|
<br />.=:=:..._=,=-
<br />
<br />. I J~rrYFilla_- vVestlawj?99ume!1!.Jf!::'4\(,..3~::'$3Ko:~oc__: :=___=..: =:, .. : :_: :..
<br />
<br />o... :]~~9~A j
<br />
<br />
<br />-- S,E.2d ---
<br />-- S..E.2d --, 2007 WL 1651100 (Va.)
<br />(Cite as: --- S.E.2d-)
<br />
<br />of the evidence ... th.t the [BZA] erred in its
<br />decision," that evidentiary standard "pertains
<br />only to questions about the sufficiency of the
<br />record to prove a particular fact," Board of
<br />SUDerv;sors v. Board of Zon;np Anoeals. 271 Va.
<br />336. 348. 626 S.E.2d 374. 381 (20061. When, as in
<br />the present case, the Issue before the circuit court
<br />was a question of law, j,e. the meaning of certain
<br />terms used in the em, the petitioners had the
<br />burden of proving that the BZA "eUher applied
<br />'erroneous principles of law' or that its decision
<br />was 'plainly wrong and in violation of the purpose
<br />and intent ortbe zoning ordinance.'" Trustees of
<br />the Christ & St. Luke's Enlseonal Church v. Board
<br />or Zon/ne AODea/s. 273 Va. 375. 380. 641 S.E.2d
<br />104.107 (2007) (quoting Board arSuD"v/Sars. 271
<br />Va. at 348. 626 S.E.2d at 382\ (Internal quotation
<br />maria omitted). On appeal to this Court, we apply
<br />the same presumption of correctness to the circuit
<br />court's determination affirming the BZA's
<br />decision. /d. at 381. 641 S.E.2d al 107 (citing
<br />Patlan v. C/tv of Go/ax. 269 Va. 219. 229. 609
<br />S.E.2d 41. 46 (2005)).
<br />
<br />The petitioners assign error to the circuit court's
<br />judgment upholding the BZA's determination that
<br />the installation of the electronic message board
<br />botb "structurally altered" and "enlarged" the
<br />billboard in violation of ezo fi 215(a), They also
<br />assign error to the circuit court's ruling that
<br />Adams must remove the billboard in order to
<br />comply with the CZO. In order to resolve this
<br />appeal, we need to decide only whether the
<br />message board "enlarged" the billboard.
<br />
<br />With regard to that issue, the petitioners argue
<br />that, since the CZO does not define the term
<br />"enlarged," the definition of the term "(s{igns.
<br />surface area" set forth in ezo ~ 111, see supra
<br />text accompanying note 2, provides "the only
<br />objective and measurable standard" for
<br />determining whether the addition of the message
<br />board actually enlarged the billboard. Thus,
<br />according to the petitioners, since the message
<br />board did not increase tbe square footage of the
<br />billboard's advertising area under that definition,
<br />the installation of the message board did not
<br />enlarge the billboard in violation of ezo fi
<br />215(a).
<br />
<br />*4 [n response, the BZA argues that the zoning
<br />administrator and BZA properly applied the
<br />"plain and natural meaning" of the term
<br />"enlarged." See CaDeIle v, Oran1le Countv. 269 Va.
<br />
<br />Page 4
<br />
<br />60.65. 607 S.E.2d 103. 105 (2005) (applying "the
<br />plain and natural meaning" of words contained in
<br />a zoning ordinance). The BZA further contends
<br />that whether the addition of the message boa rd
<br />increased tbe square footage of the advertising
<br />surface area is not the eontrolling factor in
<br />deciding whether Adams enlarged the billboard,
<br />Instead, the BZA asserts that any increases in the
<br />billboard's mass and volume must also be
<br />considered. Since the addition of the message
<br />board increased the weight and depth of the
<br />billboard, the 8ZA contends that Adams
<br />"enlarged" the billboard. We agree with the 8ZA.
<br />
<br />~ When construiog a zoning ordinance and
<br />its undefined terms, we give such terms their
<br />"plain and natural meaning.1t Canelte. 269 Va. at
<br />6S. 607 S.E.2d at 105 (citing Donovan v. Board of
<br />Zonine ADDea/s. 251 Va. 271. 274. 467 S.E.2d 808.
<br />810 lJ996\i McClunf! v. Count" of Henri co. 200 Va.
<br />870. 875. 108 S.E.2d 513. 516 (1959)). "Although
<br />we give consideration to the purpose and intent of
<br />the ordinance, we are not permitted to extend the
<br />ordinance provisions by interpretation or
<br />construction beyond such intent and purpose," ld.
<br />(citing Donovan. 251 Va. at 274. 467 S.E.2d at 810:
<br />GOUllh v. Shaner. 197 Va. 572. 57S. 90 S.E.2d 17J.
<br />174 lJ955n. We also afford "great weight" to the
<br />interpretation given a zoning ordinance by tbe
<br />officials charged with its administration. Donovan.
<br />251 Va. at 274. 467 S,E.2d at 810: accord Trustees.
<br />273 Va. at 381. 641 S.E.2d al 107.
<br />
<br />111 The term "enlarge" means "to make largerj
<br />increase in quantity or dimensions; on to increase
<br />the eapa<<:ity or." Webster's Third New
<br />[nternational Dictionary 754 (1993). The evidence
<br />in the record before us demonstrates that the
<br />electronic message board added between 3,000
<br />and 3,500 pounds to the weight of the billboard.
<br />While the message board did not iocrease tbe
<br />billboard's beight, length, or the square footage of
<br />its advertising surface area, it did, however,
<br />increase the billboard's depth. Thus, we conclude,
<br />as did the zoning administrator, the BZA, and the
<br />circuit court, that the addition of the message
<br />board "enlarged" the billboard in both dimension
<br />and weight. [0 this case, that determination was a
<br />"judgment call ... best accomplished by those
<br />charged with enforcing" the CZO. Trustees. 273
<br />Va, at 38J. 641 S,E.2d at 107 (internal quotation
<br />maria omitted); see also Lamar Co.. LiC v. Board
<br />of Zonlnll Anneals. 270 Va. 540. 547. 620 S.E.2d
<br />753. 757 (2005). Furthermore, contrary to the
<br />
<br /><C 2007 ThomsonIWesl. No Claim to Orig, U.S. Govt, WOlles.
<br />
<br />
|