York County v. City of Williamsburg

• Decision Date: 02 December 1963
• Docket Number: Nos. 5608,5609,s. 5608
• Citation: 133 S.E.2d 520,204 Va. 732
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: COUNTY OF YORK v. CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG. COUNTY OF JAMES CITY v. CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG. Records

Page 520

133 S.E.2d 520

204 Va. 732

COUNTY OF YORK v. CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG.

COUNTY OF JAMES CITY v. CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG.

Records Nos. 5608, 5609.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

December 2, 1963.

James N. Garrett (G. Duane Holloway, Commonwealth's Attorney; James N. Garrett, Jr.; Allen J. Gordon, on brief), for appellant, County of York.

Charles E. Ford (J. B. Cowles, Jr., Commonwealth's Attorney; Murray, Ford, West & Wilkinson, on brief), for appellant, County of James City.

Samuel H. Williams and V. M. Geddy, Jr. (Miss Mary Inman, City Attorney, on brief), for the appellee.

JUDGE: WHITTLE

WHITTLE, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an annexation suit instituted by the city of Williamsburg against the county of York and the county of James City jointly. The suit resulted in annexation of certain territories in both counties. Writs of error were granted on petitions filed by each county separately.

After the filing of the petition for annexation by the city, both counties filed their answers and, among other things, denied the necessity for and expediency of annexation of any territory by the city. Thereupon, Judge Gus E. Mitchell, Jr. of the 34th Judicial Circuit, Judge Major M. Hillard of the 1st Judicial Circuit, together with Judge Robert T. Armistead, the resident judge, were designated to hear the case. After pre-trial conferences, a tour of inspection and views by the court of the territory sought to be annexed, the court heard the evidence of witnesses and on March 13, 1962 Judge Armistead announced that the court had decided to grant annexation of some of the territory sought by the city from each of the counties.

On May 15, 1962 the court entered its final order, together with its written opinion, allowing the annexation. Exceptions were taken to the order of the court by both counties and the city also filed cross-error to certain rulings.

The fact that the city of Williamsburg is financially able to care for the annexation involved is not disputed.

While the suit was instituted by the city against both counties, separate writs of error were granted each county and in reality two cases are here involved. Each will be treated separately in this opinion.

Upon the filing of the suit the county of York filed an appearance denying the necessity and expediency of the annexation of any of its territory and as a further defense stated its belief that the proposed annexation of 5.94 square miles of its territory, if allowed, would reduce the remaining territory of the county after annexation below the 60 square mile statutory requirement (Code Section 15-152.6). Thereafter the court heard evidence on the area of York county and concluded that more than 60 square miles would be left in the event the proposed annexation was granted.

The court then proceeded to hear the case on its merits and after taking a view of the territory sought to be annexed determined in its final order to allow the city to annex .87 square mile, or 570 acres.

At the time of filing the suit the city of Williamsburg had within its corporate limits an area of 2.88 square miles.

The assignments of error filed by York county are nine in number and, according to the county, present three questions for decision, which will be taken up in the order presented.

The first is:

1. 'Did the City prove that the annexation allowed was necessary and expedient?'

In its discussion of the law governing necessity and expediency York county argues before us that the city failed to carry its burden of proof, asserting that the evidence shows that the residents of the area were not seriously suffering any lack of services which the city could furnish. This argument was properly made before the annexation court but is not persuasive on appeal as the case comes before us upon the presumption that the finding of the annexation court is correct. The finding was:

'This Court is satisfied and hereby determines that the annexation herein provided for is both necessary and expedient, considering the best interests of James City County and York County, respectively, and the City of Williamsburg and the best interests, services to be rendered and needs of the area herein directed to be annexed, and the best interests of the remaining portions of James City County and York County, respectively.'

With this finding of fact we proceed upon the presumption of its correctness. Such finding is binding upon us unless the decision of the court is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. If there is credible evidence to support the court's order we must on established principles accept it just as we accept a jury's verdict sustained by evidence which it might have believed. County of Fairfax v. Town of Fairfax (1959), 201 Va. 362, 366, 111 S.E.2d 428, 432.

We said in Falls Church v. Board of Supervisors, 193 Va. 112, 119, 68 S.E.2d 96, 100 'Aside from what the printed record discloses the annexation court, composed of able, experienced trial judges, heard the evidence ore tenus, they visited and studied the areas under consideration, saw the physical properties under the control of the city, -- the streets, the schools, the library, the jail, the fire fighting equipment and had opportunity to observe and study the various other services allegedly furnished by the present munciipal government. The Court then observed and studied the character of services which the citizens in the area sought to be annexed were receiving from the County of Fairfax and thus had opportunities for observation and study which are not afforded us.'

Thus in this instance the burden rests upon York county to show by the record that the finding of the annexation court is without credible evidence to support it, or such finding is plainly wrong. Otherwise the finding must necessarily be affirmed.

The record discloses that the city of Williamsburg is a small but vigorous and well managed city with an area of only 2.88 square miles. It provides and operates a modern and efficient police department, a fire department with ample equipment manned by paid personnel and by volunteers, a full time garbage and trash disposal service, an adequate and sufficient water and sewer system, and an excellent system of streets, a recreation program participated in by many residents of York county, a school system operated jointly with James City County and in some respects superior to the York County system. In addition, the city has land development and zoning controls designed to protect and foster the type of development deemed most important by its citizens.

The principal commercial interest of the city is the restoration project of Colonial Williamsburg which attracts approximately 1,000,000 visitors each year. It is conceded that this unique restoration project provides the economic reason for most of the business activity in the area. The acquisition of lands for the restoration has made necessary the removal of existing buildings and the creation of extensive greens, gardens, vistas and thoroughfares which are in no sense available for modern residential or commercial development.

The Williamsburg Restoration owns 334 acres within the present city limits; the College of William & Mary owns 305 acres; the Eastern State Hospital owns 70.75 acres. None of these properties is available for residential or commercial use. Thus it is virtually impossible to acquire residential property within the city. The record further discloses that during the past ten years only 18 residential building lots were plotted in the city while 471 such lots were plotted in the nearby areas of the counties. In the annexation area of York County numerous businesses have developed for serving the many visitors to the restored city.

The principal annexation area embraces the Colonial Williamsburg Information Center and Motor House, the East Williamsburg Subdivision, Route 168, Capitol Landing Road, part of By-Pass Road (Route 60) and Route 162. Embraced in the area are residential properties, commercial areas and a large undeveloped tract owned by Colonial Williamsburg.

York County does not question that a close community of interest exists between the city and the area sought to be annexed.

We do not deem it necessary to detail the services which the city will supply to the annexed territory. Suffice it to say that the record discloses, and the annexation court found as a fact, that the area or territory to be annexed is an integral and homogeneous part of the Williamsburg community, enjoying a strong community of interest with the city in its civic, social and business life, fully urbanized, with business and residential development directly attributable to the economic and social activities located within the corporate limits.

Furthermore, it is disclosed, as was found by the annexation court, that the area ordered to be annexed lacks in large part the essential municipal facilities which will be supplied by the city, thus benefiting its inhabitants by providing better and cheaper fire protection, water and sewer service, trash and garbage collection, more harmonious zoning regulations, more convenient schools with better teachers, and lower costs for fire insurance, sewer and water service.

The county does not seriously contend that it was not in the best interests of the remaining portion of the county that the annexation decreed by the lower court be allowed. The record is clear that the annexation of the area to the city of Williamsburg will relieve the county of the necessity of providing sewer and water or other urban services to the area. To the extent that the county is relieved of such obligations, it is obvious that it will have additional funds with which to provide such services, if desired, in other parts of the county.

We are of the opinion that the decision of the annexation court finding that the annexation of that portion of York county allowed by the...