Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF FAIRFAX COUNTY v. ALEXANDER LUKINSON, ET AL.

Zoning.

Zoning amendment has same infirmities found in companion case.

Per Curiam.

This is a companion case to Fairfax County Board of Supervisors v. DeGroff Enterprises, 214 Va. 235, 198 S.E.2d 603, this day decided.

The question here is the validity of amendment 156 to the Fairfax County Zoning Ordinance, which we considered in DeGroff, as it applies to Planned Development Housing (PDH) zones. The parties agree that PDH zoning, which they describe as a "unique concept of the important new technique of planned development zoning districts in contrast to more conventional zoning," is valid, so that question is not before us and we express no opinion thereon.

As it applies to a PDH zone, however, the amendment has the same infirmities which we found in the zones at issue in DeGroff and for the same reasons expressed there, we affirm the trial court in holding the amendment invalid.

Affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

FAIRFAX COUNTY v. LUKINSON
(Aug 30, 1973)