The Court of Appeals considers whether a respondent may file a demurrer to a petition filed pursuant to Code § 15.2-2314
Stafford Cty. Bd. of Zoning Appeals v. Grove, Record No. 2023-23-4 (Va. Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2024)
Facts. John and Cynthia Grove and their corporation Lupine Grove applied for a special exception permit to operate a commercial kennel on their property. The Stafford County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) denied the application, so the Groves appealed the denial to the circuit court under Code § 15.2-2314. The Groves’ petition named both the BZA and the Stafford County Board of Supervisors (BoS) as respondents, and both jointly filed a demurrer to the petition.
The circuit court, however, held that responsive pleadings are not permissible in cases filed under Code § 15.2-2314 and overruled the joint demurrer. The BZA and BoS requested interlocutory review of the ruling, which the trial court certified. The Court of Appeals granted the petition for appeal.
Issue. Whether a respondent may file a demurrer to a petition filed pursuant to Code § 15.2-2314.
Holding. Yes. While Code § 15.2-2314 shields the BZA from being made party to an appeal brought under that statute, it does not prohibit the BoS—a necessary party—from filing responsive pleadings.
Notes. A person aggrieved by the decision of a board of zoning appeals may file a petition in the circuit court requesting review of the decision under Code § 15.2-2314. The circuit court “shall allow a writ of certiorari to review the decision,” and the board of zoning appeals must respond. The statute also states that any “review of a decision of the board shall not be considered an action against the board [of zoning appeals] and the board [of zoning appeals] shall not be a party to the proceedings.” Based on this language, and because the statute does not expressly provide for filing responsive pleadings, the circuit court concluded that neither the BZA nor the BoS could demur to the petition. But, as the Court of Appeals points out, the statute also specifies that a locality’s board of supervisors is a “necessary party” in the action, and the Groves properly named the BoS as such.
Though Code § 15.2-2314 does not expressly provide for responsive pleadings, that is not tantamount to a prohibition. Code § 8.01-273 allows for a demurrer in “any action at law,” and the Groves’ petition was an action at law. Part Three of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, which applies to all civil actions, provides requirements for filing responsive pleadings proceedings commenced by a petition. These “default rules” permit the filing of responsive pleadings, and absent another statute that provides otherwise, they are controlling. Further, the circuit court’s interpretation would lead to an absurd result where a respondent could not challenge a petition before the issuance of a writ, “no matter how facially deficient the petition may be, and therefore there could be no summary disposition.”