<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Virginia Lawyers Weekly &#187; Zoning</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/zoning/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:10:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Court Upholds Denial of Substation Expansion&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/29/court-upholds-denial-of-substation-expansion/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/29/court-upholds-denial-of-substation-expansion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:42:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Stephanie Dawn Thacker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Zoning]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73466</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A gas company seeking to expand its natural gas substation in Prince George’s County, Md., cannot challenge the county’s denial of their request in this federal lawsuit; the 4th Circuit affirms the district court decision dismissing the company’s claim under the state’s “mandatory referral statute” and granting summary judgment to the county on state and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/29/court-upholds-denial-of-substation-expansion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Permit Denial Upheld for Waterside Bars&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/13/permit-denial-upheld-for-waterside-bars/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/13/permit-denial-upheld-for-waterside-bars/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:31:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Cynthia D. Kinser]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Zoning]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73150</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Two bars that operated in Norfolk’s Waterside Festival Marketplace lose their challenge to the city council’s revocation of a blanket special exception and denial of their individual applications to continue their operations; the Supreme Court of Virginia affirms judgment for the city, holding that the bars did not have vested rights and were not denied [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/13/permit-denial-upheld-for-waterside-bars/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>‘Urban chickens’ at center of Albemarle zoning lawsuit</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/12/21/urban-chickens-at-center-of-albemarle-zoning-lawsuit/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/12/21/urban-chickens-at-center-of-albemarle-zoning-lawsuit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:35:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>The Associated Press</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Albemarle County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Zoning]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=71545</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CHARLOTTESVILLE (AP) Alexander “A.J.” Miller bought the chickens to teach his son about sustainability. His Albemarle County neighbors complained about the sustained stench. Now Miller is going to court to fight to keep his dozen cluckers after being ordered to get rid of them. It’s the kind of clash that’s becoming more common as the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/12/21/urban-chickens-at-center-of-albemarle-zoning-lawsuit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Wireless Tower OK on Farm, Not on Church&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/10/24/wireless-tower-ok-on-farm-not-on-church/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/10/24/wireless-tower-ok-on-farm-not-on-church/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2012 19:58:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Gerald Bruce Lee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Zoning]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=70321</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An Alexandria U.S. District Court upholds denial of a permit for construction of a wireless communications facility on a church tower in Sterling, but says the county board of supervisors violated the federal Telecommunications Act when it denied a permit for construction of a proposed facility on a Lovettsville farm based on the environmental effects [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/10/24/wireless-tower-ok-on-farm-not-on-church/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Oyster farmers get OK for homegrown product&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/10/22/oyster-farmers-get-ok-for-homegrown-product/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/10/22/oyster-farmers-get-ok-for-homegrown-product/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:10:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Land Use]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[York County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Zoning]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=70193</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Two York County landowners can grow oysters on their waterfront residential property for commercial purposes without special use permits, a circuit court held earlier this month. But the county board of supervisors plans to appeal the rulings, according to York County Attorney James E. Barnett Jr. Improvements in oyster-farming allow oysters to mature more quickly [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/10/22/oyster-farmers-get-ok-for-homegrown-product/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Salvage Auto Site Shutdown Upheld&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/07/03/salvage-auto-site-shutdown-upheld/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/07/03/salvage-auto-site-shutdown-upheld/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2012 15:35:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Clyde H. Hamilton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Zoning]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=68111</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A property owner who operated a salvage automobile wholesaling business on a parcel adjacent to Andrews Air Force Base’s CERCLA Superfund site, and whose business was cited for numerous county code violations, loses an appeal of the dismissal of its due process and state law claims against Prince George’s County, Md., for shutting down the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/07/03/salvage-auto-site-shutdown-upheld/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Vested Rights in Adjacent Land Use&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/06/13/no-vested-rights-in-adjacent-land-use/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/06/13/no-vested-rights-in-adjacent-land-use/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2012 19:50:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice S. Bernard Goodwyn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Zoning]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=67784</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this first-impression case, the Supreme Court of Virginia says a landowner, here of a commercial building, did not acquire a vested right in the zoning classification or use of an adjacent property or in a road shown on a town plan, when the owner of the adjacent property, a church, seeks rezoning in order [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/06/13/no-vested-rights-in-adjacent-land-use/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New zoning cases ‘reconcilable,’ land use lawyer says&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/07/new-zoning-cases-%e2%80%98reconcilable%e2%80%99-land-use-lawyer-says/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/07/new-zoning-cases-%e2%80%98reconcilable%e2%80%99-land-use-lawyer-says/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 May 2012 15:28:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Virginia Lawyers Weekly</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Mary Grace O'Brien]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Cleo E. Powell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Cynthia D. Kinser]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Donald W. Lemons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Elizabeth A. McClanahan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice S. Bernard Goodwyn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice William C. Mims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prince William County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Zoning]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/07/new-zoning-cases-%e2%80%98reconcilable%e2%80%99-land-use-lawyer-says/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court of Virginia’s recent resolution of a zoning case by unpublished order has caused confusion both on the high court and among observers, where none is warranted. In its unpublished order in Town of Occoquan v. Elm Street Development, Inc. (VLW 012-6-062), the high court upheld a decision in favor of a developer [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/07/new-zoning-cases-%e2%80%98reconcilable%e2%80%99-land-use-lawyer-says/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Standing for Petition Committee&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/01/no-standing-for-petition-committee/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/01/no-standing-for-petition-committee/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 15:50:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Elizabeth A. McClanahan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Zoning]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/01/no-standing-for-petition-committee/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A city charter provision that authorized plaintiffs to organize a petition drive for a referendum on a zoning ordinance that would allow development on part of Buckroe Beach did not give plaintiffs standing to later sue in circuit court to halt development that allegedly continued even after city council repealed the ordinance at issue, the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/01/no-standing-for-petition-committee/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Reconsiders ‘Vested Rights’ Case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/04/02/court-reconsiders-%e2%80%98vested-rights%e2%80%99-case/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/04/02/court-reconsiders-%e2%80%98vested-rights%e2%80%99-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2012 18:18:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Craig D. Johnston]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prince William County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Zoning]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/04/02/court-reconsiders-%e2%80%98vested-rights%e2%80%99-case/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this suit in which the court earlier made rulings involving vested rights [VLW 011-8-195], the Prince William County Circuit Court now grants motions for reconsideration, in part. I have concluded the motions for reconsideration should be granted. The Supreme Court of Virginia’s Dec. 1, 2011, order stayed further hearing before the BZA and the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/04/02/court-reconsiders-%e2%80%98vested-rights%e2%80%99-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
