Opinion ID: 1391168
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: exhaustion of remedies and justiciability

Text: On appeal, the Board relies on three of its grounds of demurrer, viz., that the motion failed to allege a justiciable controversy; that the motion failed to allege an inadequate remedy at law; [3] and that the motion failed to allege an exhaustion of administrative remedies. Under Code § 8-578 (Repl.Vol.1957), an action for declaratory judgment shall not be open to objection on the ground that a judgment or order merely declaratory of right is prayed for, and [c]ontroversies involving the interpretation of . . . statutes, municipal ordinances and other governmental regulations, may be so determined, provided there is an actual antagonistic assertion and denial of right. To invoke the jurisdiction of the court, [t]he controversy must be one that is justiciable, that is, where specific adverse claims, based upon present rather than future or speculative facts, are ripe for judicial adjustment. City of Fairfax v. Shanklin, 205 Va. 227, 229, 135 S.E.2d 773, 775 (1964). The legality of an ordinance is tested not only by what has been done under its provisions but what may be done thereunder. City of Winchester v. Glover, 199 Va. 70, 72, 97 S.E.2d 661, 663 (1957). When, as here, a property owner alleges that a zoning ordinance creates discriminatory, arbitrary, and capricious classifications bearing no substantial relation to the public health, safety, or welfare, or that a zoning ordinance imposes land use restrictions or affirmative land use obligations so unreasonable as to constitute a taking of property without compensation or due process of law, or that a zoning ordinance is otherwise unconstitutional, and that he has suffered damage to his property located in a district affected by such ordinance, he has stated a case of actual controversy within the meaning of Code § 8-578 and one that is ripe for judicial adjustment. If the ordinance is unreasonable and unconstitutional in its entirety and the result of such unreasonableness is to confiscate plaintiff's property or to discriminate against it, then an action for a declaratory judgment lies. 2 A. Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning 35-5 (1972). The Board argues, however, that even when the constitutionality of a legislative act is challenged, a court of equity does not have jurisdiction unless the complainant lacks an adequate remedy at law and the courts will not take jurisdiction of a zoning matter, even though a constitutional issue is raised, until the administrative remedy has been fully exhausted. A landowner aggrieved by a zoning classification has a right to apply to the zoning administrator for a variance, a right to appeal to the County Board of Zoning Appeals, and a right to obtain judicial review of that board's decision. Code §§ 15.1-495, -497 (Repl.Vol.1973, Cum.Supp. 1974); Article 13, James City County Zoning Ordinance. See also, Lake George Corporation v. Standing, 211 Va. 733, 180 S.E.2d 522 (1971). However, when the relief sought constitutes a challenge to the constitutionality of a zoning ordinance in its entirety, [4] only a variance providing total exemption would vindicate the rights asserted. But, under Code § 15.1-495, all variances shall be in harmony with the intended spirit and purpose of the ordinance in order that the character of the district will not be changed. A variance releasing landowners from all the restrictions and obligations complained of here would be contrary to the intended spirit and purpose of 8A, and therefore would be beyond the purport of Code §§ 15.1-495, -497. Since there was no administrative remedy equal to the relief sought (and thus no adequate legal remedy by judicial review), we hold that the motion properly stated a justiciable cause of action and the trial court correctly overruled the demurrer.