Opinion ID: 1058511
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: Logan argues that the City Council was prohibited by Code § 15.2-2255 from adopting a provision in its Subdivision Ordinance that delegated to its subdivision agent the authority to approve exceptions involving public improvements. The statute provides: The administration and enforcement of subdivision regulations insofar as they pertain to public improvements as authorized in §§ 15.2-2241 through 15.2-2245 shall be vested in the governing body of the locality in which the improvements are or will be located. Except as provided above, the governing body shall be responsible for administering and enforcing the provisions of the subdivision regulations through its local planning commission or otherwise. Code § 15.2-2255. Relying on the Dillon Rule of strict construction, Logan contends that the first paragraph of Code § 15.2-2255 removes the category of public improvements from the general authority of a local governing body to delegate matters concerning the application and enforcement of its subdivision ordinance. Thus, Logan contends that only a local governing body, not its designated agent, may grant exceptions pertaining to public improvements as part of the subdivision plat approval process. In response, the defendants contend that the first paragraph of Code § 15.2-2255 addresses situations in which real property is subject to the subdivision ordinances of both a county and a municipality. According to the defendants, in such situations, the administration and enforcement of subdivision ordinance provisions pertaining to public improvements shall be vested in the governing body of the locality in which the improvements are located. Thus, the defendants assert that because approval of the Wilton subdivision plat did not involve public improvements located in more than one jurisdiction, this statutory provision did not prevent the City from delegating to Townsend the authority to grant exceptions relating to public improvements proposed for the Wilton subdivision. We agree with the defendants' arguments. We examine the language of Code § 15.2-2255 in the context of related statutes that also address the application and enforcement of subdivision ordinances. Our consideration of the various statutes involves a pure question of law, which we determine de novo on appeal. Miller v. Highland County, 274 Va. 355, 364, 650 S.E.2d 532, 535 (2007); Budd v. Punyanitya, 273 Va. 583, 591, 643 S.E.2d 180, 184 (2007); Boynton v. Kilgore, 271 Va. 220, 227, 623 S.E.2d 922, 925 (2006). The central focus of our analysis is to ascertain and give effect to the General Assembly's intent in enacting the provisions concerning subdivision ordinances adopted by localities. See Miller, 274 Va. at 364, 650 S.E.2d at 535; Boynton, 271 Va. at 227, 623 S.E.2d at 925; Chase v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 266 Va. 544, 547, 587 S.E.2d 521, 522 (2003). We determine the General Assembly's intent from the words employed in the statutes. Miller, 274 Va. at 364, 650 S.E.2d at 535; Crawford v. Haddock, 270 Va. 524, 528, 621 S.E.2d 127, 129 (2005); Horner v. Dep't of Mental Health, 268 Va. 187, 192, 597 S.E.2d 202, 204 (2004). We may not add words to a statute or ignore any of the actual statutory language. Purce v. Patterson, 275 Va. 190, 194, 654 S.E.2d 885, 886 (2008); BBF, Inc. v. Alstom Power, Inc., 274 Va. 326, 331, 645 S.E.2d 467, 469 (2007). Thus, we presume that every part of a statute has some effect, and we will not consider any portion meaningless unless absolutely necessary. Jackson v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 630, 634, 652 S.E.2d 111, 113 (2007); Level 3 Commcn's of Va., Inc. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 268 Va. 471, 477-78, 604 S.E.2d 71, 74 (2004); Department of Medical Assistance Servs. v. Beverly Healthcare of Fredericksburg, 268 Va. 278, 285, 601 S.E.2d 604, 608 (2004); Hubbard v. Henrico Ltd. P'ship, 255 Va. 335, 340-41, 497 S.E.2d 335, 338 (1998). Additionally, because the several statutes we consider impact the same subject, we harmonize their provisions whenever possible. Peerless Ins. Co. v. County of Fairfax, 274 Va. 236, 244, 645 S.E.2d 478, 483 (2007); Alliance to Save the Mattaponi v. Commonwealth, 270 Va. 423, 439-40, 621 S.E.2d 78, 87 (2005); Capelle v. Orange County, 269 Va. 60, 65, 607 S.E.2d 103, 105 (2005). We disagree with Logan's argument that the first paragraph of Code § 15.2-2255 is intended to restrict a governing body's power to delegate the administration and enforcement of subdivision regulations pertaining to public improvements. Such a construction would render meaningless the phrase in which the improvements are or will be located. Instead, we conclude that the first paragraph of the statute is intended to address situations in which existing or proposed public improvements may be subject to the subdivision ordinances of more than one locality. Such circumstances may arise under the provisions of Code §§ 15.2-2248 and -2249. Under Code § 15.2-2248, in five specified counties, the subdivision regulations adopted by a municipality located within those counties shall apply in certain circumstances beyond the municipality's corporate limits into unincorporated regions of the county, if the municipal ordinance so provides. However, under Code § 15.2-2249, the subdivision regulations adopted by the local governing bodies of these five counties shall apply in all unincorporated areas of those counties, including those areas over which a municipality may extend the application of its subdivision ordinance, provided that any such municipality has been given the opportunity to approve or disapprove the county's proposed regulations. The General Assembly specifically contemplated that disagreements could arise under these provisions regarding whether the regulations of a county or a municipality should be applicable to a given area. To address this problem, Code § 15.2-2250 permits a municipality or a county, or both these parties, to petition the circuit court for the county in which the major part of the disputed territory lies, and the circuit court shall hear the matter and enter an appropriate order. Id. Viewed in the context of these statutes, the legislative intent of Code § 15.2-2255 is plain. We conclude that the General Assembly intended to make certain that control over the development of public improvements not be subject to uncertainty on the part of local officials or to an unresolved dispute between a county and a municipality. By enacting Code § 15.2-2255, the General Assembly specified that with regard to public improvements authorized by the subdivision ordinance enabling statutes, the administration and enforcement of subdivision regulations will be controlled by the governing body in which the improvements are or will be located. Accordingly, this provision removes any uncertainty regarding which jurisdiction shall exercise control over present and proposed public improvements physically located in a given jurisdiction. In view of this statutory purpose, we hold that the first paragraph of Code § 15.2-2255 does not reflect a legislative intent to prevent a local governing body from delegating to an agent the responsibility to administer and enforce subdivision regulations pertaining to public improvements within that locality. In fact, such delegation is expressly authorized by the second paragraph of Code § 15.2-2255, subject to the restrictions imposed by the first paragraph concerning public improvements that may be within the joint control of more than one locality. Our conclusion is not altered by Logan's argument that the Dillon Rule of strict construction prohibits this result. Under the Dillon Rule, municipal corporations and counties possess and may exercise only those powers expressly granted by the General Assembly, powers necessarily or fairly implied from such express powers, and those powers that are essential and indispensable. Norton v. City of Danville, 268 Va. 402, 408 n. 3, 602 S.E.2d 126, 129 n. 3 (2004); Arlington Co. v. White, 259 Va. 708, 712, 528 S.E.2d 706, 708 (2000); Board of Supervisors v. Countryside Inv. Co., 258 Va. 497, 503, 522 S.E.2d 610, 613 (1999); County of Fairfax v. Southern Iron Works, Inc., 242 Va. 435, 448, 410 S.E.2d 674, 682 (1991). Here, the City Council's delegation of authority to its subdivision agent was expressly authorized by the second paragraph of Code § 15.2-2255. Therefore, the City did not violate the Dillon Rule by delegating authority to its subdivision agent to administer and enforce the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance pertaining to public improvements.
Logan argues that the former Subdivision Ordinance did not comply with the provisions of Code § 15.2-2242(1), which permit local governing bodies to adopt procedures for granting exceptions under their subdivision ordinances. Logan contends that the former Subdivision Ordinance failed to articulate standards required by Code § 15.2-2242(1) to guide decisions regarding the approval of exceptions. According to Logan, the evaluative factors listed in former Subdivision Ordinance §§ 31-65 and -90(b) provided little or no guidance for the granting of exceptions. Logan also contends that the language in former Subdivision Ordinance § 31-67 regarding block lengths lacked any substantive standard for permitting an exception under that section. Initially, we do not consider Logan's argument that former Subdivision Ordinance § 31-67 was facially invalid because it lacked any standard to guide administrative review of its provisions. Logan did not make such an allegation in her amended bill of complaint and, therefore, the issue was not properly before the circuit court and is not before us in this appeal. See Board of Supervisors v. Robertson, 266 Va. 525, 538, 587 S.E.2d 570, 578-79 (2003); Jenkins v. Bay House Assocs., 266 Va. 39, 43, 581 S.E.2d 510, 512 (2003). Accordingly, we confine our review to Logan's remaining allegations that former Subdivision Ordinance §§ 31-65 and 90(b) were facially invalid. In considering Logan's argument, we observe that the General Assembly has required that all local governing bodies adopt subdivision ordinances. Code § 15.2-2240. Those subdivision ordinances must include the provisions specified in Code § 15.2-2241, and may contain certain optional provisions set forth in Code § 15.2-2242. The language of Code § 15.2-2242(1), which details one such optional provision, states that a subdivision ordinance may include provisions for variations in or exceptions to the general regulations of the subdivision ordinance in cases of unusual situations or when strict adherence to the general regulations would result in substantial injustice or hardship. Under this authority, the City Council included several provisions in the former Subdivision Ordinance authorizing the subdivision agent to grant exceptions to the Ordinance's requirements. When a legislative body delegates its authority to an administrative agent, that body must prescribe sufficient standards to guide the administrator in exercising the delegated authority. Bell v. Dorey Electric Co., 248 Va. 378, 382, 448 S.E.2d 622, 624 (1994); Ours Properties, Inc. v. Ley, 198 Va. 848, 851-53, 96 S.E.2d 754, 756-58 (1957). Therefore, we consider whether former Subdivision Ordinance §§ 31-65 and 90(b) prescribe sufficient standards to guide the subdivision agent's decision whether to grant exceptions under those sections. Former Subdivision Ordinance § 31-65, entitled General requirements; exceptions from article, provided: The arrangement of lots, character of the subdivision, and extent, width, grade and location of all streets shall conform to the officially adopted master plan or parts, divisions or sections thereof and shall be considered in their relation to existing and planned streets, topographical conditions and public convenience and safety, and in their appropriate relation to the proposed uses of adjacent land; provided, however, that the agent may determine that the size or shape of the land, topography, proposed land use or other special conditions make compliance with all provisions of this article impractical and may make exceptions to provisions contained herein, provided such exceptions are not in conflict with provisions of other city ordinances. Because former Subdivision Ordinance § 31-65 did not define the term impractical, we employ the general definition of that word in considering the adequacy of the stated standards. See Adams Outdoor Adver., L.P. v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 274 Va. 189, 196, 645 S.E.2d 271, 275 (2007); Hoffman Family, L.L.C. v. City of Alexandria, 272 Va. 274, 284, 634 S.E.2d 722, 727 (2006). The word impractical is defined as incapable of being put into use or effect or of being accomplished or done successfully or without extreme trouble, hardship, or expense. See Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1136 (1993). We also observe that former Subdivision Ordinance § 31-90(b) required that local streets have a minimum paved width of 30 feet. However, this section also provided for an exception to that requirement, stating that [i]n cases where the cross slope will not permit a greater width, the agent may modify the minimum paved width requirement in a manner that will result in the best possible utilization of the land to be subdivided, giving consideration to the topography of the land and general character and density of the proposed subdivision. Upon our review, we hold that former Subdivision Ordinance §§ 31-65 and -90(b) prescribed adequate standards for the subdivision agent's exercise of delegated authority consistent with the directive of Code § 15.2-2242(1). The subdivision agent was required to consider several factors under former Subdivision Ordinance § 31-65 before granting an exception to the stated ordinance requirements. That section also prohibited the agent from granting an exception to an ordinance requirement if the exception would be in conflict with any provision of any city ordinance. Absent such a conflict, former Subdivision Ordinance § 31-65 permitted the subdivision agent to grant an exception based on such factors as the size or shape of the parcel, its topography, the proposed land use, or other special conditions upon determining that compliance with the general subdivision ordinance requirements would be impractical. Under former Subdivision Ordinance § 31-90(b), the agent could not permit an exception from the minimum width requirement of 30 feet for payed local streets unless a situation presented by a cross slope indicated that such an exception was needed. This section further required that the agent consider the topography and character of the subdivision to achieve the best utilization of the land. Thus, we hold that the circuit court did not err in concluding that these provisions contained adequate standards to guide the subdivision agent's decisions whether to grant the allowable exceptions.
The defendants argue as a matter of cross-error that Logan did not have a right to file a declaratory judgment action challenging Townsend's application of the Subdivision Ordinance in granting exceptions for the Wilton subdivision. According to the defendants, our holdings in Shilling v. Jimenez, 268 Va. 202, 597 S.E.2d 206 (2004), and Miller v. Highland County, 274 Va. 355, 650 S.E.2d 532 (2007), require that we dismiss this portion of Logan's appeal. In response, Logan asserts that the Declaratory Judgment Act, Code §§ 8.01-184 through -191, permits her present challenge to Townsend's application of the Subdivision Ordinance. Logan contends that her case may be distinguished from the proceedings in Shilling, which did not include the locality as a party defendant but involved a neighboring landowner's suit against an adjoining property owner. Logan further maintains that our decision in Shilling is not controlling because in that case, we did not address a subdivision agent's interpretation of an ordinance or an agent's allegedly arbitrary and capricious actions granting exceptions to that ordinance. We disagree with Logan's arguments. In Shilling, we considered the issue whether the declaratory judgment statutes may be used to maintain a third-party challenge to a government action when such challenge is not authorized by statute. The complainants in Shilling filed a declaratory judgment action requesting that a circuit court declare void the creation of a certain family subdivision approved under an ordinance allowing conveyances to members of a landowner's immediate family. 268 Va. at 205-06, 597 S.E.2d at 208. The neighboring landowners alleged that local officials wrongfully approved the subdivision based on factual misrepresentations made by the applicant. Id. The defendants filed demurrers alleging that the local governing body was the sole entity authorized to enforce the ordinance, and that the complainants could not seek to enforce the ordinance provisions by employing the remedy of declaratory judgment. The circuit court sustained the demurrers and dismissed the bill of complaint with prejudice. Id. at 206, 597 S.E.2d at 208. We affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that the complainants, who were strangers to the subdivision approval process, did not have a third-party right of action to enforce the locality's application of its subdivision ordinance in a declaratory judgment suit, because no statute granted third parties this right. Id. at 208, 597 S.E.2d at 209-10. Three years after our decision in Shilling, we were asked in Miller to consider the complainants' attempted use of the declaratory judgment statutes to challenge a planning commission's determination that that a conditional use permit was in substantial accord with the locality's comprehensive plan. 274 Va. at 368-69, 650 S.E.2d at 538; see also Code § 15.2-2232. We held that the complainants failed to assert a valid request for declaratory relief because no statute specifically authorized such a right of action. Miller, 274 Va. at 371-72, 650 S.E.2d at 540. We explained that the purpose of the declaratory judgment statutes is to provide a mechanism for obtaining preventive relief to resolve controversies involving legal rights, without requiring one party to invade the asserted rights of another in order to allow an ordinary civil action for damages. Miller, 274 Va. at 370, 650 S.E.2d at 539; Hoffman Family, L.L.C. v. Mill Two Assocs. P'ship, 259 Va. 685, 693, 529 S.E.2d 318, 323 (2000); Cupp v. Board of Supervisors, 227 Va. 580, 592, 318 S.E.2d 407, 413 (1984). We emphasized that our declaratory judgment statutes do not create or alter any substantive rights, or bring any other additional rights into being. Miller, 274 Va. at 370, 650 S.E.2d at 539; accord Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Bishop, 211 Va. 414, 419, 177 S.E.2d 519, 522 (1970). We conclude that the holdings in Shilling and Miller require dismissal of the part of Logan's appeal challenging Townsend's application of the Subdivision Ordinance to the proposed Wilton subdivision. Like the complainants in those two cases, Logan has attempted to use the declaratory judgment statutes to create a right of appeal to the circuit courts that does not otherwise exist. Because the declaratory judgment statutes do not create such rights, and in the absence of statutory authority granting her a right of appeal to actions taken under the Subdivision Ordinance, Logan remained a stranger to the subdivision approval process and was not authorized to challenge Townsend's actions under that Ordinance. [7] Therefore, we hold that the circuit court erred in concluding that Logan had a third-party right of action to challenge the City's approval of the Wilton subdivision plat, and that this part of Logan's appeal must be dismissed.