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.
- 3 -
billboards erected in the City, while the amendment to the ordinance specified that the
restrictions also applied to all billboards visible from a highway. See Newport News, Va., Code
of Ordinances §§ 33.01-6, -8 (1978) (amended 2021).
On May 13, 2021, by one letter pertaining to both applications, Ms. Hall denied Adams’
applications because they did not comply with the amended ordinance. Adams claimed that its
signs would have complied with the pre-amendment ordinance. But Hall explained in her letter
that the amendment did not significantly alter the zoning ordinance. Rather, it “simply ma[de]
abundantly clear the City’s position that signs visible to public highways are required to meet
existing City height and area requirements, if erected.” And she said that “[e]ven prior to such
amendment, I could and would have interpreted the relevant language contained in our sign
ordinance in a manner consistent with such position.”
In a second letter dated June 11, 2021, Ms. Hall restated her explanation for the denials
and advised Adams of its right to appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) under Code
§ 15.2-2311. Adams did just that, appealing Hall’s denial of its applications to the BZA on July
9, 2021. The BZA denied Adams’ appeals. Adams then appealed the BZA’s decision,
petitioning the Circuit Court for the City of Newport News for writs of certiorari on October 22,
2021. Those appeals are still pending.3
On June 10, 2022, Adams filed the complaint at issue here. It sought (1) a declaratory
judgment stating that the defendants exceeded their statutory authority by failing to certify the
billboards’ compliance with the zoning ordinance in effect when Adams applied for the permits;
and (2) a writ of mandamus compelling Hall to certify compliance.
3 Notwithstanding the pendency of Adams’ petitions for writs of certiorari, we assume
without deciding that this case is ripe for adjudication. Cf. Laurels of Bon Air, LLC v. Med.
Facilities of Am. LIV Ltd. P’ship, 51 Va. App. 583, 597 (2008) (assuming arguendo that
appellants had standing and proceeding to the merits of their claim). Jump to an indexed page (13 of 13)