Opinion ID: 1058461
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Town's Second Appeal from the County BZA

Text: On June 23, 2006, Semmes sent a letter to the School Board regarding the proposed construction of an elementary school within the UGA. Semmes stated that both the County and the Town Planning Commissions would have to approve the site by commission permit before development could proceed. Artman responded on June 30, 2006 by letter, in which she stated that no Town official is authorized to make such determinations. Artman reasoned that, as a result, Semmes' June 23 letter was null and void ab initio.  The Town appealed Artman's June 30 determinations to the County BZA. The County BZA held a public hearing on the matter, wherein it again indicated that it could simply make determinations with regard to County zoning. Whether the Town could engage in the review of new development within the UGA under the PUGAMP, which is not a zoning instrument, was deemed outside of the County BZA's jurisdiction. Consequently, the County BZA denied the Town's appeal and upheld Artman's determinations. The Town filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the circuit court pursuant to Code § 15.2-2314, seeking review of the County BZA's decision. Specifically, the Town contended that the PUGAMP is the relevant comprehensive plan governing proposed uses within the UGA; that the commission permit process contained in the Town Zoning Ordinance required the Town to review new development within the UGA; that Code § 15.2-2286(4), as well as the Town Zoning Ordinance, specify that a locality's zoning administrator shall have all necessary authority on behalf of the Town; and that, consequently, whether the elementary school is a feature shown on the PUGAMP was a necessary preliminary determination properly made by [Semmes] on behalf of the Town in the administration and enforcement of ... the Town Zoning Ordinance, as well as in the implementation of the requirements of Code § 15.2-2232. The Board of Supervisors and the School Board filed an answer as intervening defendants, asserting the Town did not have the authority to make decisions concerning new development within the UGA.