Graydon Manor LLC v. Board of Supervisors of Loudoun County, Record No. 1012-22-4 (Va. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2023)
The Court of Appeals discusses the role of a motion to strike in a hybrid trial-appellate context.
Facts. Graydon Manor LLC owned a large tract of property that it intended to develop into a “co-housing” unit. Though it believed that the development was not subject to the dwelling-unit density restrictions of its zoning district, the county zoning administrator disagreed. It directed Graydon Manor to seek a zoning determination to clarify the density allowed for co-housing and submit a zoning permit application with a sketch plan. Graydon Manor did both but did not include a sketch plan with its application. The County determined that the density restriction did apply to the co-housing project and rejected Graydon Manor’s permit application.
Graydon Manor appealed both decisions to the board of zoning appeals (BZA), which affirmed the County on both counts. So, Graydon Manor sought a writ from the circuit court to review the BZA’s decision under Code § 15.2‑2314.
The circuit court granted the petition and took evidence in the matter. The County moved to strike Graydon Manor’s evidence. It also moved the court to find that the BZA—and thus the circuit court itself—had no authority to hear the zoning determination case because Graydon Manor was not aggrieved by the county zoning administrator’s decision as required by Code § 15.2‑2311. The circuit court granted both motions and dismissed the appeal. Graydon Manor appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issues. (1) Whether the circuit court had authority to grant a motion to strike in a proceeding under Code § 15.2‑2314. (2) Whether Graydon Manor was an aggrieved party whose claim regarding the County’s zoning determination was properly before the BZA and circuit court.
Holdings. (1) Yes. The ability to take new evidence under Code § 15.2‑2314 necessarily implies the ability to weigh and strike that evidence. (2) No. Unless an application asks for specific relief, a party cannot be aggrieved by the outcome.
Notes. (1) Though an appellate court generally cannot entertain a motion to strike, this is because an appellate court generally cannot take evidence. A writ hearing under Code § 15.2‑2314 is a unique circumstance in which the circuit court, sitting in an appellate capacity, is authorized to take new evidence. In this hybrid trial-appellate context, it is appropriate for the tribunal to grant a motion to strike where a party has failed to offer sufficient evidence to support its position. (This is in contrast to a motion for a nonsuit, which “has no direct connection to the substance of a case or claim,” and therefore is not available to a hybrid tribunal.)
(2) The term “aggrieved” has a settled meaning “contemplating a denial of some personal or property right, legal or equitable. Here, there was no application pending for specific relief at the time Graydon Manor requested clarification of the density ordinance. The zoning administrator’s decision only interpreted the zoning ordinance at issue, and thus did not deny Graydon Manor any personal or property right.