Opinion ID: 1058800
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Interpretation and Application of the Plan

Text: The Authority next challenges the circuit court's determination that Paragraph 1 of the Acquisition section of the Plan exceeded the authorization contained in Code § 36-50.1(4), and that under the Plan, C & C was entitled to a notice allowing it the opportunity to cure the blighted conditions consistent with Code § 36-50.1(2). The pertinent language in the Acquisition section of the Plan states: The Boundary and Land Acquisition Map, Exhibit One, identifies properties to be acquired because they appear infeasible of rehabilitation or their land use is inconsistent with the purposes and objectives of the Conservation Plan. Properties within the Project Area will be inspected to determine whether or not they comply with the provisions of the Conservation Plan Rehabilitation Standards. . . . The owners of property which does not comply with the Standards will be notified in writing of observed deficiencies [and if] the property has not been made to comply with the Standards within one year after receiving a written request for such compliance, then the Authority may proceed to acquire the property by deed or condemnation. The relevant portions of Code § 36-50.1 are subsections (2) and (4) which provide that in connection with a conservation plan, an authority cannot exercise powers of eminent domain except to acquire (2) properties which are determined by the authority to be in violation of the standards for design, construction, maintenance and use of property set out in the conservation plan . . . and which have not been made to comply with such standards within one year after a written request to rehabilitate to project standards is given to the owner by the authority; or . . . (4) properties which are infeasible of rehabilitation or . . . exert a blighting influence on adjacent properties or prevent proper development of land so as to inhibit or prevent accomplishment of the purposes of the conservation plan. The Authority argues that Paragraph 1 of the Acquisition section complies with Subsection (4) of Code § 36-50.1 and allows the Authority to acquire properties under that paragraph without providing any notice to the landowner. A comparison of the language in the Plan and in the statute, however, demonstrates a difference in the conditions under which property may be acquired. Subsection (4) of Code § 36-50.1 allows acquisition without such notice if the properties  are infeasible of rehabilitation . . . so as to inhibit or prevent accomplishment of the purposes of the plan. (Emphasis added.) Paragraph 1 of the Acquisition section, however, refers to properties that  appear infeasible of rehabilitation or their land use is inconsistent with the purposes and objectives of the Conservation Plan. (Emphasis added.) The Authority argues that despite this deviation in language, the phrases used are synonymous; thus, it contends that this portion of the Plan is not overbroad. The Authority also argues that a reviewing court should not strictly construe the terms of a conservation plan because as defined by Code § 36-51.1, the conservation plan is merely an outline for the conservation, development or redevelopment of an area, and need only be sufficiently complete to indicate the conservation activities that will take place within the project area. We disagree. The Plan's phrase appear infeasible is more encompassing than the Section's are infeasible, as the former would allow a taking of property that can be taken as, look[s], or seem[s] infeasible of rehabilitation, Webster's Third New International Dictionary 103 (1993), while the latter mandates that, to be taken, the property must be infeasible of rehabilitation. Also, the definition of inconsistent is lacking consistency or incompatible, while the meaning of inhibit is to prohibit from doing something. Id. at 1144, 1163. A land use that lacks consistency with the goals of a plan does not necessarily prohibit an authority from achieving those goals. Thus, we reject the Authority's argument that the language in Paragraph 1 of the Plan is synonymous with and no broader than that language in Code § 36-50.1(4). We also reject the Authority's argument that the Plan was only an outline and any discrepancies were immaterial because the statute would ultimately control. Although the statutes authorize the creation and implementation of a conservation plan, an authority's ability to undertake actions allowed by statute arises by virtue of a duly adopted conservation plan. The plan must be consistent with the grant of authority set out in the statutes and, if the plan contains authorization for acts beyond those delegated, such authorization is invalid. City Council of Alexandria v. Lindsey Trusts, 258 Va. 424, 427, 520 S.E.2d 181, 182-83 (1999) (citing City of Chesapeake v. Gardner Enterprises, Inc., 253 Va. 243, 246, 482 S.E.2d 812, 814 (1997)). Furthermore, distinguishing properties to be acquired under Paragraph 1 or Paragraph 2 on the Boundary and Land Acquisition Map does not cure the infirmities in Paragraph 1 of the Plan. Thus, we hold that the circuit court did not err in determining that the language of Paragraph 1 is broader than that found in Code § 36-50.1(4) and, therefore, cannot be utilized as a basis for the exercise of eminent domain as authorized by that Code section. We also conclude that the circuit court correctly determined that, as written, the Acquisition section complies with subsection (2) of Code § 36-50.1, which allows an authority to identify properties not in compliance with its standards and acquire them by eminent domain if a landowner does not, within one year of written notice, remedy the violations identified. The language of Paragraph 2 in the Plan's Acquisition section is entirely consistent with Code § 36-50.1(2). The evidence is undisputed that C & C did not receive the required notice to correct the deficiencies on the Property from the Authority. Accordingly, the circuit court did not err in holding that because the Authority failed to provide such notice and because condemnation was not available without notice pursuant to Paragraph 1 of the Plan, the Authority could not maintain its condemnation petition against C & C's Property in this case.