Build to suit?

Orange County's recently adopted revised subdivision ordinance has been the subject of debate since the board of supervisors voted 3 to 2 to adopt it Oct. 28. And now, the ordinance is the subject of several lawsuits against the county.
Following a public hearing, attended by close to 400, supervisors voted to adopt the revised subdivision ordinance, in spite of a deluge of public opposition. Only eight spoke in favor of the ordinance while nearly 90 spoke against it.
Specifically, citizens opposed the ordinance's new definitions for minor and major subdivisions, and requirements for roads into those subdivisions. Other revisions in the draft that spurred disagreement were changes in the allowable number of divisions that can be made from a parent tract within a specific period of time from four divisions in four years, to one division in four years.
And recently, land use attorney Paul Gauthier said his firm, Vanderpool, Frostick & Nishanian, of Manassas, filed four lawsuits on behalf of seven landowners in Orange County "to challenge the legality of certain sections of the new Orange County Subdivision Ordinance."
Gauthier said when the board of supervisors voted to adopt the revised subdivision ordinance, they did so illegally. The ordinance is overly restrictive and imposes unfair minimum parcel sizes and "severe limitations on a landowner's ability to subdivide agriculturally zoned land," he added. "The board has simply gone beyond what they are authorized to do."
The lawsuits allege that sections of the subdivision ordinance are in violation of the Dillon Rule, a law which limits localities' power to those expressly granted to them by the General Assembly. The four suits were filed on behalf of landowners James A. and Diane D. Strong, Clifton I. and Courtenay A. Barnes, James H. Higginbotham II and Kent C. Higginbotham, and Norman B. Higginbotham and Kent C. Higginbotham.
The suits each claim a number of illegalities in different sections of the ordinance, and contend the document is both invalid and unenforceable. Specific elements of the subdivision ordinance which Gauthier's clients challenge include "impermissible time and size restrictions," and "impermissible downsizing."
Attorney Sharon Pandak, who represents the Orange County Board of Supervisors explained the county has 21 days to file an answer to the suits. That answer, she continued, "could include pleadings that could result in a dismissal of all or part of the lawsuits."
Pandak said the subdivision ordinance was the product of well over 18 months of review and a series of public hearings held by county officials, including the Orange County Board of Supervisors and the Orange County Planning Commission.
Orange County Director of Community Development David Grover said Pandak is still reviewing the four suits, but said, "The county intends to vigorously defend the lawsuits."
Gauthier estimated that it may be several months, at the least, before the next step in the process.