Present: All the Justices
RAYNOLD C. GLAZEBROOK, JR., TRUSTEE, ET AL.
OPINION BY
v. Record No. 022937 JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS
October 31, 2003
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY
William H. Ledbetter, Jr., Judge
In this appeal, we consider whether the Board of
Supervisors for Spotsylvania County (“the Board”) provided
adequate notice pursuant to Code § 15.2-2204(A) prior to
holding a hearing and voting on text amendments to the
County’s zoning ordinances.
I. Facts and Proceedings
In response to the perceived threat to the infrastructure
of Spotsylvania County posed by rapid growth, the Board
scheduled hearings for February 6 and 12, 2002 to amend the
County’s zoning ordinances. 1 The advertisements stated the
time, date, and location of the hearing. They also listed the
zoning districts to be affected, the zoning ordinance section
numbers and titles, and stated that the hearing would affect
“development standards.” A reference to the location of the
1
The Board published advertisements in the Fredericksburg
Free Lance-Star on January 23, 2002 and January 30, 2002 for
the hearing on February 6, 2002. The Board published
advertisements in the same newspaper on January 30, 2002 and
February 6, 2002 for the hearing on February 12, 2002.
full text of the amendment proposals was also included. Of
importance to the case before us, the published notices
contained the following:
Amendment(s)
02-A Board of Supervisors: Amendments to
Chapter 23, Zoning, Article 6, Zoning
Districts, of the Code of the County of
Spotsylvania, as follows:
Section 23-6.2.4. Development standards.
Amend development standards for the
agricultural 1(A-1) district.
Chapter 23, Article 6, Division 2, subparagraph 4 (§ 23-
6.2.4 of the Code of the County of Spotsylvania) is entitled
“Development standards” and encompasses regulations addressing
maximum density, road frontage, open space requirements,
minimum lot requirements, and other characteristics. On
February 12, 2002, the Board voted to amend these “development
standards.”
Raynold C. Glazebrook and Realco-Route 3, L.L.C.
(collectively, “Glazebrook”), along with a number of parties
not before us at this time, brought suit against the Board on
multiple grounds including a claim that the Board had failed
to publish adequate notice of its proposed amendments as
required by Code § 15.2-2204(A). The Board demurred and the
trial court sustained the Board’s demurrer on all but two
counts, which did not apply to Glazebrook. On appeal,
2
Glazebrook’s two assignments of error challenge the sustaining
of the demurrer and encompass only one issue. Glazebrook
maintains that the publication in the Fredericksburg Free
Lance-Star provided insufficient notice in violation of Code
§ 15.2-2204(A). Glazebrook asserts that the Board’s notice
that it would “[a]mend development standards” for the named
zoning districts was not specific enough to satisfy the
requirement that the Board publish a “descriptive summary” of
the action it planned to consider at its hearing. Because of
the defect in notice, Glazebrook argues that the ordinance is
void ab initio.
II. Standard of Review
A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of facts alleged
in pleadings, not the strength of proof. We accept as true
all facts properly pleaded in the bill of complaint and all
reasonable and fair inferences that may be drawn from those
facts. W.S. Carnes, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors, 252 Va.
377, 384, 478 S.E.2d 295, 300 (1996); Burns v. Board of
Supervisors, 218 Va. 625, 627, 238 S.E.2d 823, 824-25 (1977);
Chippenham Manor, Inc. v. Dervishian, 214 Va. 448, 450, 201
S.E.2d 794, 796 (1974). Because appellate review of the
sustaining of a demurrer involves a matter of law, we review
the trial court’s judgment de novo.
3
III. Analysis
The heart of this controversy is the meaning of the
phrase “descriptive summary” in Code § 15.2-2204(A) which
provides:
Plans or ordinances, or amendments thereof,
recommended or adopted under the powers
conferred by this chapter need not be
advertised in full, but may be advertised by
reference. Every such advertisement shall
contain a descriptive summary of the proposed
action and a reference to the place or places
within the locality where copies of the
proposed plans, ordinances or amendments may be
examined.
(emphasis added). If the notice published by the Board did
not meet the requirements of Code § 15.2-2204, the Board acted
outside the authority granted by the General Assembly and the
amendments are void ab initio. See City Council of the City
of Alexandria v. Potomac Greens Assoc., 245 Va. 371, 378, 429
S.E.2d 224, 228 (1993)(failure to give required notices
rendered an ordinance “void ab initio”).
A. Definition of “Descriptive Summary”
Parsing the phrase “descriptive summary” into its
component parts, the word “descriptive” modifies the word
“summary.” “Descriptive” means “serving to describe.”
“Describe” means “to represent by words written or spoken for
the knowledge or understanding of others.” Webster’s Third
New International Dictionary 610 (1993). A summary “cover[s]
4
the main points concisely” but “lack[s] detailed explanation.”
Id. at 2289. Thus, a “descriptive summary” is a statement
that covers the main points concisely, but without detailed
explanation, in a manner that serves to describe an object for
the knowledge and understanding of others.
This literal definition of the phrase establishes the
foundation for interpretation of what satisfies the
requirements of Code § 15.2-2204(A). If the notice does not
cover the main points of the proposed amendment and does not
accurately describe the proposed amendment, it does not
satisfy Code § 15.2-2204(A). However, the notice need not
contain the full text of the proposed amendment, nor explain
the proposed amendment in detail.
Other language of Code § 15.2-2204(A) requires that the
notice published by a locality “specify the time and place of
hearing at which persons affected may appear and present their
views.” Code § 15.2-2204(A). This language suggests that the
intent of the statute is to generate informed public
participation by providing citizens with information about the
content of the proposed amendments and the forum for debate
concerning those amendments. There is no indication that the
General Assembly expected affected citizens to engage in legal
research in order to decide whether to participate in the
5
hearing or to decide what their interests may be in a proposed
amendment. See also Lawrence Transfer & Storage Corp. v.
Board of Zoning Appeals of Augusta, 229 Va. 568, 571, 331
S.E.2d 460, 462 (1985) (determining that the intent of
subsection B of the statute replaced by Code § 15.2-2204 was
“to afford property owners who are closest to the land
involved an opportunity to be heard by the Board.”).
In City of Portsmouth v. County of Suffolk, 198 Va. 247,
251, 93 S.E.2d 296, 300-01 (1956), we held that former Code
§ 15.1-152.5, requiring publication of an “informative
summary” of proposed annexations, was designed to “supply
those who may be affected thereby, or interested therein, with
certain information from which they may determine whether or
not to act in support of or against the proposed annexation.” 2
Although it involves a different portion of the Code, the
opinion expresses the same concerns that drive the need for
adequate public notice in the zoning context. We have
previously stated that, as a whole, Virginia’s zoning statutes
are designed to prevent zoning changes from being made
“suddenly, arbitrarily, or capriciously.” Bd. of Supervisors
2
The General Assembly has since changed the language to
require a “descriptive summary” of the annexation ordinance.
Code § 15.2-3204. The motivation for the change is not clear
and the two phrases are not, on their faces, significantly
different.
6
of Fairfax County v. Snell Construction Corp., 214 Va. 655,
658, 202 S.E.2d 889, 892 (1974).
The history of Code § 15.2-2204(A) adds further
illumination. Prior to 1992, the statute did not require the
notice published by the locality to contain a “descriptive
summary” or a summary of any kind. In 1992, the General
Assembly inserted the “descriptive summary” requirement. Acts
1992 ch. 757. This change by the General Assembly suggests
that it is not enough to provide information that will merely
direct readers to the physical location of the actual text of
the proposed amendments. The “descriptive summary”
requirement goes beyond referral to the primary document.
B. The Notice
We must determine whether the notice published by the
Board in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star contained a
“descriptive summary” as required in Code § 15.2-2204(A). The
notice merely stated that the “development standards” for the
specified zoning districts in question would be amended.
“Development standards,” as the phrase is used in the
ordinance, is a heading within which are a number of
subheadings describing specific regulations. In other words,
“development standards” is the umbrella title for regulations
including minimum road frontage, residential and non-
7
residential densities, lot areas for various uses, minimum lot
width, and maximum height of structures on the land.
We hold that the notice published by the Board did not
contain a sufficiently descriptive summary of the proposed
amendments to the Spotsylvania County zoning ordinances. No
citizen could reasonably determine, from the notice, whether
he or she was affected by the proposed amendments except in
the most general sense of being located in a particular type
of zoning district. Nor could a citizen determine whether the
proposed amendments affected zoning issues that were of
interest or concern to the citizen. Given the number of
issues subsumed under the heading “development standards,”
using that heading as a descriptive summary fails to inform
citizens of the universe of possible zoning ordinance
amendments in any meaningful way. Both the evolution of the
statute and the treatment of analogous statutes illustrate
that such a notice is inadequate under Code § 15.2-2204(A).
We do not, in this opinion, attempt to dictate the exact
language of future notices, nor do we seek to establish a
bright line rule. However, considering the intent and
language of the statute, the notice in this case was
inadequate. Because the notice was inadequate in failing to
provide a “descriptive summary,” the Board acted outside the
8
powers granted to it. See Code § 15.2-2204; Potomac Greens
Assoc., 245 Va. at 378, 429 S.E.2d at 228. Consequently, the
zoning ordinances passed pursuant to the notices published on
January 23, January 30, and February 6, 2002 and at issue in
this case are void ab initio.
IV. Conclusion
For these reasons, we reverse the judgment of the trial
court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
9