement 
constituted a taking of airspace rights from Singleton which 
Singleton retained after the enactment of the Ordinance.  In 
order to resolve this issue, we must determine the approach 
zone, approach surface, and corresponding approach slope 
authorized for the Airport’s runway 24 by the Ordinance upon its 
enactment in 1998. 
The Airport Authority argues that pursuant to the 
Ordinance, runway 24’s approach surface extends for a horizontal 
distance of 10,000 feet at a slope of 34 to 1.  Singleton 
counters that pursuant to the Ordinance, the approach surface 
extends for a horizontal distance of 5,000 feet at a slope of 20 
to 1, which sits above the 34 to 1 approach slope and therefore 
at a greater distance above the property.  The ratios 34 to 1 
and 20 to 1 designate slopes representing “imaginary surfaces” 
designed by the Federal Aviation Administration. 
The Airport Authority supports its argument by referring to 
the language of 14 C.F.R. § 77.25(d)(2) (2007) in conjunction 
with evidence of the type of aircraft that use runway 24.  The 
 
8
Airport Authority asserts that the Ordinance is silent on the 
approach zone and approach surface, which form the approach 
slope.  Further, the Airport Authority argues that the Ordinance 
incorporates specific federal regulations.  The Airport 
Authority contends that those regulations must be considered in 
determining the approach slope set by the Ordinance. 
Colonel Ronald V. Deloney, manager of the Airport, 
testified at trial that runway 24 is a “nonprecision instrument 
runway[], other than utility.”  Colonel Deloney also testified 
that the Airport has a physical weight bearing capacity of 
30,000 pounds for single wheel aircraft and, for this reason, 
large aircraft had been operating at the Airport since about 
1989.  Large aircraft have also been stationed in the Airport’s 
hangars and flown in and out of the Airport.  Colonel Deloney 
defined large aircraft as weighing more than 12,500 pounds.  He 
explained that the Airport is currently designated as type B-II 
small, but with a 34 to 1 approach slope free of obstructions, 
it would be designated as type B-II large.  The B-II large 
designation indicates that aircraft weighing over 12,500 pounds 
could safely use runway 24.  Colonel Deloney acknowledged that 
the Airport was operating with a 20 to 1 approach slope due to 
then existing obstructions. 
In response, Singleton called Susan Van Fleet, owner of a 
flight school at the Airport, who testified that the current 
 
9
approach slope for runway 24 was 20 to 1.  Singleton also relied 
upon two documents: the Virginia Highlands Airport Layout Plan 
Update (Layout Plan), which was based on conditions as they 
existed in August 2002; and an Obstruction Study prepared for 
Virginia Highlands Airport Commission by Delta Airport 
Consultants, Incorporated (Obstruction Study), which was dated 
March 2000.  Specifically, Singleton highlighted in its argument 
the Layout Plan’s language that “Virginia Highlands Airport 
currently has a non-precision instrument approach for Runway 24, 
and the approach slope is 20:1, for small aircraft (less than 
12,500 pounds)” and the Obstruction  
Study’s statement that “[t]he localizer approach to Runway 24 is 
currently in use with operations limited to aircraft less than 
12,500 lbs, which only requires a 20:1 approach slope.”   Based 
on these excerpts and Van Fleet’s testimony, Singleton argues 
the easement constituted a taking of not only the trees, but of 
over 100 feet of airspace representing the difference between 
the existing 20 to 1 approach slope and the lower 34 to 1 
approach slope obtained by the Airport Authority through the 
easement.  Singleton asserts that because the 34 to 1 approach 
slope would allow aircraft to fly lower over its property, 
Singleton claims damages from increased noise, vibrations, 
fumes, and traffic due to the condemnation. 
 
10
In order to ascertain the effect of the 1998 Ordinance on 
Singleton’s property, we must interpret the Ordinance in 
conjunction with the federal regulations referenced therein to 
determine whether the Ordinance created a safety overlay zone 
with an approach slope of 34 to 1 or an approach slope of 20 to 
1.  It is well-established that an issue of statutory 
interpretation such as this is a pure question of law subject to 
this Court’s de novo review.  Budd v. Punyanitya, 273 Va. 583, 
591, 643 S.E.2d 180, 184 (2007); Virginia Polytechnic Inst. & 
State Univ. v. Interactive Return Serv., Inc., 271 Va. 304, 309, 
626 S.E.2d 436, 438 (2006); Ainslie v. Inman, 265 Va. 347, 352, 
577 S.E.2d 246, 248 (2003). 
The Ordinance is silent regarding the creation of an 
approach slope for runway 24 and instead refers to “Part 77.25 
et seq., Subchapter E (Airspace) of Title 14 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations and/or its successor federal regulations, as 
they may be amended or substituted from time to time” to 
establish mandatory approach surfaces at the Airport.  The 
relevant federal regulation is 14 C.F.R. § 77.25(d)(2), which 
reads in pertinent part: “The approach surface extends for a 
horizontal distance of: (i) 5,000 feet at a slope of 20 to 1 for 
all utility and visual runways; [and] (ii) 10,000 feet at a 
slope of 34 to 1 for all nonprecision instrument runways other 
than utility; . . .” 
 
11
It is uncontested that runway 24 is a nonprecision 
instrument runway.  Therefore, the key inquiry is whether it is 
a utility runway.  If it is a utility runway, the federal 
regulations require only a 20 to 1 approach slope, but, if it is 
not, they require a 34 to 1 approach slope.  Pursuant to 14 
C.F.R. § 77.2 (2007), “[u]tility runway means a runway that is 
constructed for and intended to be used by propeller driven 
aircraft of 12,500 pounds maximum gross weight and less.”  The 
evidence reveals that aircraft weighing over 12,500 pounds have 
used runway 24 since approximately 1989 because the runway’s 
weight bearing capacity is 30,000 pounds.  At oral argument on 
appeal, Singleton attempted to avoid this evidence by arguing 
that pilots retain discretion regarding the landing of their 
aircraft.  “[I]f a pilot feels confident, capable in himself and 
his equipment he can land a larger plane there.”  The federal 
regulations provide no such discretion.  According to the plain 
language of 14 C.F.R. § 77.25(d)(2), if airplanes weighing over 
12,500 pounds are utilizing a nonprecision runway, then a 34 to 
1 approach slope is required to ensure sufficient clearance for 
safety purposes. 
The Layout Plan and Obstruction Study relied upon by 
Singleton in support of its argument actually provide greater 
support to the Airport Authority’s position than to Singleton’s 
position.  The documents state that after the promulgation of 
 
12
the Ordinance the Airport was entitled to use a 34 to 1 approach 
slope for runway 24, but was prevented from doing so due to 
obstructions such as the trees on Singleton’s property.  Runway 
24’s publication of a 34 to 1 approach slope was subject to the 
removal of obstructions through the acquisition of avigation 
easements, whereas an unobstructed 20 to 1 approach slope could 
already be published to indicate its safe use.7 
According to the Layout Plan, which was based on conditions 
as they existed in August 2002, 
[t]he runway pavement strength is listed as a 
12,500 pound single wheel gear configuration 
. . . . The actual pavement strength of Runway 6-
24 is 30,000 pounds single gear.  However, the 
actual strength cannot be published until 
obstructions are removed from the Runway 24 end to 
allow a 34:1 approach slope.8 
 
Additionally, the Layout Plan states: 
 
Virginia Highlands Airport currently has a non-
precision instrument approach for Runway 24, and 
the approach slope is 20:1, for small aircraft 
(less than 12,500 pounds).  The Airport is 
presently conducting an obstruction program to 
acquire avigation easements and to remove 
penetrations (primarily trees) to the Runway 24 
34:1 approach surface.  Once the obstructions are 
removed, the approach slope for Runway 24 can be 
                                                 
7 The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) publishes the 
weight bearing capacity of runways.  The Airport cannot 
currently be published in the official FAA document as having a 
pavement strength of anything more than 12,500 pounds because it 
only has an unobstructed 20 to 1 approach surface. 
8 The airport has one physical runway, designated as runway 
6 for aircraft proceeding southwest to northeast and as runway 
24 for aircraft proceeding northeast to southwest.  Airport 
Authority’s Opening Br. 8.  This appeal concerns only runway 24. 
 
13
published to a slope of 34:1, allowing large 
aircraft (greater than 12,500 pounds) to utilize 
the runway. 
 
The recommendation provided in the Layout Plan was to “maintain 
the non-precision greater than 3/4th mile visibility approach 
surface,” defined as having a 34 to 1 approach slope. 
The Obstruction Study, dated March 2000, states that “[f]or 
the purposes of the [Federal Aviation Regulation] Part 77 
obstruction analysis, Virginia Highlands Airport is considered a 
public use airport with one larger than utility runway.  The 
airport . . . utilizes a non-precision instrument approach to 
Runway 24.”  The Obstruction Study contains a recommendation 
that “clearing of obstructions to Runway 24 Approach and 
Transitional Surfaces should be addressed as a priority project 
by the Virginia Highlands Airport Commission, if Runway 24 is to 
be used for a 34:1 approach” and, “[i]n the interim, the current 
20:1 approach should be maintained.” 
This evidence, combined with testimony by the Airport’s 
manager that runway 24 was currently operating with a 20 to 1 
approach slope due to the existence of obstructions, leads us to 
the conclusion that, when the easement was requested, runway 24 
was a “nonprecision instrument runway[] other than utility” 
required by 14 C.F.R. § 77.25(d)(2) to have a 34 to 1 approach 
slope, but could not be designated as such in publications until 
the obstructions were removed.  Therefore, the easement imposed 
 
14
the same restrictions on Singleton’s vertical development as did 
the Ordinance. 
“Compensatory damages are those allowed as a recompense for 
loss or injury actually sustained.”  Dillingham v. Hall, 235 Va. 
1, 3, 365 S.E.2d 738, 739 (1988) (emphasis added).  In 
condemnation cases, “‘[t]he measure of compensation for the 
property taken is the fair market value of the property at the 
time of the taking.  In determining fair market value, 
consideration is given to the property’s adaptability and 
suitability for any legitimate purpose in light of conditions 
and circumstances that exist at the time of the take or that 
reasonably may be expected in the near future.’”  Revocor Corp. 
v. Commonwealth Transp. Comm’r, 259 Va. 389, 394, 526 S.E.2d 4, 
7 (2000) (quoting Lynch v. Commonwealth Transp. Comm’r, 247 Va. 
388, 391, 442 S.E.2d 388, 389-90 (1994)).  When there is only a 
partial taking, “the measure of damages to the residue of the 
property not taken is the difference in the fair market value of 
the residue immediately before and immediately after the 
taking.”  Commonwealth Transp. Comm’r v. Glass, 270 Va. 138, 
154, 613 S.E.2d 411, 420 (2005) (quoting City of Virginia Beach 
v. Oakes, 263 Va. 510, 516, 561 S.E.2d 726, 728-29 (2002)).  By 
ignoring the existence of the Ordinance, Singleton’s evidence of 
damages created a false inference of a decrease in fair market 
value as a result of the taking.  Singleton had no fewer rights 
 
15
to the airspace above the 34 to 1 approach surface when the 
Airport Authority obtained the easement than it did after the 
Ordinance was enacted in 1998. 
Moreover, “a landowner whose property is affected by a 
partial taking may not recover damages to the residue if such 
damages are remote or speculative.”  Oakes, 263 Va. at 516, 561 
S.E.2d at 729; Revocor Corp., 259 Va. at 394, 526 S.E.2d at 7-8; 
Lynch, 247 Va. at 391, 442 S.E.2d at 389-90.  Singleton 
presented only the possibility of future lower flights over its 
property and resultant increased noise, vibrations, fumes, and 
traffic to the jury, without any evidence from which the jury 
could quantify damages.  The inclusion of such remote and 
speculative possibilities in the evidence the jury was allowed 
to consider in fixing the damage award was plain error. 
The trial court erred by denying the Airport Authority’s 
motions in limine and by allowing Singleton to present its case 
as though the Ordinance had no effect upon its property.  
Singleton’s experts ignored the Ordinance in their appraisals, 
and Singleton, in closing, told the jury: “We hear about some 
ordinance that I’ve yet to figure out.”  With the exception of 
damages for the removal of the trees on Singleton’s property 
penetrating the 34 to 1 approach surface, the trial court erred 
by permitting Singleton to present evidence of damages from a 
taking of rights in airspace Singleton did not possess after the 
 
16
 
17
promulgation of the Ordinance.  The trial court further erred by 
permitting Singleton to present evidence of speculative damages 
from future lower flights over the property and increased noise, 
vibrations, fumes, and traffic.  As a result of these errors, 
the trial court allowed Singleton to present an inappropriate 
measure of damages. 
For the reasons stated, we will reverse the judgment of the 
trial court and remand for a hearing on the limited issue of 
damages to Singleton’s property from the Airport Authority’s 
right to remove the trees obstructing the 34 to 1 approach zone. 
Reversed and remanded.