County suits have no standing

A Circuit Court ruling on a group of lawsuits against Orange County government has said the cases, which argue the legality of Orange County’s revised subdivision ordinance, have no standing.
Last fall, the Orange County Board of Supervisors voted 3 to 2 to adopt a revised subdivision ordinance. Soon after, four suits were filed against the county claiming the ordinance imposed undue restrictions on landowners and that supervisors had acted arbitrarily and capriciously when they made changes to the ordinance.
The cases were filed in December 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.
After Orange County Circuit Court Judge Daniel Bouton heard arguments in court at a May 22 hearing, he said the fundamental question was that of “standing”-or whether the complainants bringing the lawsuits really have reason to do so, as required by Virginia law.
Last week, Bouton issued a written explanation of his ruling and said the suits had no standing.
“In all of the cases, the plaintiffs maintain that they are ‘aggrieved’ for one principal reason,“ Bouton explained. “Specifically, they assert that the subdivision ordinance ‘alters what can be done’ with their land. In their memorandum, the plaintiffs argue that the ordinance ‘severely curtails the manner in which the plaintiffs can divide and convey their property.“ They also claim that ‘whether and how they subdivide their property as well as the marketability of the newly created parcel will change markedly…‘ “
But according to Bouton, the allegations made in the suits are insufficient to establish a justiciable controversy, as far as the Supreme Court of Virginia has defined the term.
“A mere disagreement with the government, coupled with the possibility of future difficulties, is not sufficient to invoke the remedy of declaratory judgement,“ Bouton wrote.
Bouton also ruled that it was inappropriate to analyze beyond the cases’ question of standing.
“To do so would be to engage in speculation and conjecture regarding any amended complaint that might be filed,“ he wrote.
The plaintiffs are permitted to file an amended complaint. If that happens, the county would then have 21 days to file a responsive pleading.
The Manassas firm representing the plaintiffs, Vanderpool, Frostick and Nishanian, did not comment on the possibility of filing an amended complaint.