This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
- 2 -
to amend its complaint, seeking to add three claims. The circuit court sustained appellees’
demurrer, partially sustained their pleas in bar, and denied Adams’ motion for leave to amend.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment.
BACKGROUND2
Adams Outdoor Advertising is a limited partnership in the billboard advertising
business. On April 14, 2021, Adams applied for an outdoor advertising permit with the Virginia
Department of Transportation (“VDOT”) and the City of Newport News (“the City”),
requesting a permit for the placement of an off-premises electronic billboard within the City of
Newport News. Five days later, Adams filed another application for the placement of a second
billboard in the City.
Any party seeking to erect a billboard in Virginia must file VDOT Form OA-105A,
entitled “Application for Outdoor Advertising Permit.” While most of the form must be filled
out by the applicant, Section III must be filled out by the local zoning office. Specifically, the
locality’s zoning administrator—here, appellee Nyoka C. Hall—must certify that the proposed
“location complies with all of the locality’s zoning requirements” and also must “approve
placement of this sign.” Section III states in bold, “Applications that do not have zoning
approval will not be accepted.”
On April 27, 2021, 13 days after Adams submitted its first application, the Newport
News City Council amended the relevant zoning ordinance to add a new provision regarding the
maximum height and size permitted for off-premises billboards erected in the City. The previous
version of the zoning ordinance imposed height and size restrictions for all off-premises
2 “Because this appeal arises from the grant of a demurrer, we state the factual allegations
in the complaint in the light most favorable to [Adams], giving them the benefit of all reasonable
inferences that arise from those allegations.” AGCS Marine Ins. Co. v. Arlington Cnty., 293 Va.
469, 473 (2017). “However, we do not accept the veracity of conclusions of law camouflaged as
factual allegations or inferences.” Id. Jump to an indexed page (13 of 13)