ANTON E.B. SCHEFER v. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FALLS CHURCH
Record No. 090803
Supreme Court of Virginia
April 15, 2010
JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR.
Present: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Lemons, Goodwyn, and Millette, JJ., and Lacy, S.J. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY, William T. Newman, Jr., Judge
BACKGROUND
The material facts are not in dispute. Anton E.B. Schefer12 owns 12 lots in the City of Falls Church (the “City“), all of which are zoned R1-B, a medium-density residential district. Falls Church City Code § 38-17 (2006).3 Under the
City‘s zoning ordinance, the minimum lot area requirement for one-family dwellings in the R1-B zoning district is 7,500 square feet. Falls Church City Code § 38-17(e)(1). Lots, such as those owned by Schefer, that are comprised of a lot area of less than 7,500 square feet, but were lawfully created prior to this requirement, are designated as “Substandard lots” under the City‘s zoning ordinance. Falls Church City Code § 38-28(b)(2).
In 2006, the City adopted Zoning Ordinance 1799, amending the permissible height and yard set-back regulations for a one-family dwelling on substandard lots throughout the City‘s residential districts. Falls Church City Code § 38-28(b)(2) (as amended Dec. 11, 2006). Prior to the enactment of this ordinance, the maximum building height for “residential use” on all lots in the R1-B zoning district was “the lesser of thirty-five (35) feet or two and one-half (2 1/2) stories.” Falls Church City Code § 38-17(e)(4). With the enactment of Ordinance 1799, the City created a formula for calculating the allowable building height of one-family dwellings on substandard lots within the City‘s “R” (residential) zoning districts. Falls Church City Code § 38-28(b)(2). That formula provides that “substandard lot building height shall
Schefer hired a licensed surveyor to evaluate the potential impact of Ordinance 1799 on one of his substandard lots. The surveyor first determined that the lot‘s actual area of 6,007 square feet when compared to the required lot area of 7,500 square feet presented a ratio of 0.8010. Multiplying 0.8010 by the maximum allowable height of 35 feet, the surveyor concluded that 28.04 feet was the maximum building height allowed for this lot.
Thereafter, Schefer filed a declaratory judgment action against the City,4 claiming that Ordinance 1799 violates the provisions of
We awarded Schefer this appeal, which presents only questions of law to review de novo. Board of Zoning Appeals v. Board of Supervisors, 276 Va. 550, 552, 666 S.E.2d 315, 316 (2008).
DISCUSSION
Schefer asserts that Ordinance 1799 should be declared void because it is in plain violation of
Schefer also asserts an equal protection challenge to Ordinance 1799. Schefer contends that Ordinance 1799 is facially discriminatory and, thus, unconstitutional on its face. Additionally, Schefer maintains that the City failed to
We begin our review of Schefer‘s challenges to Ordinance 1799 with the well-established Dillon Rule of strict construction. The Dillon Rule “provides that ‘municipal corporations have only those powers that are expressly granted, those necessarily or fairly implied from expressly granted powers, and those that are essential and indispensable.’ ” Marble Techs., Inc. v. City of Hampton, 279 Va. 409, 417, 690 S.E.2d 84, 88 (2010) (quoting Board of Zoning Appeals, 276 Va. at 553-54, 666 S.E.2d at 317); accord Board of Supervisors v. Countryside Investment Co., 258 Va. 497, 502-05, 522 S.E.2d 610, 612-14 (1999); City of Chesapeake v. Gardner Enters., 253 Va. 243, 246, 482 S.E.2d 812, 814 (1997). Thus, “[w]hen a local ordinance exceeds the scope of this authority, the ordinance is invalid.” City of Chesapeake, 253 Va. at 246, 482 S.E.2d at 814; see also Board of Supervisors v. Reed‘s Landing Corp., 250 Va. 397, 400, 463 S.E.2d 668, 670 (1995) (“If there is a reasonable doubt whether legislative power exists, the doubt must be resolved against the local governing body.“). There is no dispute that pursuant to
The crux of the uniformity requirement is to assure that zoning regulations are nondiscriminatory. See, e.g., Anderson House, LLC v. Mayor & City Council of Rockville, 939 A.2d 116, 131 (Md. 2008) (“Many jurisdictions agree that the kind of discrimination violative of the uniformity requirement occurs when a zoning ordinance singles out a property or properties
Likewise, we declared in Bell v. City Council of Charlottesville, 224 Va. 490, 496-97, 297 S.E.2d 810, 814 (1982) that the uniformity requirement “is in reality a statutory reaffirmation of the equal protection of the law guaranteed to all persons by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.” Generally, under an equal protection analysis, “[w]hen a land use permitted to one landowner is restricted to another similarly situated, the restriction is discriminatory, and, if not substantially related to the public health,
With these principles in mind, we resolve the issue whether Ordinance 1799 violates
Schefer maintains that one-family dwellings are “buildings and uses” of the same “class or kind” and, therefore, the City must impose identical building height regulations on standard and substandard lots in the R1-B zoning district. We conclude, however, that this case is equally about two “kind[s]” of “uses” as contemplated by
We now turn to Schefer‘s equal protection challenge. We review this challenge in accordance with the following well-settled principles:
The legislative branch of a local government in the exercise of its police power has wide discretion in the enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances. Its action is presumed to be valid so long as it is not unreasonable and arbitrary. The burden of proof is on him who assails it to prove that it is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, and that it bears no reasonable or substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. The [C]ourt will not substitute its judgment for that of a legislative body, and if the reasonableness of a zoning ordinance is fairly debatable it must be sustained.
Board of Supervisors v. Carper, 200 Va. 653, 660, 107 S.E.2d 390, 395 (1959) (emphasis added). Moreover, “[w]hen presumptive reasonableness ‘is challenged by probative evidence of unreasonableness, the challenge must be met by evidence of reasonableness.’ ” Board of Supervisors v. McDonald‘s Corp., 261 Va. 583, 590, 544 S.E.2d 334, 339 (2001) (quoting Board of Supervisors v. Jackson, 221 Va. 328, 333, 269 S.E.2d 381, 385 (1980)) (emphasis added); see also Kisley v. City of Falls Church, 212 Va. 693, 697, 187 S.E.2d 168, 171 (1972) (“the presumption governs unless it is overcome by unreasonableness apparent on the face of the ordinance“).
Schefer contends that the City has failed to meet its burden by failing to offer evidence of the reasonableness of Ordinance 1799. Yet, as the party challenging a presumptively reasonable zoning ordinance, Schefer has the initial burden of offering evidence of its unreasonableness. Schefer, however, has consistently maintained that Ordinance 1799 is facially discriminatory and that its “reasonableness or lack thereof is irrelevant.” Because Ordinance 1799 is not inherently suspect and does not infringe upon the exercise of a fundamental right, we reject Schefer‘s assertion that it is facially discriminatory. See Estes Funeral Home v. Adkins, 266 Va. 297, 304, 586 S.E.2d 162, 165 (2003); Cupp v. Board of Supervisors, 227 Va. 580, 596, 318 S.E.2d 407, 415 (1984). Accordingly, we conclude that Schefer did not present sufficient evidence to show that Ordinance 1799 is unreasonable and, thus, failed to rebut the presumption of its validity.
For these reasons, we will affirm the circuit court‘s judgment awarding summary judgment in favor of the City.
Affirmed.