Va. Alcoholic Beverage Control Auth. v. Bd. of Supervisors of Fairfax Cnty.
| Decision Date | 06 November 2018 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 0265-18-4 |
| Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | VIRGINIA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL AUTHORITY v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF FAIRFAX COUNTY |
UNPUBLISHED
Present: Judges Alston, O'Brien and AtLee
Argued at Fredericksburg, Virginia
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
James M. Flaherty, Assistant Attorney General (Mark R. Herring, Attorney General; Stephen A. Cobb, Deputy Attorney General; Heather Hays Lockerman, Senior Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellant.
Laura S. Gori, Senior Assistant County Attorney, (Elizabeth D. Teare, County Attorney; T. David Stoner, Deputy County Attorney, on brief), for appellee.
The Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board ("the ABC Board") granted a farm winery license to Bates on Yates, LLC ("Bates on Yates") over the objection of the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County ("BOCS"). BOCS appealed and following a hearing, the circuit court reversed. The Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Authority ("ABC") appeals the court's decision. In its sole assignment of error, ABC asserts that the "court erred in ruling [that the] ABC [Board] exceeded its authority by granting the license." For the following reasons, we affirm.
Brian Bates Farmer built his home on 1.86 acres of land in Clifton, Virginia. He began planting grapes on his property in 2012 and planned to produce and sell wine from the grapes in a farm winery called "Bates on Yates."
Farmer's property is located on land zoned Residential-Conservation (R-C). Fairfax County created the R-C district in 1982 to protect the Occoquan Watershed; the minimum lot size in the district is five acres. Fairfax County Zoning Ordinance §§ 3-C01, -C06(2)(A). Permitted uses in the R-C district include "[a]griculture, as defined in Article 20." Id. at § 3-C02(2). Article 20 of the Zoning Ordinance has a separate five-acre minimum requirement for agricultural use of land. Id. at § 20-300. In 2005, Farmer obtained a "Buildable Lot Determination" from the Department of Public Works and Environmental Services of Fairfax County that allowed him to construct a residence on his 1.86 acres of land, despite the R-C designation. This buildable lot determination cited "the grandfathering provision of Section 2-405 of the Zoning Ordinance" which authorizes exceptions to minimum area and width requirements for lots that were created or recorded prior to the current zoning ordinance.
On April 29, 2015, Farmer went to Fairfax County's Department of Planning and Zoning ("DPZ") to discuss his proposed winery. He did not have an appointment, but availed himself of DPZ walk-in hours, when a DPZ planner is available to speak to anyone with general zoning questions. Farmer explained to St. Clair Williams, the DPZ planner on duty, that he wished to establish a farm winery on his property. Williams consulted with his supervisor, Mavis Stanfield, and the two employees told Farmer that his lot size was insufficient for agricultural use. Farmer was unhappy with this information. Although Stanfield advised Farmer that she did not have the authority to waive the five-acre requirement, she agreed to review "materials . . . that would indicate that . . . farming has occurred on [the] property continuously for a great number of years and . . . that could be a way of establishing a nonconforming use."
Later that afternoon, Stanfield directed Williams to send Farmer an email containing two Virginia statutes: Code § 4.1-100 (defining "farm winery") and Code § 15.2-2288.3 ().
Williams emailed Farmer these statutes the next morning, along with the following message:
After further discussion on your request about establishing a winery on your property, we have determined that the use as you described it would be deemed a "Farm Winery" as defined [by Code § 4.1-100]. Therefore, the usual activities and events customary for farm wineries are permitted without local regulation unless there is substantial impact on the health, safety or welfare of the public [pursuant to Code § 15.2-2288.3]. So, no approval is required from the County for your use as you described it[;] however any state requirements and/or regulations must be met.
Williams testified at the administrative hearing that he did not intend the email to "change anything that [he] had told [Farmer] the day before" but only wanted to explain that Farmer would "still have to meet all other . . . zoning ordinance standards."
Stanfield and Williams did not hear from Farmer again. Farmer testified that he hand-delivered to Leslie B. Johnson, the Fairfax County Zoning Administrator, a letter and photographs showing his continuous use of the property for agriculture. Farmer also testified that he received Williams's email shortly after dropping off the letter to Johnson and assumed that Williams had been communicating with Johnson. However, Johnson testified that she did not receive the letter and photographs.
Because of family considerations, Farmer delayed his plans to open a farm winery. In May 2016, Bates on Yates applied to the ABC Board for a farm winery license. After the ABC Board notified Fairfax County of the application, Johnson emailed Farmer and informed him that a farm winery was not permitted on his property. In the email, dated May 23, 2016, Johnson quoted Zoning Ordinance § 3-C02 () and Zoning Ordinance § 20-300 (). Johnson wrote as follows:
It is my position that you do not have the requisite acreage to establish a farm winery on your property. I would certainly welcome an opportunity to meet with you to discuss your pending application with the Virginia ABC. Please feel free to contact me . . . to arrange such a meeting.
Farmer did not respond to Johnson or appeal her decision to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
At the ABC Board's administrative hearing, a number of local residents testified against issuance of a farm winery license to Bates on Yates. Johnson testified that the five-acre requirement for agricultural use of property cannot be waived or modified. She confirmed that the 2005 buildable lot determination allowed Farmer to build a new house on his property, although the lot size of 1.86 acres did not meet the minimum five-acre lot requirement for the R-C district. However, Johnson explained that the buildable lot determination did not also permit Farmer to use the property for agricultural purposes.
At the conclusion of the hearing, an administrative officer granted Bates on Yates a farm winery license. BOCS appealed to the ABC Board, which adopted the hearing officer's decision and issued a final order granting the license. BOCS appealed to the circuit court. The court found that the ABC Board exceeded its authority in granting the license and remanded the case with directions that the ABC Board deny the license application.
Action by the ABC Board to grant or deny a license is governed by the Virginia Administrative Process Act, Code § 2.2-4000 to -4031 ("VAPA"). Code § 4.1-224. Code § 2.2-4027 of VAPA addresses judicial review of an agency decision. "[T]he circuit court reviews an agency's action in a manner 'equivalent to an appellate court's role in an appeal from a trial court.'" Commonwealth ex rel. Va. State Water Control Bd. v. Blue Ridge Envtl. Def. League, Inc., 56 Va. App. 469, 479-80, 694 S.E.2d 290, 295 (2010) (quoting J.P. v. Carter, 24 Va. App. 707, 721, 485 S.E.2d 162, 169 (1997)), aff'd, 283 Va. 1, 720 S.E.2d 138 (2012). Circuit court judgments "shall be subject to appeal to or review by higher courts as in other cases." Code § 2.2-4026(A).
Judicial review of an agency decision is limited to determining "[w]hether the agency acted in accordance with law," "[w]hether the agency made a procedural error which was not harmless error," and "[w]hether the agency had sufficient evidential support for its findings of fact." Johnston-Willis, Ltd. v. Kenley, 6 Va. App. 231, 242, 369 S.E.2d 1, 7 (1988); see Code § 2.2-4027. "On reviewing the claims of error, an agency's factual determination is given substantial judicial deference, and is reviewed 'only for whether [it has] support in substantial evidence.'" Blue Ridge Envtl. Def. League, Inc., 56 Va. App. at 480, 694 S.E.2d at 296 (quoting Mazloumi v. Dep't of Envtl. Quality, 55 Va. App. 204, 208, 684 S.E.2d 852, 854 (2009)).
"On appeal of an agency's determination of law, the deference accorded depends on the law being interpreted." Id. "[W]here the question involves an interpretation which is within the specialized competence of the agency[,] and the agency has been entrusted with wide discretion by the General Assembly, the agency's decision is entitled to special weight in the courts." Id. (quoting Johnston-Willis, Ltd., 6 Va. App. at 243, 369 S.E.2d at 8). "[J]udicial interference is permissible only for relief against the arbitrary or capricious action that constitutes a clear abuse of the delegated discretion." Id.
"However, courts do not defer to an agency's interpretation '[i]f the issue falls outside the area generally entrusted to the agency, and is one in which the courts have special competence.'" Id. "An agency's 'legal interpretations of statutes' is accorded no deference because . . . 'pure statutory interpretation is the prerogative of the judiciary.'" Id. at 481, 694 S.E.2d at 296 (). Accordingly, "where the issue involves a legal determination or statutory interpretation, this Court does a de...
To continue reading
Request your trial