Norton v. City of Danville
268 Va. 402, 602 S.E.2d 126, 2004 Va. LEXIS 121 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a party challenging a legislative body's decision regarding land use presents probative evidence of unreasonableness, the burden shifts to the legislative body to produce some evidence of reasonableness to render the issue 'fairly debatable.' If the legislative body fails to produce any evidence, its decision is arbitrary and cannot be sustained.
Facts:
- Carl T. Norton owns a home built in 1884 located in the historic district of the City of Danville.
- In 2001, after Norton's home was burglarized three times, Danville police recommended he replace his wooden front door with a door containing glass panes to improve visibility for patrolling officers.
- Norton followed the recommendation and installed a glass-paned front door.
- Approximately four months after the installation, a city official observed the new door.
- Other houses in the historic district, including a mansion of similar architectural style across the street, have glass doors visible from a public way.
- Norton's own house has three other glass doors, apart from the one at issue, which are also visible from the street.
Procedural Posture:
- Carl T. Norton applied to the Danville Commission of Architectural Review for a certificate of appropriateness for his new front door, which the commission denied.
- Norton reapplied, and the commission denied his application a second time.
- Norton (appellant) appealed the commission's decision to the Danville City Council (appellee).
- The Danville City Council affirmed the commission's decision.
- Norton (petitioner) appealed the City Council's decision to the Circuit Court of the City of Danville, arguing the decision was arbitrary and the underlying ordinances were invalid.
- The Circuit Court affirmed the City Council's decision, finding the issue was 'fairly debatable.'
- The Supreme Court of Virginia awarded Norton (appellant) this appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a city council's decision to deny a certificate of appropriateness for a modification to a historic home arbitrary and an abuse of discretion when the homeowner presents evidence that the decision is unreasonable and the city council fails to present any evidence of reasonableness?
Opinions:
Majority - G. Steven Agee
Yes, the city council's decision is arbitrary and constitutes an abuse of discretion. Legislative actions, such as the city council's decision, are presumed reasonable, but this presumption can be rebutted. Norton met his burden to present probative evidence of unreasonableness by showing that the city's decision was based on the unsupported supposition that the original door was solid wood, and that other historic homes, including his own, had similar glass-paned doors. The burden then shifted to the city council to produce some evidence of reasonableness to make the issue 'fairly debatable.' The city council failed to meet this burden, presenting no witnesses, no historical evidence like photographs, and no explanation for its decision. Because the city council adduced no evidence of reasonableness, the issue was not fairly debatable as a matter of law, and its decision must be reversed as arbitrary.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of the 'fairly debatable' standard of review for historic preservation commission rulings in Virginia. It establishes that while a governing body's legislative decision is presumptively reasonable, this presumption is not absolute. The ruling empowers property owners by confirming that a government body cannot rely solely on its authority when challenged; it must produce at least some evidence to justify its decision once a challenger has made a plausible case for unreasonableness. This holding acts as a crucial check on the power of municipal bodies, preventing them from making arbitrary decisions based on speculation rather than evidence.
