County of Norfolk v. Portsmouth, Record No. 3241.

• Decision Date: 24 November 1947
• Docket Number: Record No. 3241.
• Citation: 186 Va. 1032
• Parties: COUNTY OF NORFOLK v. CITY OF PORTSMOUTH.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Page 1032

186 Va. 1032

COUNTY OF NORFOLK v. CITY OF PORTSMOUTH.

Record No. 3241.

Supreme Court of Virginia, Richmond.

November 24, 1947.

Present, Hudgins, C.J., and Gregory, Eggleston, Spratley, Buchanan and Staples, JJ.

1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — Enlargement of Corporate Bounds — Opposition of Residents Insufficient Ground to Deny Annexation. — Opposition of residents and property owners in areas sought to be annexed to a city is not sufficient ground to deny annexation when the requisite conditions exist.

2. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — Enlargement of Corporate Bounds — Policy Established by Legislature. — The legislature has established a policy of annexation by municipalities as a public necessity, and the consolidation of contiguous urban areas under one municipal government, when appropriate conditions exist, has been encouraged.

3. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — Enlargement of Corporate Bounds — Not Inequitable Because Delayed until Area Developed — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an annexation proceeding, the county contended that its government in the annexation areas fully meet the needs of the inhabitants and it would be inequitable to impose on them the increased expense of additional governmental services which were wholly unnecessary. The county provided the government for the areas involved for many years, and until their growth and development was in a large measure completed, while the city took no steps to annex them in the early development stages, and for this reason the county considered it to be inequitable for the city now to be permitted to absorb these areas so developed under the county government.

Held: That the county and the residents and property owners of the annexation areas had not been injured by the action of the city in exercising its right to delay its annexation proceeding until such time as its governing body deemed it wise and propitious, and that the decree directing the property to be annexed to the city was not inequitable on this account.

4. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — Enlargement of Corporate Bounds — Meaning of "Development" in Code Section 2958 — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an annexation proceeding, the county urged that, since the lands in the areas directed to be annexed were already fully occupied and developed, they could not be annexed because the city could have no need for them "for future development" as required by section 2958 of the Code of 1942 (Michie), which provides that no land shall be taken which the city shall not need in the reasonably near future for development and further provides that the court, in making its decision as to the character and extent of annexation, shall take into consideration the development of the city.

Held: That the word "development" in the statute means not development of the annexed land but development of the city.

5. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — Enlargement of Corporate Bounds — Policy as to Government of Urban and Rural Areas. — The Virginia Constitution and statutes, by providing the different types of government for the counties and cities of the State, have established the policy of placing urban areas under city government and keeping rural areas under county government.

6. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — Enlargement of Corporate Bounds — Evidence Must Show Annexation Both Necessary and Expedient. — Under section 2958 of the Code of 1942 (Michie), providing that, in annexation proceedings, if the majority of the court shall be satisfied of the necessity for and expediency of such annexation an order shall be entered providing for the annexation, the evidence must sustain the finding of the court that it is both necessary and expedient.

7. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — Enlargement of Corporate Bounds — Evidence Showing Annexation Necessary — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an annexation proceeding, the county objected to the annexation on the ground that the evidence did not support the finding of the court that it was necessary and expedient, as required by section 2958 of the Code of 1942 (Michie).

Held: That it was clear from the maps exhibited and from the testimony of many witnesses that, unless the future growth and expansion of the city were to be almost completely obstructed, the annexation was necessary.

8. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — Enlargement of Corporate Bounds — Meaning of "Expedient" in Code Section 2958. — "Expedient", within the meaning of section 2958 of the Code of 1942 (Michie), providing that if the court shall be satisfied of the necessity for and expediency of the annexation of territory to a city an order shall be entered providing for such annexation, but that if the court shall be of opinion that no annexation is necessary or expedient the motion to annex shall be dismissed, means advantageous and in furtherance of the policy of the State with respect to annexation that urban areas should be under urban government and rural areas under county government.

9. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — Enlargement of Corporate Bounds — Annexation within Financial Ability of City Expedient — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an annexation proceeding, the county objected to the annexation on the ground that the evidence did not support the finding of the court that it was necessary and expedient, as required by section 2958 of the Code of 1942 (Michie). The lower court found that the city was not financially unable to undertake the proposed annexation.

Held: That the annexation was expedient, within the meaning of the statute.

10. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — Enlargement of Corporate Bounds — Objections Based on Increase in Taxes and Failure to Annex before Development — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an annexation proceeding involving two areas, one residential and the other industrial, owners of the industrial establishments, as intervenors, objected to the annexation of the industrial area, being opposed to being subject to inspections and regulations that they did not want and to the increase in taxes from which they said they would derive no benefit. They also contended that the city should have annexed prior to the development of the area.

Held: That there was no merit in the last two objections.

11. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — Enlargement of Corporate Bounds — Objection Based on Unwanted Regulation of Industrial Area by City — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an annexation proceeding involving two areas, one residential and the other industrial, owners of the industrial establishments, as intervenors, objected to the annexation of the industrial area, being opposed to being subject to inspections and regulations that they did not want and to the increase in taxes from which they said they would derive no benefit.

Held: That there was no merit in the contention that industrial operations in the industrial area should not be subject to regulation by the city. Regulatory control of and protection from harmful practices or disorders, when and if they arise, would inure to the benefit of all the industries in the annexed area as well as to the inhabitants of the city generally.

12. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — Enlargement of Corporate Bounds — Inclusion of Navy Yard in Annexation Area — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an annexation proceeding involving two areas, one residential and the other industrial, objection was made to the annexation of the industrial area on the ground that it did not comply with the requirement of section 2958 of the Code of 1942 (Michie) that the court should so draw the lines of annexation as to have a reasonably compact body of land. The annexation decree provided for the inclusion of a United States Navy Yard within the enlarged boundaries and it was contended that this could not be annexed as a part of the city in contemplation of law, and that without same the remaining part of the industrial area was not a reasonable compact body.

Held: That the Navy Yard should be included in the boundary of the annexation area.

13. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — Enlargement of Corporate Bounds — What Constitutes "Reasonably Compact Body" Depends on Circumstances. — What constitutes a "reasonably compact body" within the meaning of section 2958 of the Code of 1942 (Michie), providing that in an annexation proceeding the court shall so draw the lines of annexation as to have a reasonably compact body of land, necessarily must depend upon the circumstances and conditions of each case.

14. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — Enlargement of Corporate Bounds — Scope of Provision for "Reasonably Compact Body". — Section 2958 of the Code of 1942 (Michie), providing that in an annexation proceeding the court shall so draw the lines of annexation as to have a reasonably compact body of land, does not forbid the annexation of a desirable urban area merely because it is not compact in form anymore than it permits the annexation of a substantial body of rural or agricultural lands in order to render an adjacent urban area compact.

15. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — Enlargement of Corporate Bounds — Shape of Area Subordinate to Necessity or Expediency of Annexation. — The shape of an area to be annexed to a city, the symmetry, regularity or irregularity of its contours was clearly intended by section 2958 of the Code of 1942 (Michie) to be subordinate to the necessity or expediency of its annexation, having in view the interest of the county as well as of the city, and of the residents and freeholders of both.

16. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — Enlargement of Corporate Bounds — Evidence Showing Area Was "Reasonably Compact" Body — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an annexation proceeding involving two areas, one residential and the other industrial, objection was made to the annexation of the industrial area on the ground that it did not comply with the requirement of section 2958 of the Code of 1942 (Michie) that the court should so draw the lines of annexation as to have a reasonably compact body of land....