Opinion ID: 1057737
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: City Charter Provisions

Text: The Alexandria City Charter (City Charter) governs appeals from the BZA. It provides that the circuit court may reverse or modify the decision reviewed . . . when it is satisfied that the decision of the board is contrary to law or that its decision is arbitrary and constitutes an abuse of discretion. City Charter § 9.21. Applying this standard, which is also contained in the Code, we have stated: A proceeding before the trial court under Code § 15.1-497 [the predecessor to § 15.2-2314] is not a trial de novo. There is a presumption that the Board's decision was correct and the burden is on the appellant to overcome this presumption. The court may not disturb the decision of a board of zoning appeals unless the board has applied erroneous principles of law or, where the board's discretion is involved, unless the evidence proves to the satisfaction of the court that the decision is plainly wrong and in violation of the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. Riles v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 246 Va. 48, 51, 431 S.E.2d 282, 284 (1993) (quoting Alleghany Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 217 Va. 64, 67, 225 S.E.2d 383, 385 (1976)) (citations omitted). [A]ny arbitrary or unreasonable action, body of the City is not a necessary party. Thereafter, Martin filed an Amended Petition for Appeal and the parties agreed that the proper party to the appeal under the Charter was the City. Pursuant to the agreement, the circuit court entered a consent order dismissing the City Council as a party. 9 contrary to the terms or spirit of the zoning law, or contrary to or unsupported by facts, [i]s an illegal action by a board of zoning appeals. Hopkins v. O'Meara, 197 Va. 202, 205, 89 S.E.2d 1, 3 (1955) (citing Anderson v. Jester, 221 N.W. 354, 359 (Iowa 1928)). The City Charter defines the powers of the BZA and provides that the BZA may authorize a variance when, owing to special conditions a literal enforcement of the provisions will result in unnecessary hardship; provided that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done, upon the property owner's showing of at least one of the following conditions and one of the following justifications: When a property owner can show that his property was acquired in good faith and where by reason of the exceptional narrowness, shallowness, size or shape of a specific piece of property at the time of the effective date of the ordinance, or where by reason of the exceptional topographical condition or other extraordinary situation, or condition of such piece of property, or of the use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto, the strict application of the terms of the ordinance would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of property or where the board is satisfied, upon the evidence heard by it, that the granting of such variance will alleviate a clearly demonstrable hardship, 4 as 4 Code § 15.2-2309(2), which contains virtually identical language, and the City Charter previously permitted a BZA to grant a variance only where it would alleviate a clearly demonstrable hardship approaching confiscation. See Former Code § 15.2-2309(2) (2008) (emphasis added). In 2009, the General Assembly removed approaching confiscation, from the 10 distinguished from a special privilege or convenience sought by the applicant, provided that all variances shall be in harmony with the intended spirit and purpose of the ordinance. City Charter § 9.18(b). [N]ot only must an applicant show the existence of at least one of [these] several 'special conditions' which would cause compliance with a zoning ordinance to result in an 'unnecessary hardship', but the board of zoning appeals must find that the [following] three enumerated tests are satisfied. Packer v. Hornsby, 221 Va. 117, 121, 267 S.E.2d 140, 142 (1980) (citing Tidewater Utilities v. Norfolk, 208 Va. 705, 711, 160 S.E.2d 799, 803 (1968)); Board of Zoning Appeals v. Nowak, 227 Va. 201, 204-05, 315 S.E.2d 221, 223 (1984). Specifically, the BZA must find: (1) That the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. (2) That such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zone and the same vicinity and is not created by the owner of such property. (3) That the authorization of such variance will not statewide statutory provision, 2009 Acts ch. 206, and the same change was implemented by the Legislature in an amendment to the City Charter the following year. 2010 Acts ch. 221. City staff relied, in part, upon the elimination of this language to justify its change in position regarding the Garners' request for the variances. 11 be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and that the character of the zone will not be changed by the granting of the variance. City Charter § 9.18(b). 5 Finally, the City Charter provides that [n]o variance shall be authorized unless the board finds that the condition or situation of the property concerned or the intended use of the property is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance. City Charter § 9.18(b). 6