Riverview Farm Associates v. BD. OF SUP'RS

• Decision Date: 03 March 2000
• Docket Number: Record No. 990853.
• Citation: 528 S.E.2d 99,259 Va. 419
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: RIVERVIEW FARM ASSOCIATES VIRGINIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, et al. v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHARLES CITY COUNTY, et al.

528 S.E.2d 99

259 Va. 419

RIVERVIEW FARM ASSOCIATES VIRGINIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, et al. v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHARLES CITY COUNTY, et al.

Record No. 990853.

Supreme Court of Virginia.

March 3, 2000.

David S. Bailey, Manassas, for appellants.

B. Randolph Boyd (Bonnie M. Ashley; Eugene Edward Mathews, III; F. Lewis Biggs; Randolph, Boyd, Cherry & Vaughan; McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, on brief), Richmond, for appellees.

Present: CARRICO, C.J., COMPTON,¹ LACY, HASSELL, KEENAN, KOONTZ, and KINSER, JJ.

KEENAN, Justice.

In this appeal, we consider whether the trial court erred in sustaining a demurrer to a bill of complaint for declaratory judgment challenging a local governing body's decision approving a conditional rezoning application.

Riverview Farm Associates Virginia General Partnership, Jearald D. Cable, Robert L. Waldrop, and Cardwell Ferguson Hannabass (collectively, the plaintiffs) filed a bill of complaint for declaratory judgment against the Charles City County Board of Supervisors (the Board) and Weanack Land, Limited Partnership (Weanack). The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Board's decision rezoning 41.27 riverfront acres owned by Weanack (the Weanack property) to an "Industrial M-2-C" classification was unreasonable, arbitrary, and void. All the plaintiffs owned property located within about 2,000 feet of either the Weanack property or the access road serving the Weanack property.

The Weanack property is located next to the Shirley Plantation, an historical landmark, and includes a port on the James River used for the docking, loading, and unloading of barges. In 1995, the Board changed the Weanack property's zoning classification from "A-1 Agricultural" to "Business Conditional B-1-C." The purpose of the 1995 rezoning was to permit use of the Weanack property as a port to receive barges delivering containerized municipal waste destined for the Charles City County landfill, which is operated jointly by Charles City County (the County) and a private company. These waste transportation operations on the Weanack property began in 1996.

A condition of the "B-1-C" rezoning prohibited truck traffic entering or leaving the Weanack property from using Route 5 or Route 608. A second condition limited truck traffic from the dock facility to Route 106/156 to "[n]o more than 125 truck loads per day." This truck traffic reached Route 106/156 by using an access road on an easement over property owned by T. Davis Copeland and Pamela P. Copeland (the Copelands). At the time of the proceedings at issue, a lawsuit was pending between the Copelands and Weanack concerning Weanack's use of the easement.

In October 1997, Weanack filed an application to rezone the Weanack property from the "Business B-1-C" classification to "Industrial M-2-C." Weanack also requested that the Board amend the Charles City County zoning ordinance (zoning ordinance) to include in its "Industrial M-2" classification specified waterfront industrial uses, including "docks and areas for the receipt, storage and transhipment of waterborne commerce." In December 1997, the Board voted to amend the zoning ordinance's "Industrial M-2" classification as requested, but deferred consideration of the application to rezone Weanack's property.

Weanack's rezoning application included 11 detailed proffers. Among these proffers, Weanack stated the hours during which its facility would be operated, and established different time restrictions for trucking, "land-based operations" such as loading and unloading barges, and "marine-based operations" such as docking barges. Weanack further agreed in the proffers that its trucks would not travel on Routes 5 and 608.

Weanack's proffers also addressed the volume of truck traffic that would be permitted for the transportation of waste to the County's landfill. Weanack agreed to limit the number of truck trips per day entering or exiting Route 106/156 to 150, 250, or 300 truckloads, depending on the improvements made to the access road that Weanack used to reach Route 106/156. In February 1998, the Board granted Weanack's rezoning application and accepted the above proffers as part of the rezoning.

After the Board filed a demurrer to the plaintiffs' original bill of complaint, the plaintiffs sought to add the Copelands as plaintiffs in the case. The Board and Weanack objected to the plaintiffs' request. The trial court denied the request on the grounds that "the Copelands do not qualify as necessary parties to this case, and further that the Copelands should have filed their own case, or filed their requested amendment, within 30 days [of the Board's decision]." The trial court also sustained the Board's demurrer to the bill of complaint, but granted the plaintiffs leave to file an amended bill of complaint.

In Count I of their second amended bill of complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the Board's decision rezoning the Weanack property violated Code § 15.2-2297(A)(vii), which requires that proffers made as part of a rezoning application be in conformity with the local governing body's comprehensive plan. They alleged that two of Weanack's proffers were not in conformity with the County's 1991 Comprehensive Plan. First, the plaintiffs alleged that the use of an access road over the Copeland property for truck traffic leaving the Weanack facility created "an intensive industrial use area" on the Copelands' property, contrary to its agricultural designation in the County's 1991 Comprehensive Plan. Second, they alleged that Weanack's proffer concerning the facility's hours of operation also was not in conformity with the 1991 Plan.

In addition, the plaintiffs alleged that their use of their own properties would be adversely impacted by the trucking noise, litter, dust, odors, and exposure to disease from the garbage unloaded on the Weanack property and transported over the access road on the Copeland property. They also alleged that the Board's acceptance of Weanack's proffers as part of the rezoning was "unreasonable and illegal."

In Count II, the plaintiffs alleged that the rezoning violated the County's zoning ordinance because the rezoning permitted a private road in an area zoned for agricultural use to be part of an industrial use, when "there is no language authorizing the use of access roads in other zoned areas." The plaintiffs also alleged that the rezoning imposed "intensive" industrial uses on the Copeland property and converted that property to an industrial use contrary to its agricultural use classification. In Count V, the plaintiff alleged that the Board's decision granting the rezoning application constituted illegal "spot zoning."²

The Board and Weanack filed demurrers to the second amended bill of complaint. They also asked the trial court to strike the plaintiffs' pleading, arguing that the plaintiffs improperly attempted to assert claims that could only be brought by the Copelands, contrary to the trial court's earlier ruling precluding such claims.

The trial court struck Count II and those parts of Counts I and V "setting forth ... allegations concerning the Copeland property." The court also ruled that Count II failed to state a valid claim, and alternatively held that it constituted an "impermissible new claim." The trial court sustained the demurrer to the balance of Counts I and V and dismissed the case with prejudice.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in denying their request to add the Copelands as plaintiffs. They assert that if an action challenging a local governing body's zoning decision has been brought within the 30-day time period following the decision, as required by Code § 15.2-2285(F), additional plaintiffs may be added after the 30-day period has expired. The plaintiffs contend that their second amended bill of complaint does not allege "impermissible new claims" concerning the Copelands' property because these claims were based on the same facts alleged in the original bill of complaint and sought the same relief.

The plaintiffs also argue that Count I stated a valid cause of action in alleging that the Board improperly accepted certain proffers from Weanack that were contrary to the County's 1991 Comprehensive Plan. They contend that Count II stated a cause of action, irrespective whether the Copelands were added as parties, because the plaintiffs alleged that the Board violated the County's zoning ordinance by accepting proffers that "impose industrial uses" on property zoned for agricultural use. The plaintiffs also assert that they properly alleged a claim of illegal spot zoning in Count V.

In response, the Board and Weanack (collectively, Weanack) argue that the trial court properly denied the request to add the Copelands as plaintiffs, since the Copelands failed to file suit contesting the Board's decision within the 30-day period required by Code § 15.2-2285(F). Weanack asserts that after denying this request, the trial court correctly sustained the demurrer to claims relating to the proffers addressing truck traffic on the access road, since these claims could only be brought by the Copelands. Weanack further contends that the plaintiffs failed to allege any facts to support their allegation in Count I that the proffered conditions were inconsistent with the County's comprehensive plan.

Weanack also contends that the plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action in Count II because they alleged no facts from which the court could conclude that the conditional rezoning of the Weanack property "imposed" an industrial use on the Copeland property. Weanack argues that property zoned for agricultural use, which is adjacent to property zoned for industrial use, does not have to be rezoned to an industrial classification before being used to provide access for traffic travelling to and from the industrial site. Finally, Weanack asserts that Count V is legally insufficient because it does not allege that the...