Opinion ID: 1057749
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: In its second assignment of error, Newberry Station asserts that the circuit court erred by awarding the Board summary judgment upon a finding that the Board’s approval of the Application was fairly debatable. Approval of a special exception is a legislative act. Sinclair v. New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, 283 Va. 567, 581, 727 S.E.2d 40, 47 (2012) (citing Fairfax County Board of Supervisors v. Southland Corp., 224 Va. 514, 522, 297 S.E.2d 718, 722 (1982)). It therefore is entitled to a presumption of validity. Town of Leesburg v. Giordano, 280 Va. 597, 606, 701 S.E.2d 783, 787 (2010). 10 The Compact expressly provides that “[m]embers of the Board and alternates shall serve without compensation but may be reimbursed for necessary expenses incurred as an incident to the performances of their duties.” 19 This presumption of validity is a presumption of reasonableness. Legislative action is reasonable if the matter at issue is fairly debatable. An issue is fairly debatable when the evidence offered in support of the opposing views would lead objective and reasonable persons to reach different conclusions. Under the fairly debatable standard, the governing body is not required to go forward with evidence sufficient to persuade the fact-finder of reasonableness by a preponderance of the evidence. [Rather, w]here presumptive reasonableness is challenged by probative evidence of unreasonableness, the challenge must be met by some evidence of reasonableness. If evidence of reasonableness is sufficient to make the question fairly debatable, the legislative action must be sustained. If not, the evidence of unreasonableness defeats the presumption of reasonableness and the legislative action cannot be sustained. Id., 701 S.E.2d at 787-88 (internal citations, quotation marks, and alterations omitted). Nevertheless, when a legislative act is undertaken in violation of an existing ordinance, the board’s “action [i]s arbitrary and capricious, and not fairly debatable, thereby rendering the [legislative act] void and of no effect.” Renkey v. County Bd. of Arlington County, 272 Va. 369, 376, 634 S.E.2d 352, 356 (2006). Newberry Station first argues that the Board’s action was arbitrary and capricious, and therefore void, under the Renkey standard because the Application was approved in violation of FCZO §§ 9-006(6), 9-011, and 9-404(4). However, unlike the 20 ordinance at issue in Renkey, the cited provisions do not restrict the authority of the Board to act. In Renkey, we considered a provision in the Arlington County Zoning Ordinance (“ACZO”). That provision permitted the board of supervisors to rezone land into a “C-R” class designation. The ordinance provided that “to be eligible for the classification, a site shall be located within an area designated ‘medium density mixed use’ and zoned ‘C-3’.” 272 Va. at 373, 634 S.E.2d at 354 (quoting ACZO § 27A). A landowner applied to have its parcel rezoned into the “C-R” class designation and the board of supervisors approved the application. However, only a portion of the subject parcel was previously zoned in the “C-3” class designation. Id. at 371, 634 S.E.2d at 353. Renkey challenged the board’s approval in an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, arguing that the board’s action was invalid because the non-“C-3” portion of the parcel was ineligible to be rezoned into the “C-R” class designation under the ordinance. Id. at 371-72, 634 S.E.2d at 354. We agreed with Renkey, concluding that the board lacked authority under the ordinance to rezone the non-“C-3” portion of the parcel into the “C-R” class designation. That portion of the parcel was, by the terms of the ordinance, ineligible to be so rezoned. Accordingly, the board’s “action was arbitrary 21 and capricious, and not fairly debatable, thereby rendering the re-zoning void and of no effect.” Id. at 376, 634 S.E.2d at 356. While ACZO § 27A restricted the authority of the board of supervisors to rezone the parcel in Renkey, the ordinance provisions implicated in this case do not restrict the Board’s general authority to grant special exceptions. Rather, they at most articulate the standards by which the Board’s consideration of a special exception application is to be guided. While a zoning ordinance must set forth standards under which applications for special exceptions are to be considered when local governing bodies delegate that legislative power, the ordinance need not do so when the local governing body has reserved the power unto itself. Jennings v. Board of Supervisors, 281 Va. 511, 520, 708 S.E.2d 841, 846 (2011) (comparing Bollinger v. Board of Supervisors, 217 Va. 185, 187, 227 S.E.2d 682, 683 (1976) with Ames v. Town of Painter, 239 Va. 343, 349, 389 S.E.2d 702, 705 (1990)). Even when the local governing body delegates the power to approve or deny a special exception, whereupon standards must be articulated in the zoning ordinance, id., the judicial inquiry is limited to the question of whether the “officials, agencies, and boards exercising delegated legislative powers . . . ha[ve] acted in accordance with the policies and standards 22 specified in the legislative delegation of power.” Ames, 239 Va. at 349, 389 S.E.2d at 705. That review is subject to the presumption of validity recited above. Id. at 347-48, 389 S.E.2d at 704; accord Town of Leesburg, 280 Va. at 606, 701 S.E.2d at 787-88. Accordingly, while a local governing body acts arbitrarily and capriciously when it acts outside the scope of the authority conferred by the zoning ordinance, and the resulting action is void, Renkey, 272 Va. at 376, 634 S.E.2d at 356, we apply the presumption of validity when we review whether the local governing body adequately considered the standards set forth in the zoning ordinance when it approved or denied a special exception application. Newberry Station also argues that the Board’s approval of the Application is not entitled to a presumption of validity because it is not fairly debatable. For Newberry Station to prevail on this argument, the record must establish that it met its burden to adduce evidence of unreasonableness sufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness and that the Board failed to meet Newberry Station’s evidence with some evidence of reasonableness. Town of Leesburg, 280 Va. at 606, 701 S.E.2d at 788. Newberry Station specifically argues that the Board’s approval of the Application was unreasonable because the Board relied on a staff report that evaluated the Application without 23 considering standards applicable under the ordinance. Newberry Station’s concerns are particularly directed to three standards, those set forth for open space, noise, and hazardous and toxic substances. We will consider each argument in turn. Newberry Station first challenges the Board’s approval on the basis of open space requirements. FCZO § 9-006 requires the Board to consider certain general standards for all special exception applications. Among these is whether “[o]pen space [is] provided in an amount equivalent to that specified for the zoning district in which the proposed use is located.” FCZO § 9-006(6). FCZO § 5-608, applicable to the portion of the parcel lying in the I-6 zoning district, requires 10% of the gross area to be landscaped open space. Newberry Station contends the Board failed to consider this standard because the staff report did not assess the amount of open space reserved on the portion of the parcel lying in the I-6 zoning district. The Board responds that the report contains sufficient evidence that the open space requirement would be met. We agree with the Board. The report includes a plat of the portion of the parcel in the I-6 zoning district. Newberry Station concedes that the portion of the parcel in the I-6 district has an area of 12.05 acres. The Court may take judicial notice that an acre consists of 43,560 square feet. See Shackleford v. 24 Commonwealth, 262 Va. 196, 210-11, 547 S.E.2d 899, 907 (2001) (holding “the circuit court did not err in taking judicial notice of the conversion ratio” between standard units of measurement). Therefore, the portion of the parcel in the I-6 district is 524,898 square feet. Measuring the entire developed area of the parcel lying within the I-6 zoning district, including the facility, its parking lots, and other structures, as shown on that plat and according to its scale of measure, the area is less than 470,000 square feet, leaving more than 54,898 square feet undeveloped. This exceeds the 10% open space requirement by more than 2400 square feet. Newberry Station next challenges the Board’s approval on the basis of noise limits. FCZO § 9-404(4) requires that “[a]ll [transportation] facilities shall be so located and so designed that the operation thereof will not seriously affect adjacent residential areas, particularly with respect to noise levels.” Newberry Station contends the noise study used by the Board in its consideration predicted the noise levels would be 55.3 decibels if the facility were approved. Under Fairfax County Code § 108-4-4(a), Newberry Station continues, noise levels in residential areas from stationary sources may not 25 exceed 55 decibels. The Board responds that Newberry Station has relied on an inapplicable section of the noise ordinance. The noise study evaluated noise levels at Hunter Estates, a residential community adjoining the parcel subject to the Application. By its own admission, Newberry Station is farther away from the proposed facility than Hunter Estates. Consequently, the study is not probative of the noise levels which may affect Newberry Station. While Newberry Station also argues that the buses traveling to and from the facility would generate excessive noise, and that Newberry Station is closer to the road than Hunter Estates, the limits set by the noise ordinance for vehicular traffic range from 76 to 90 decibels, depending on the size of the vehicle and the applicable speed limit. Fairfax County Code § 108-4-5(a). Newberry Station has adduced no evidence that the noise from bus traffic would exceed these levels. 11 More importantly, FCZO § 9-404(4) merely requires the Board to consider the effect of noise in residential areas. It does not incorporate the noise ordinance and the noise ordinance does not provide for its enforcement through the 11 On brief, Newberry Station avers that it would have provided additional evidence in the form of expert testimony. However, no assignment of error asserts that the circuit court erred in awarding summary judgment because material facts were in dispute or that the court improperly excluded admissible evidence. The averment therefore has no relevance to this appeal. See Rule 5:17(c)(1)(i); Rule 5:27(d). 26 zoning ordinance. To the contrary, the noise ordinance expressly provides for its enforcement as a misdemeanor punishable by not more than 30 days’ imprisonment or a fine of not more than $1000. Fairfax County Code § 108-1-3. Newberry Station finally challenges the Board’s approval on the basis of hazardous and toxic substances. FCZO § 9- 011(7)(H) requires all special exception applications to include “[a] listing, if known, of all hazardous or toxic substances as set forth in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations Parts 116.4, 302.4 and 355 . . . to be generated, utilized, stored, treated, and/or disposed of on site and the size and contents of any existing or proposed storage tanks or containers.” Newberry Station contends the application included no such listing of substances. Rather, it continues, the Application merely included plats displaying storage tanks for certain substances and an additional “hazmat container” with no indication of what it would contain. Newberry Station also contends that WMATA uses ethylene glycol, a substance listed in 40 C.F.R. § 302.4, at all its facilities and that ethylene glycol is not identified in the Application. The Board responds that the designation of the various containers on the plats is sufficient because hazardous and toxic substances are 27 regulated during the site-plan review process, not the special exception approval process. Unlike FCZO §§ 9-006(6) and 9-404(4), FCZO § 9-011 does not set forth standards for the Board’s consideration of a special exception application. Rather, by its own terms FCZO § 9-011 governs the information required to be submitted by the applicant. The section is captioned “Submission Requirements” and it begins “[a]ll applications for special exception uses shall be accompanied by the following items . . . .” FCZO § 9- 011. While it might be possible in a hypothetical case that an applicant’s failure to submit an application that fulfills a requirement imposed by the zoning ordinance would prevent a local governing body or delegated authority from considering one or more of the standards set forth in the ordinance, that is not the case here. Newberry Station has not identified any provision of the FCZO that establishes standards for the Board to consider with respect to hazardous or toxic substances. There is no standard, for example, obligating the Board to consider the types or quantities of such materials, or regulating the production, use, storage, treatment, or disposal of such materials, even if identified by the applicant. Cf. FCZO § 9-011(7)(H). Therefore, an applicant’s failure to 28 identify the materials does not impede, obstruct, or adversely affect the Board’s consideration of any such standard. Accordingly, the record contains sufficient evidence of reasonableness to make the Board’s approval of the Application fairly debatable. To the extent Newberry Station adduced evidence of unreasonableness, the Board met the challenge “by some evidence of reasonableness,” and its decision “must be sustained.” Town of Leesburg, 280 Va. at 606, 701 S.E.2d at 788. The circuit court therefore did not err in awarding the Board summary judgment and we will affirm that portion of its judgment.