MAD PROPERTIES, LLC, ET AL. v. COUNTY OF AUGUSTA
Record No. 1381-23-3
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
DECEMBER 30, 2024
JUDGE CLIFFORD L. ATHEY, JR.
Present: Judges Athey, White and Frucci
Argued by videoconference
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF AUGUSTA COUNTY
Shannon T. Sherrill, Judge1
Jeffrey R. Adams (Nicholas W. Dudley; Wharton Aldhizer & Weaver, PLC, on briefs), for appellants.
Nicole M. Price, Assistant County Attorney (Kathleen A. Keffer, Assistant County Attorney, on brief), for appellee.
Following a bench trial held in the Circuit Court of Augusta County ( “circuit court“) on March 10, 2023, a judgment was entered in favor of Augusta County ( “County“) against MAD Properties, LLC ( “MAD Properties“), and its owner and managing member Mark Baber ( “Baber“) for violating the Augusta County Zoning Ordinance ( “Zoning Ordinance“). The circuit court further enjoined MAD Properties and Baber from keeping “inoperable vehicles” out in the open on the property without an administrative permit. On appeal, MAD Properties assigns error to 1) the circuit court‘s interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance, and 2) the circuit court granting injunctive relief based on past violations of the Zoning Ordinance utilizing the thing-decided doctrine. Finding that the circuit court erred in its application of the thing-decided doctrine by declining to consider MAD Properties’ affirmative defenses, we reverse the circuit court‘s judgment for the following reasons.
I. BACKGROUND2
MAD Properties owns a one-acre parcel ( “the property“), located in Augusta County on the East Side Highway in Crimora, Virginia. MAD Properties and its predecessors in interest have operated a vehicle repair business on the property since approximately 1935. When Augusta County adopted a Zoning Ordinance many years later, the property
In 2017, MAD Properties applied for an administrative permit to operate a “Vehicle Sales Lot” on the property as required by Augusta County‘s Vehicle Sales Lot Ordinance.3 Along with the permit application, MAD Properties submitted a site plan as required by the County, detailing the layout of the requested “Vehicle Sales Lot” being proposed for the property. In fact, Baber wrote on the site plan “FOR ADDING AUTO SALES USE TO EXISTING” prior to submitting the application and site plan to the County Planning Department. The site plan identified a total of twelve parking spaces with six spaces designated for customer parking and six designated for displaying vehicle sales inventory. The site plan further reflected that the rear area of the property located behind MAD Properties’ convenience store and vehicle repair facility was not to be used as a parking area. Baber also indicated on the permit application that he did not anticipate keeping inoperable vehicles on the property. Also, as required on the application form, Baber agreed that MAD Properties’ “use [would] comply with the Administrative Permit Standards of the Augusta County Zoning Ordinance.”
Baber subsequently met with Administrator Bunch to discuss MAD Properties’ application and site plan. From this meeting, Administrator Bunch noted that the purpose for the site plan was to ensure sufficient parking for the property‘s various uses. On May 8, 2017, the County approved the administrative permit, specifically indicating that there could be “no outside storage of inoperable vehicles.” The approved administrative permit also required that all vehicles displayed for sale were to be kept in the designated parking areas shown on the approved site plan.
In 2021, after a number of citizen complaints, the County sent MAD Properties a notice of zoning violation on three separate occasions, “regarding the storage of wrecked or inoperable/unlicensed vehicles” it had discovered in inspecting the property.4 These notices were mailed to MAD Properties on January 27, 2021, March 18, 2021, and April 7, 2021. Baber timely appealed the County‘s April 7, 2021 notice of zoning violation on May 7, 2021.5 Following a hearing, the Augusta County Board of Zoning Appeals ( “BZA“) upheld Administrator Bunch‘s determination that the property was in violation of the County‘s Zoning Ordinance on July 1, 2021. The BZA decision was not appealed to the circuit court.
Following the BZA decision, Administrator Bunch “continue[d] to receive complaints regarding wrecked/inoperable or unlicensed vehicles brought to the property and stored in public view behind the building or on the back of a roll-back.” In response, she continued to have the County‘s zoning inspector, Trey Duke ( “Inspector Duke“), examine the property for violations. Most of his inspections confirmed that MAD Properties continued to store inoperable vehicles on the property in violation of the administrative permit. As a result of this continued noncompliance, on December 1, 2021, Administrator Bunch
On December 20, 2021, Inspector Duke examined the property for violations again, but this time he did not see any inoperable vehicles openly stored on the property. His inspection log also confirmed this result by specifically stating “INSPECTED AND DID NOT SEE ANY IN-OP VEHICLES/ FINAL.”
“[A]fter receiving a[nother] complaint regarding wrecked vehicles and inop[erable] vehicles,” Inspector Duke, on March 9, 2022, again “inspected the property and found two . . . untagged inop[erable] vehicles behind the building not in the designated area for sales.” Two weeks later, he conducted a follow-up inspection and “observed four untagged vehicles in the rear of [MAD Properties‘] building.” Following another inspection a week later, he again “observed four untagged vehicles.” He noted in his log that “one from before has been removed and another was added.” Administrator Bunch, however, did not issue an additional notice of violation letter to MAD Properties concerning these latest zoning violations.
Instead, on May 19, 2022, the County sought to enjoin MAD Properties from using the property in a manner in violation of the County‘s Zoning Ordinance. The complaint filed in the circuit court alleged that MAD Properties had violated the Zoning Ordinance by using the property for “outdoor storage of inoperable motor vehicles in public view” and by displaying motor vehicles for sale on the property outside of the area designated in the site plan. MAD Properties filed an answer denying the allegations in the complaint.
On March 10, 2023, the circuit court held a bench trial on the issues raised in the complaint. Inspector Duke testified concerning the continued violations and several photographs of the property illustrating the alleged violations were entered in evidence. He also detailed that he inspected the property on several occasions and provided a “Zoning Complaint Contact Sheet” ( “Sheet“), which was entered into evidence, reflecting the dates and times when he had inspected the property and whether and to what extent a zoning violation had been found. The Sheet indicated that initially on December 20, 2021, MAD Properties’ use of the property was in compliance. However, on several subsequent dates the Sheet indicated zoning violations concerning inoperable vehicles being found on the property, as well as the misuse of the designated parking spaces on the approved site plan.
Administrator Bunch further testified that no zoning classification in the County‘s zoning ordinance authorized, as a legal use, the unscreened or unshielded storage of an inoperable vehicle. She also testified that based on her research, no site plan existed as to the property‘s vehicle service and retail sales uses as well as any pre-existing uses. Administrator Bunch further testified based on the documentary evidence that she reviewed that MAD Properties’ use of the property was in violation of the zoning ordinance. Administrator Bunch also acknowledged that she sent no further notice of violation to MAD Properties after December 20, 2021.
Additional evidence adduced at trial included dated photographs showing operable vehicles parked on the property outside of the
Following the completion of the County‘s case in chief, Baber testified that MAD Properties was engaged in a lawful pre-existing use of the property for vehicle service that predated the initial enactment of the County‘s first zoning ordinance. In support, he provided copies of leases for the property showing its use for vehicle repair as early as 1935 and continuing through at least 1945. Baber also testified that he had access to an impoundment yard and therefore never stored towed vehicles (on or off a tow truck or roll-back) on the property. He further asserted that the only vehicles located on the property were vehicles awaiting repairs. Finally, Baber testified that the use of tow trucks on the property was necessary to facilitate the permitted vehicle service and sales uses. Following the receipt of briefs in lieu of closing argument, the circuit court took the matter under advisement.
On April 24, 2023, the circuit court issued a letter opinion6 holding that MAD Properties had violated the zoning ordinance and granting the County its requested injunctive relief. The letter This opinion was incorporated by reference into the final order. opinion further ordered MAD Properties to abate the zoning violations and permitted the County to enter the property to abate the violations if MAD Properties failed to comply with the opinion.
As a basis for its holding, the circuit court found that the County initiated the complaint after MAD Properties failed to respond to the December 1, 2021 violation letter. The circuit court also found that further inspections after December 1, 2021, confirmed that the property remained in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. The circuit court then noted that “inoperable vehicles” were distinct from vehicles “awaiting repair,” finding that “although there can be overlap,” an ” ‘inoperable motor vehicle’ is a defined term within the Zoning Ordinance and is thus distinguishable from a vehicle that simply needs to be repaired.” The circuit court further found that the County‘s photographic evidence of vehicles on the property met the definition of “inoperable vehicles” because they showed several vehicles on the parcel that lacked valid license tags and valid inspection decals, as well as a partially wrecked vehicle that also lacked a valid license tag and inspection decal. Hence, the circuit court concluded that given this presence of “inoperable vehicles” on the property, MAD Properties had violated the ordinance by storing the inoperable vehicles openly on the property.
In addition, citing the thing-decided doctrine, the circuit court refused to consider MAD Properties’ affirmative defenses involving an alleged grandfathered use of the property and vested rights in the alleged nonconforming use based on the existence of the uses before the adoption of a zoning ordinance. Instead, the circuit court adopted the County‘s contention that MAD Properties was “barred from claiming that they were not in violation, for example by presenting a defense based on an argument that one or more uses on the subject property are ‘grandfathered’ or that they have a vested right in a nonconforming use.” The circuit court opined that “given the fact that [MAD Properties] did not appeal the previous notice of violation, it [was] established that [MAD Properties was] in violation of the relevant sections in the Zoning Ordinance” at the time this matter came before the court. The circuit court found the thing-decided doctrine applicable due to two facts contained within the December 2021 violation letter: 1) the letter cited inoperable vehicles openly stored behind the building and the presence of tow trucks in public view and 2) it also cited a violation of the administrative permit to the extent that any of the vehicles behind the building were being displayed for sale. Relying on County of Chesterfield v. Lane, 104 Va. Cir. 1, 2 (Chesterfield 2019), the circuit court reasoned that because “[t]he County proved that a notice of violation, which included notice of the right to appeal, had been issued but that no appeal had been pursued” in the past that it “had met the ‘threshold requirements of the
Finally, by final order dated July 10, 2023, the circuit court directed MAD Properties to immediately abate the violations and authorized County representatives to enter the property to abate the violations if MAD Properties failed to do so, at MAD Properties’ expense. MAD Properties appealed.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review
“We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo.” Calway v. City of Chesapeake, 79 Va. App. 220, 225 (2023). We also review de novo “[a] circuit court‘s interpretation of a statute or ordinance and its application of that statute or ordinance to the facts of a case.” Prince William Bd. of Cnty. Supervisors v. Archie, 296 Va. 1, 9 (2018). And we review “[w]hether preclusion is applicable” as a “question of law to [also] be reviewed de novo.” Chilton-Belloni v. Angle ex rel. City of Staunton, 294 Va. 328, 335 (2017). But where the appeal presents a mixed question of law and fact, “[w]e must afford deference to the trial court‘s factual findings.” Ferguson v. Stokes, 287 Va. 446, 450 (2014).
B. The circuit court erred in applying the thing-decided doctrine to bar MAD Properties from presenting evidence of affirmative defenses.
To resolve this appeal, we must interpret the statutory deadline for an aggrieved party to appeal an adverse decision made by a zoning administrator, which, by judicial interpretation, has become known as the thing-decided doctrine. As this doctrine is amorphous, we proceed by examining its metes and bounds before applying that understanding to address the facts before the Court. In doing so, we must first consider the bounds of the doctrine in light of statutory and judicial authority. Then, we must evaluate whether the circuit court‘s decision here to apply the doctrine falls within such bounds. Hence, as always, we begin our analysis with the text.
1. Applicable rules of statutory interpretation and construction
“In interpreting [a] statute, ‘courts apply the plain meaning . . . unless the terms are ambiguous or applying the plain language would lead to an absurd result.’ ” Miller & Rhoads Bldg., L.L.C. v. City of Richmond, 292 Va. 537, 541 (2016) (quoting Baker v. Commonwealth, 284 Va. 572, 576 (2012)). “A statute‘s plain language leads to ‘absurd results’ when it produces illogical or anomalous results.” Emmanuel Worship Ctr. v. City of Petersburg, 300 Va. 393, 405 (2022).
“[I]n construing statutes, this Court ‘will apply the ordinary meaning of the word “may,” ’ which is ’ “permission, importing discretion” ’ where, as here, no ‘contrary legislative intention plainly appears.’ ” Bd. of Supervisors of Loudoun Cnty. v. State Corp. Comm‘n, 292 Va. 444, 454 (2016) (quoting Sauder v. Ferguson, 289 Va. 449, 457 (2015)). “The word ‘may’ should not be construed to mean ‘must’ or ‘shall,’ unless the clear intention of the legislature demands it.” Spindel v. Jamison, 199 Va. 954, 957 (1958) (quoting Harrison v. Wissler, 98 Va. 597, 599 (1900)). However, we may “construe [the word may] to be mandatory when it is necessary to accomplish the manifest purpose of the Legislature,” Harper v. Va. Dep‘t of Taxation, 250 Va. 184, 194 (1995) (quoting Caputo v. Holt, 217 Va. 302, 305 n.* (1976)), or if the statutory “subject matter and context” justifies such interpretation, Cirrito v. Cirrito, 44 Va. App. 287, 309 (2004) (quoting Tm Delmarva Power v. NCP of Va. L.L.C., 263 Va. 116, 121 (2002)).
In addition, “[l]ike Congress, the General Assembly does not generally ‘hide elephants in mouse holes.’ ” NAACP (Hanover Cnty. Chapter) v. Commonwealth ex rel. Va. State Water Control Bd., 74 Va. App. 702, 715 (2022) (quoting Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass‘ns, Inc., 531 U.S. 457, 468 (2001)). Likewise, we also “cannot by construction supply a casus omissus by giving force and effect to the language of the statute when applied to a subject about which nothing whatever is said, and which to all appearances was not in the minds of the legislature at the time of the enactment of the law.” Chandler v. Peninsula Light & Power Co., 152 Va. 903, 908 (1929) (quoting 25 Ruling Case Law § 225, at 974 (1919)). Thus, “though [w]e do not question the power of the legislature to grant to towns [and other municipalities] police powers” we may determine whether the General Assembly has “done so by the act under consideration” and if it has not “[t]here may be good reasons why it should have done so, and no good reasons why it should not have done so” that preclude us from “supply[ing] the omission.” Jordan v. Town of South Boston, 138 Va. 838, 843 (1924).
2. The development of the thing-decided doctrine
The thing-decided doctrine is derived from
From this text, the Supreme Court of Virginia in Gayton Triangle Land Company v. Board of Supervisors of Henrico County, 216 Va. 764, 766 (1976), held that if “a landowner claims the zoning ordinance is invalid as applied to his specific property, he must exhaust adequate and available administrative remedies before . . . mak[ing] a direct judicial attack on . . . the ordinance.” From this precedent, the Supreme Court eventually held that this exhaustion requirement, satisfied by an appeal of the zoning administrator‘s determination, is “mandatory,” Lilly v. Caroline Cnty., 259 Va. 291, 296 (2000), and must be satisfied before “a landowner[‘s] . . . elect[ion] to seek an administrative determination,” Bragg Hill Corp. v. City of Fredericksburg, 297 Va. 566, 582-83 (2019) (quoting Lilly, 259 Va. at 296).
Hence, under the thing-decided doctrine, if the landowner seeks an administrative determination pertaining to the zoning administrator‘s decision without first appealing this decision, “the administrative remedy has not been exhausted and the zoning administrator‘s decision becomes a ‘thing-decided’ not subject to court challenge.” Id. at 583. Thus, under this doctrine, the landowner must appeal “the various decisions in which he was declared in violation of the zoning ordinance” to the Board of Zoning Appeals to preserve future judicial review. Gwinn v. Alward, 235 Va. 616, 621 (1988).
In application, the thing-decided doctrine is generally invoked to bar landowners from collaterally attacking the validity of a zoning ordinance or a zoning administrator‘s decision where they failed to appeal a notice of violation or otherwise comply with the regulatory process. Lilly, 259 Va. at 296 (holding that a plaintiff landowner‘s failure to timely appeal the underlying zoning administrator‘s decision to the BZA triggered the thing-decided doctrine‘s application); Alward, 235 Va. at 621 (barring plaintiff landowner from contesting a county‘s decision to deny his application for a trash hauling permit where he failed to appeal the decision or raise a lawful nonconforming use as an affirmative defense).7 The thing-decided doctrine‘s preclusive effect
has also been found to apply in cases where the landowner fails to “correct . . . violations” and continues the violative use under the authority of an erroneously issued permit. Gwinn v. Collier, 247 Va. 479, 481, 483 (1994) (finding that plaintiff landowner was barred from challenging several notices of violations issued by
For instance, in Dick Kelly, a city sought to enjoin the defendant landowner from using a building, zoned for use as a motel, for long term apartment living. See id. at 375. The city‘s zoning administrator had notified the landowner by letter of “certain ‘zoning and building code violations at the subject property,’ ” ordering it to “immediately and permanently cease and desist from [the violating use].” Id. at 375-76. The letter concluded with a request that the landowner respond to the letter within two weeks. See id. at 376. But the landowner did not respond within two weeks and did not appeal this decision to the BZA. See id.
Instead, the landowner refused to comply with the zoning administrator‘s letter, declining to correct the violations and leading the city to file suit. See id. In responding to the complaint, the landowner raised several “affirmative defenses,” including that it had a vested right to a nonconforming use of the property. Id. But the circuit court disagreed with the landowner and granted summary judgment to the city. See id. at 377.
The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the circuit court‘s judgment, dismissing the landowner‘s arguments and finding “the landowner‘s use of the subject property was unlawful from the moment of occupancy and remains so” as a “thing-decided.” Id. at 379. The Court reasoned that because “[t]he landowner elected to ignore the required procedure and to make this direct judicial attack when confronted with an enforcement action,” the landowner could not contest whether its use had been lawful. Id. Hence, its failure to appeal the zoning administrator‘s decision to the BZA formed an “insurmountable hurdle of an unlawful use as ‘a thing-decided’ not open to attack.” Id.
Continuing to analyze the landowner‘s assertions, the Court then found that the landowner‘s affirmative defenses were likewise unavailing. See id. at 379-81. In analyzing the landowner‘s vested rights argument, the Court noted that “[t]he vested rights theory is bottomed on a claim that the landowner has established a valid nonconforming use at the subject property.” Id. at 381. “But to establish such a use, it must be a lawful use existing on the effective date of the ordinance and continuing since that time not in conformance with the ordinance.” Id. (emphasis added). Thus, as the landowner‘s “use in violation of the certificate of occupancy was unlawful from its inception,” the Court found that the vested rights defense could not have applied to the landowner‘s case as it had no pre-existing lawful use. Id.
Since Dick Kelly, only circuit courts have considered whether or not a defendant‘s failure to appeal a zoning violation letter to the BZA bars it from raising affirmative defenses to a county‘s enforcement action, with conflicting rationales and results.8 From
Here, the County was permitted to invoke the thing-decided doctrine offensively in support of its request for injunctive relief. However, because the defendant‘s use of the subject property in Dick Kelly was “unlawful from the moment of occupancy and remain[ed] so,” and no evidence of subsequent corrections or prior compliant uses of the property in that case were in the record, we find its application to this case unclear. Id. at 379. Thus, to determine the exact mechanics of how the thing-decided doctrine applies offensively, we return to the foundations of the exhaustion and finality principles for guidance.
3. The fundamentals of the exhaustion of administrative remedies and finality doctrines
Foremost, the thing-decided doctrine in function largely operates as an administrative remedy “exhaustion” doctrine. Bd. of Supervisors of Henrico Cnty. v. Market Inns, Inc., 228 Va. 82, 87 (1984). ” ‘Exhaustion’ applies where a claim is cognizable in the first instance by an administrative agency alone; judicial interference is withheld until the administrative process has run its course.” Country Vintner, Inc. v. Louis Latour, Inc., 272 Va. 402, 415 (2006) (emphasis added). Where the legislative body “has not clearly required exhaustion, sound judicial discretion governs” its application. McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 144 (1992), superseded by statute on other grounds. But we “do not . . . have free rein to impose [this doctrine], as a matter of policy,” through statutory interpretation. Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass‘n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104, 108 (1991). Instead, in interpreting the statute, “the question is not whether administrative [exhaustion] is wise but whether it is intended by the legislature.”
The thing-decided doctrine also has similar hallmarks to the doctrine of collateral estoppel. “Collateral estoppel . . . prevents the same parties from ‘[re]litigating in a subsequent suit any issue of fact actually litigated and essential to a valid and final personal judgment in the first action.’ ” Plofchan v. Plofchan, 299 Va. 534, 543 (2021) (quoting Funny Guy, LLC v. Lecego, LLC, 293 Va. 135, 142 (2017)). In Virginia, “to successfully assert collateral estoppel,”9
a party must establish 1) that the two proceedings involved the same parties or their privies, 2) the issue of fact that the party seeks to bar from being relitigated must have been actually litigated in the first proceeding, 3) that issue of fact must have been essential to the prior judgment, and 4) the prior proceeding must have resulted in a valid, final judgment against the party against whom the doctrine is sought to be applied. See Plofchan, 299 Va. at 543-44 (quoting Lane v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 297 Va. 645, 654-55 (2019)). On their own, the doctrines of administrative exhaustion and res judicata have been noted as “conceptually distinct.”10 Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137, 144 (1993). But in the administrative context, pure res judicata has been found to be difficult to impose due to the quirks of administrative proceedings, see Va. Imports, Ltd. v. Kirin Brewery of Am., LLC, 50 Va. App. 395, 410 (2007), resulting in the development of the “administrative preclusion” doctrine,11 Astoria, 501 U.S. at 109.
Under administrative preclusion, “[w]hen an administrative agency [or tribunal] [acts] in a judicial capacity and resolves disputed issues of fact properly before it which the parties have had an adequate opportunity to litigate,” we apply res judicata to “to enforce repose.” CDM Enters., Inc. v. Commonwealth, 32 Va. App. 702, 712 (2000) (quoting United States v. Utah Constr. & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394, 422 (1966), superseded by statute on other grounds). This preclusive effect is available for “[o]nly what is adjudicated.” Appalachian Power Co. v. John Stewart Walker, Inc., 214 Va. 524, 534 (1974) (quoting 2 Kenneth Culp Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 18.08, at 597 (1958)). Where the adjudicatory element is satisfied, the preclusive effect of the agency‘s decision depends on “if the ordinary elements of issue preclusion are met.” B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., 575 U.S. 138, 151 (2015).
However, the Supreme Court of Virginia has recently warned of the dangers in applying res judicata principles to zoning decisions in the context of BZA appeals, as such may not in all cases be “truly adjudicative.” Chilton-Belloni, 294 Va. at 337. In Chilton-Belloni, the Supreme Court held
4. The circuit court erred in interpreting the thing-decided doctrine as barring MAD Properties from presenting its affirmative defenses and erred in applying it in this case, as the record reflects that the “issues” raised in the notices of violation had been remedied prior to the County‘s complaint.
In this case, the circuit court reasoned that the thing-decided doctrine barred consideration of MAD Properties’ affirmative defenses. The circuit court also found that MAD Properties was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance as alleged in the County‘s complaint as well as in the December 1, 2021 notice of violation. In doing so, the circuit court expressly relied on two prior circuit court cases, Lane, 104 Va. Cir. 1, and Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County v. Martin, 23 Va. Cir. 37 (Fairfax 1990), in determining that the thing-decided doctrine stands for two propositions: 1) that if the County proves that the landowner failed to appeal one notice of violation, then the County has “met the ‘threshold requirements of the thing-decided doctrine,’ ” Lane, 104 Va. Cir. at 2, and 2) that if the County succeeds in meeting the threshold requirements for the thing-decided doctrine, then the landowner is “barred from claiming that they are not in violation of the Zoning Ordinance” by introducing evidence of affirmative defenses.13 In opposition, MAD Properties contends that this interpretation by the circuit court was in error as this doctrine is “narrower” than the circuit court‘s application, which it contends does not serve to bar it from presenting affirmative defenses to the County‘s allegations. Additionally, MAD Properties contends that the doctrine is inapplicable here since “the facts underlying the zoning administrator‘s direct enforcement and the County‘s litigation are different and the factual findings underlying the former do not support the relief sought in the latter.” We agree with MAD Properties.
We begin by noting that the thing-decided doctrine is a type of administrative preclusion doctrine, subject to the text of
Moreover, we also find that by precluding MAD Properties from putting on evidence that it had a pre-existing lawful nonconforming use of the property, the circuit court extends the Supreme Court of Virginia‘s precedent in Dick Kelly too far. In Dick Kelly, the Supreme Court of Virginia found that a landowner was barred from asserting a pre-existing nonconforming use as an affirmative defense where the landowner continuously used the property in question from the time it occupied it in a manner that violated a county ordinance. See 243 Va. at 379-81. There, the landowner introduced no evidence that it had corrected the violations, nor did the landowner show, in the alternative, that it had received a subsequent permit to rectify its noncompliance. See id. Thus, the offensive use of the thing-decided doctrine, in light of Dick Kelly, is limited and does not encompass the factual scenario present here.
Dick Kelly‘s purview is limited to scenarios where the landowner either fails to assert a pre-existing use of the property in question, fails to appeal the government‘s notices of violation, or fails to assert abatement of the alleged violations. See id. In Dick Kelly, the violative condition cited in each notice of violation—the operation of apartments at a building zoned for use as a hotel—remained the same. Id. at 379-81. Here, by contrast, because the nature and the number of violative conditions changed between each inspection, the condition of the property was continually in flux, and the issues cited in each notice of violation were in fact different, there is too much variation to support the circuit court‘s use of the thing-decided doctrine.
Moreover, there is also no evidence in the record reflecting that MAD Properties previously sought an “administrative determination” of its putative vested right in a nonconforming use; thus, there were no grounds that supported barring MAD Properties from raising this affirmative defense. Bragg Hill, 297 Va. at 582. Since MAD Properties could plausibly assert that since 1935 it and its predecessors had been using the property for vehicle repair (which it asserts involves the storage of currently inoperable vehicles on the property),
under applicable precedent, MAD Properties should have been permitted to raise this affirmative defense for the circuit court to evaluate in the context of the enforcement action against it, and the circuit court‘s refusal is further error.14Although this doctrine is judicially administered, we decline to adopt the circuit court‘s interpretation barring these affirmative defenses below since it would expand the thing-decided doctrine beyond what is “intended by the legislature.” Astoria, 501 U.S. at 108 (emphasis added). First, there is no textual hook contained in
Moreover, in declining to adopt the circuit court‘s reasoning, we also caution that expanding the thing-decided doctrine as suggested would provide the government administering an ordinance immense regulatory and judicial power by inference. Importantly, the inference would stem from statutory text that not only makes no mention of such prospective power, but instead serves to vest the aggrieved landowner with some discretion in how they are able to deal with such violations.15
Simply put, if the General Assembly wished to preclude landowners from raising affirmative defenses at trial to contest the decisions of zoning administrators where the landowner failed to administratively appeal those decisions, it would have done so explicitly, and this it may simply do in the future. Dick Kelly permits landowners to raise these affirmative defenses. 243 Va. at 379-81. And we find no grounds to distinguish that case‘s authority from the text of
As a consequence, we reverse the circuit court‘s judgment and remand this matter to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent
C. The circuit court‘s interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance is fair and reasonable.
MAD Properties also contends, based on several canons of both statutory interpretation and construction, that the circuit court erred in interpreting the applicable sections of the Augusta County Zoning Ordinance. It asserts that the circuit court‘s interpretation of the site map and the term “inoperable vehicles” would lead to an “absurd result” and proscribe an otherwise lawful use since the interpretation fails to recognize that its use of the parking spaces and roll-back vehicles located on the property are incident and necessary to the uses allowed pursuant to the administrative permit. We agree in part and disagree in part with MAD Properties.
“In interpreting an ordinance, we apply the same rules of construction applicable to statutes.” Herrington v. City of Va. Beach, 71 Va. App. 656, 661 (2020). “When reviewing the interpretation of a zoning ordinance, the ‘words of the ordinance are to be given their plain and natural meaning,’ and the ‘purpose and intent of the ordinance should be considered but the ordinance should not be extended by interpretation or construction beyond its intended purpose.‘” Archie, 296 Va. at 9 (quoting Donovan v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Rockingham Cnty., 251 Va. 271, 274 (1996)). And “‘we will not read a[n] [ordinance] in a manner that renders any portion of that enactment useless[,]’ but rather, we faithfully apply the ordinance ‘by giving reasonable effect to every word used.‘” Herrington, 71 Va. App. at 661 (third alteration in original) (quoting Antisdel v. Ashby, 279 Va. 42, 48 (2010)). Thus, we are to “give . . . [zoning ordinances] a fair and reasonable construction in the light of the manifest intent of the legislative body enacting them.” Patton v. City of Galax, 269 Va. 219, 229 (2005) (quoting Mooreland v. Young, 197 Va. 771, 775 (1956)).
“[A]n undefined term must be given its ordinary meaning, given the context in which it is used.” Taylor v. Commonwealth, 298 Va. 336, 342 (2020) (quoting Lawlor v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 187, 237 (2013)). “In ascertaining such meaning, dictionary definitions and pertinent analysis in prior case law may be consulted.” Eley v. Commonwealth, 70 Va. App. 158, 165 (2019). Further, the Supreme Court of Virginia has found that “‘[a]ny’ is defined, in part, as ‘one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind‘; ‘one or more indiscriminately from all those of a kind‘; or ‘one that is selected without restriction or limitation of choice.‘” Botkin v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 309, 314-15 (2018) (quoting Any, Webster‘s Third New International Dictionary (2002)).
Similarly, “‘[i]n interpreting [ordinance] language, we . . . appl[y] the time-honored principle expressio unius est exclusio alterius,’ because this maxim ‘recognizes the competence of the legislature to choose its words with care.‘” Miller & Rhoads, 292 Va. at 543-44 (quoting Va. Dep‘t of Health v. NRV Real Estate, LLC, 278 Va. 181, 187-88 (2009)). This principle also applies when “a [written instrument] covers particular or express matters.” Yukon Pocahontas Coal Co. v. Ratliff, 181 Va. 195, 203 (1943) (quoting 16 Am. Jur., Deeds § 232 at 537). “Under this maxim, ‘[w]hen a legislative enactment limits the manner in which something may be done, the enactment also evinces the intent that it shall not be done another way.‘” Id. (quoting Grigg v. Commonwealth, 224 Va. 356, 364 (1982)). But “the canon expressio unius est exclusio alterius has force only when the items expressed are members of an ‘associated group or series.‘” Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co., 537 U.S. 149, 168 (2003) (quoting United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 65 (2002)).
Augusta County‘s Zoning Ordinance “specifically prohibit[s]” all uses of property in an area zoned for general business that are not expressly authorized as a permitted use.
By right, a landowner whose property is zoned for general business use can utilize the property for “Vehicle Service” purposes among other things.
Furthermore, in an area zoned for general business use, Augusta County defines the term “[a]dministrative [p]ermit” to be “[w]ritten governmental permission issued by an authorized official, empowering the holder thereof to do some act not forbidden by law but not allowed without such authorization.”
“Vehicle Sales Lots, include[s] the keeping of any motor vehicles . . . for sale or lease and in operable condition.”
- Does not have valid license plates and valid inspection decals, unless exempt by Augusta County or state law[;]
- Is not in operating condition[;] or
- Has been partially or totally wrecked, or partially or totally disassembled by the removal of tires and wheels, the engine, or other essential parts required for operation of the vehicle for a period of sixty (60) days or longer.
Likewise, the requirements for “Limited Outdoor Storage” under
In addition to these permitted uses by right or by administrative permit, a separate ordinance provides that landowners of properties within the General Business Zoning Classification may have several by-right accessory uses to their property. See
- Storage of vehicles shall be limited to areas shown on an approved site plan.
- . . .
- All vehicles, . . . awaiting repair for more than thirty (30) days must be located within the required screened vehicle impoundment lot.
- No vehicle placed in an impoundment lot shall be permitted to remain there longer than 120 days.
MAD Properties contends, on appeal, that the circuit court erred in its interpretation of the County‘s Zoning Ordinance by 1) finding that its use of the property for parking vehicles behind the building on the property incident to its pre-existing vehicle service and retail sales business violated the ordinance after it received an administrative permit in 2017; and 2) agreeing with the County that the definition of “inoperable motor vehicles” in
1. To the extent the vehicle is operable, the administrative permit does not restrict parking on the property for vehicle service uses.
MAD Properties contends that the circuit court erred by interpreting the administrative permit to find that it violated the ordinance by using parking spots it had designated on its site map for other “long-existing . . . [uses].” It argues that although the administrative permit specifically regulated MAD Properties’ parking of vehicles on the property for retail services (i.e., the convenience store on the property) and for vehicle sales lots, it omitted vehicle service, thus making it inapplicable to that use. We agree with MAD Properties.
When parking is concerned, “[i]t shall be the responsibility of the owner or operator of a specific use to . . . maintain the number and markings of all parking spaces and all directional arrows and signs as shown on the approved site plan at all times.”
Here, the vehicle service use of the property was a by-right permitted use.
This conclusion is also supported by a review of other pertinent portions of the Zoning Ordinance. The ordinance requires customer parking to be delineated for “[v]ehicle sales lots.”
Finally, the site plan submitted by Baber included designated parking for its retail sales use and for vehicle sales. Under the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, “if a [written instrument] covers particular or express matters, the intention may be inferred to exclude other subjects which the general words of the [instrument] may [otherwise] have been sufficient to include.” Yukon Pocahontas, 181 Va. at 203 (quoting 16 Am. Jur., at 537). Applying this principle here, it is clear both from the site plan and the ordinance text that operable vehicles were not confined to parking in the spots Baber designated in accordance with the administrative permit under
2. The circuit court did not err by interpreting “inoperable motor vehicle[s]” to be distinct from “vehicles awaiting repair.”
MAD Properties contends that the circuit court erred by interpreting the term “vehicles awaiting repair” contained within
The Supreme Court of Virginia has defined “repair” as “to fix or ‘restore . . . what is torn or broken.‘” Montgomery v. Columbia Knoll Condominium Council of Co-Owners, 231 Va. 437, 439 (1986) (quoting Repair, Webster‘s Third New International Dictionary (1981)). Consistent with the dictionary definition, to “repair” a vehicle is to “restore [the vehicle] by replacing a part or putting together what is torn or broken to restore [it] to a sound or healthy state.” Repair, Webster‘s Third New International Dictionary 1923 (1961).
Since the term is undefined, we interpret the term “motor vehicle awaiting repair,” in
Next, parsing the County‘s “inoperable vehicle” definition, we draw the following conclusions. First, as the definition of “inoperable motor vehicle” applies to “[a]ny motor vehicle,” it follows that the County would
In construing these definitions, the circuit court was correct to conclude that “[a]lthough there can be overlap, ‘inoperable motor vehicle’ is a specifically-defined technical term in the . . . Ordinance and is distinguishable from a vehicle that simply needs to be repaired.” Consistent with its definition, a “vehicle awaiting repair” could be a vehicle needing a routine oil change or tire rotation. It could also be a vehicle that was entirely destroyed by an accident. If the initial vehicle has otherwise been inspected and tagged and has been neither wrecked nor disassembled and is in operating condition, though it “awaits repair,” it would not violate the ordinance as it would not meet the definition of “inoperable motor vehicle.” In short, “vehicle awaiting repair” encompasses both operable and inoperable vehicles. As a result, MAD Properties’ argument is misguided since these conditions can be read separately. In other words, we conclude that a “vehicle awaiting repair” could still violate the ordinance if it was on the property in an “inoperable” condition.20
If we were to adopt MAD Properties’ construction of the term “awaiting repair” as a condition that prevents the application of the prohibition against inoperable vehicles, that interpretation would render the explicitly defined “inoperable motor vehicle” term‘s application “useless” as it would negate the ordinance sections enumerating storage requirements for such vehicles. Herrington, 71 Va. App. at 661 (quoting Antisdel, 279 Va. at 48). Thus, contrary to MAD Properties’ assertion, the term “inoperable motor vehicle” “addresses the same issue” as the term “vehicle awaiting repair,” as the term “inoperable motor vehicle” is a specifically defined term and the term “vehicle awaiting repair” is a general term, and “where they conflict, [the inoperable motor vehicle definition] prevails.” Chesapeake Hosp. Auth. v. State Health Comm‘r, 301 Va. 82, 96 (2022) (quoting Va. Dep‘t of Health v. Kepa, Inc., 289 Va. 131, 142 (2015)). And finally, “the time-honored principle expressio unius est exclusio alterius,” Miller & Rhoads, 292 Va. at 544 (quoting NRV Real Estate, LLC, 278 Va. at 187-88), cannot save MAD Properties here as this maxim “does not apply to every statutory listing or grouping; it has force only when the items expressed are members of an ‘associated group or series,‘” Barnhart, 537 U.S. at 168, and the phrase “vehicle awaiting repair” is not part of the group enumerated in
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the circuit court erred in applying the thing-decided doctrine. We hold, consistent with the text of
Reversed and remanded.