Loch Levan Land Limited Partnership, et al. v. Board of Supervisors of Henrico County, et al.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed a circuit court judgment upholding Henrico County's removal of part of Dominion Club Drive from its Major Thoroughfare Plan and abandonment of an unbuilt road segment. The court held that the developer's statutory right to complete the road was limited to five years under Virginia Code § 15.2-2261(C), that no constitutionally vested property right existed in continuation of the public road, and that the County could use Title 33.2 abandonment procedures. The court further concluded that the record supported the abandonment based on the absence of public necessity and public-welfare considerations.

Holdings

1. Code § 15.2-2261(C), not Code § 15.2-2261(F), governed HHHunt's right to complete the Dominion Club Drive extension because the separately recorded 1C-2 plat dedicated only a right-of-way and conveyed no subdivided property to third parties. HHHunt's statutory right expired five years after the plat was recorded.
2. HHHunt had no constitutionally vested property right in the continuation of Dominion Club Drive after dedicating the road right-of-way to Henrico County.
3. Henrico County could lawfully elect to use the road-abandonment procedures in Title 33.2 rather than the subdivision-vacation procedures in Title 15.2.
4. The Board lawfully abandoned the unbuilt segment of Dominion Club Drive because the statutory requirements were satisfied and the evidentiary record supported the conclusion that no present public necessity required continuation and that the public welfare was best served by abandonment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Code § 15.2-2261(C) or Code § 15.2-2261(F) governed HHHunt's right to complete the Dominion Club Drive extension.
2. Whether HHHunt possessed a constitutionally vested property right in the continuation of a public road.
3. Whether Henrico County could use the road-abandonment procedures in Title 33.2 rather than the subdivision-vacation procedures in Title 15.2.
4. Whether the Board's abandonment decision satisfied the statutory public-necessity and public-welfare requirements and was supported by the evidence.
5. Whether public opposition, together with traffic and safety concerns, could support the abandonment decision.

Disposition

affirmed