 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
County of Fairfax v. Southern Iron Works Inc.11/8/1991
JUSTICE KEENAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this appeal, Fairfax County seeks reversal of a decision in which the trial court declared invalid the Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) enacted by the Board of Supervisors on December 11, 1989. The trial court declared the ZOA invalid on four separate procedural grounds. We conclude that the trial court erred in invalidating the ZOA on each of the four grounds upon which it relied. Therefore, we will reverse its decision, and based on this action, do not reach the additional issues raised here by the County.
Prior to December 11, 1989, the Fairfax County Zoning Ordinance allowed office buildings in all Commercial and Industrial Districts as a permitted use. This meant that landowners could construct offices in these districts without obtaining special approval from the Board of Supervisors. On September 11, 1989 the Board instructed the County staff to draft proposed amendments to the Commercial and Industrial District provisions. The staff responded by developing the ZOA, which, among other things, changed office use from a permitted use to a special exception use. This meant that landowners in the affected districts would be required to obtain permission from the Board before constructing office buildings. Although the ZOA revised both Commercial and Industrial District provisions, this appeal pertains solely to the revision of the Ordinance as it pertains to the Industrial Districts.
On September 18, 1989, the Board considered the staff recommendations and concluded that the existing Zoning Ordinance contained "provisions in the Commercial and Industrial Districts which make it impossible to effectively plan; and... [that] the public necessity, the convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice required" their action. The Board then voted to authorize
the advertisement of the ZOA and referred it to the County Planning Commission (Commission) for its recommendations.
After a series of public hearings and upon receiving the recommendations of the Commission, the Board met on December 11, 1989 to give final consideration to the ZOA. During the morning session of this meeting, the Board had various documents before it, including a "Board Package" containing several attachments. Attachment 1 consisted of a chart comparing the Commercial and Industrial provisions of the existing Zoning Ordinance to the amendments of these sections proposed by the staff and the Commission. Attachment 2 contained the Commission's recommended amendments to the Industrial District provisions. Attachment 7 consisted of the Commission report, which included a summary of its recommendations, as well as relevant transcripts of Commission meetings. After evaluating and discussing the Commission's recommendations, the Board directed the staff to develop final motions (Motions Package) conforming to what the Board had approved during the morning session.
The Motions Package consisted of a series of motions and attachments reflecting all of the amendments to the Commercial and Industrial Districts. Motion II, the only motion challenged in this appeal, stated:
II. INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS
I move that the Board of Supervisors adopt the proposed amendments to the industrial districts as recommended by the Planning Commission with the following changes:
- Whereas office will be permitted only by special exception up to the existing FAR's, all other uses in the revised industrial districts will be permitted to the revised FAR's by right as recommended by the Planning Commission and
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Virginia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|