Background
Carl R. Beard, Jr. owned 183.9 acres in Greene County zoned for agricultural and conservation use. In March 2024, the county’s Deputy Zoning Administrator issued Beard a zoning certification permitting a “Farm Winery” use with buildings for wine tastings and events, determining this was an allowed “by-right” use under county ordinance. The administrator did not notify nearby property owners, though the planning commission announced the certification at a public hearing on April 17, 2024.
Kennon Copeland and Linda Nevins Copeland, who lived near the property, first learned of the decision through the public announcement. On May 10, 2024—more than 30 days after the zoning administrator’s decision—they appealed to the Greene County Board of Zoning Appeals and filed a petition for writ of certiorari in circuit court. They also sought a declaratory judgment that the county’s farm winery ordinance was invalid because it defined farm winery by reference to Code § 4.1-207, a statute the General Assembly had since repealed.
The circuit court dismissed the Copelands’ claims on demurrer, finding they had failed to exhaust administrative remedies by appealing within the required 30-day window under Code § 15.2-2311(A). The court ruled that the statute’s appeal period is not conditioned on notice to nearby landowners and that the farm winery ordinance remained valid despite the statutory repeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. The panel held that Code § 15.2-2311(A)’s mandate that appeals be filed “within 30 days after the decision appealed” is clear and unambiguous. The statute requires notice to the property owner whose land is affected and does not commence the appeal period until such notice is given. However, the statute does not require notice to nearby landowners and does not condition the appeal deadline on whether those third parties received notice. The Copelands, though not notified, were still bound by the 30-day deadline.
Because the Copelands did not appeal within 30 days, the zoning administrator’s decision became a “thing decided” under Virginia law—a doctrine that bars judicial challenges to zoning decisions when a party fails to exhaust available administrative remedies. The court rejected the Copelands’ fairness argument, explaining that courts lack constitutional authority to override clear statutory language on the ground that it is “unwise, improper, or inequitable” and that policy judgments belong to the legislature, not the judiciary.
On the ordinance issue, the court held that the repeal of Code § 4.1-207 did not invalidate Greene County’s farm winery ordinances. Although the ordinance definition referenced the repealed statute, the current Code § 4.1-100 contains the definition of farm winery, and the ordinance itself contains detailed descriptions of permitted farm winery activities. Applying principles of statutory construction to harmonize the ordinance with current law, the court concluded the ordinance remained meaningful and operative.
Key Takeaways
- Nearby landowners who do not receive notice of a zoning decision remain bound by the statutory 30-day appeal deadline and cannot bypass it by arguing lack of notice.
- The “thing decided” doctrine bars judicial challenges to zoning decisions when a party fails to timely appeal to the board of zoning appeals, even if the underlying decision lacked notice procedures for third parties.
- When a statute referenced in a zoning ordinance is repealed, the ordinance does not automatically become void if the substance of the regulation survives in current law or is adequately detailed within the ordinance itself.
- An ABC license is not a prerequisite to obtaining zoning certification for a farm winery; zoning authority and alcoholic beverage licensing authority are separate regulatory domains.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces Virginia’s strict adherence to statutory appeal deadlines in zoning disputes and places the burden on affected parties to monitor zoning decisions even without formal notice. For nearby landowners concerned about land use changes, the ruling underscores the importance of attending public hearings and promptly appealing to the board of zoning appeals. Courts will not create exceptions to mandatory deadlines based on a lack of notice to third parties, even in cases involving agritourism and farm operations that may affect neighboring properties.
The opinion also provides clarity on statutory repeal and ordinance validity. Localities do not need to rewrite ordinances simply because referenced statutes have been moved or renumbered, provided the operative content of the regulation remains accessible in current law. This principle may reduce litigation over technical ordinance defects stemming from legislative amendments.