Opinion ID: 1260433
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of Weddle petition.

Text: The Weddle petition was filed on May 19, 1966. Special commissioners appointed by the trial court reported that on the date of filing the signatures of 467 (61.528%) of the qualified voters in the area proposed to be annexed were affixed to the petition. They further reported that 65 qualified signers requested removal of their names on or before June 30, 1966, reducing the total to 52.964% as of that date, and that an additional 35 qualified signers filed a petition on or before June 30, 1966, requesting that their properties not be annexed. The commissioners did not remove these 35 signatures from the annexation petition. The County excepted to the Commissioners' Report on the ground that the 467 qualified signers should have been reduced by the 35 petitioners as well as by the 65 signers who had requested removal. This reduction would have left an insufficient percentage, 48.5%, of the qualified voters on the petition as of the return date. The trial court overruled the County's exception. In Gonzales v. Wyatt, 202 Va. 402, 117 S.E.2d 669 (1961), we considered a similar problem. There, voters filed a petition for a referendum, and the trial court appointed special commissioners to determine whether the petition contained the signatures of the required number of qualified voters. Before the commissioners reported their findings, the trial court permitted various petitioners to withdraw their signatures, thereby reducing the number below the statutory minimum. We reversed, noting that, in addition to the filing of the petition, other action had been taken when the signers undertook to withdraw their signatures. We held that jurisdiction had attached when the order appointing special commissioners was entered, and that the trial court therefore erred in permitting the withdrawals. We did not find it necessary to decide whether a petitioner could withdraw his signature after the petition had been filed but before it had been acted upon. We now hold that in an annexation proceeding under Code § 15.1-1034 the determination whether a petition contains the required number of signers is to be made as of the date of filing. Although the authorities are not in agreement on the subject, see Annot., 27 A.L.R.2d 604, 608 (1953), Annot., 126 A.L.R. 1031, 1036 (1940), we prefer this rule which eliminates uncertainty and comports with our rules governing the commencement of other civil litigation. Rules 2:2, 3:3(a). As the signatures of more than 51% of the qualified voters were affixed to the Weddle petition on the date of filing, the trial court did not err in overruling the County's exception to the Commissioners' Report and its plea to the jurisdiction based on the same exception. In another challenge to the sufficiency of the Weddle petition the County moved for dismissal on the ground that the territory sought was not determined until after the petition was signed. The trial court correctly overruled this motion. Code § 15.1-1034 requires that the petition when filed set forth the metes and bounds description of the territory. There is no requirement that a map or a metes and bounds description be exhibited to each signer in advance or that the description not be revised before the petition is filed. Here again the petition speaks as of the date of filing. (b) Annexation of entire county. The County asserts that the Roanoke ordinance seeking annexation of the entire County, including the Town of Vinton, violates § 61 [3] of the applicable 1902 Virginia Constitution. Section 61 must be construed in conjunction with § 126 of the 1902 Constitution. Section 126 mandates that [t]he General Assembly shall provide by general laws for the extension and the contraction, from time to time, of the corporate limits of cities and towns; . . . . Code § 15.1-1056 [4] by implication authorizes annexation of an entire county. See C. Bain, Annexation in Virginia at 153-156 (1966), for a discussion of the history of Code § 15.1-1056. Without deciding whether § 61 is inapplicable to all annexation proceedings, we hold that it does not prohibit annexation of an entire county. (c) Annexation of agricultural and forest lands. The County also says that the Roanoke ordinance, including attached maps, is invalid because it shows that approximately 212.66 square miles (about (81%) of the territory sought are devoted to agricultural or forest uses. Under the provisions of Code § 15.1-1042(a) the annexation court is required to draw the lines of annexation so that no land shall be taken into the city which is not adapted to city improvements, or which the city will not need in the reasonably near future for development, unless necessarily embraced in such compact body of land . . . . We are of opinion, however, that these limitations are restricted to annexation of less than an entire county and that the provisions of Code § 15.1-1056 require annexation of an entire county under the circumstances specified therein, regardless of compactness, land use, or adaptability to city improvements or development. We conclude, therefore, that the annexation court ruled correctly that it had jurisdiction to hear and decide all five annexation cases.