## Facts

- Countryside Investment Company, L.C. contracted to purchase and subdivide approximately 140 acres in Augusta County, Virginia, zoned R-10 residential.
- A 1973 zoning ordinance required 9,000-square-foot minimum lot areas; a 1995 zoning ordinance raised the minimum to 12,000 square feet but “grandfathered” this parcel at 9,000 square feet until 2006.
- In September 1997, Countryside submitted a preliminary master plan proposing approximately 427 residential lots.
- The County Department of Community Development found the plan complied with technical subdivision-ordinance requirements, and the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval.
- The County subdivision ordinance included:
  - Section 21-6, making the size and shape of subdivision lots subject to the Board’s approval.
  - Section 21-7, permitting denial if, “in the board’s opinion,” the subdivision was not conducive to preserving a rural environment.
- After public hearings addressing density and effects on public facilities and neighboring areas, the Board tentatively denied the master plan, citing lack of “large lots of varying sizes,” inconsistency with rural-environment preservation, and related infrastructure concerns.
- The Board sought modifications (larger lots and community-facility areas), but Countryside pursued judicial review.

## Issues

1. Whether, under the Dillon Rule and Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241 and 15.2-2242, Augusta County had authority to adopt subdivision-ordinance provisions giving the Board broad discretion over lot size/shape and allowing denial based on preserving a “rural environment.”
2. Whether those provisions effectively allowed the Board to impose zoning-type restrictions (including density and lot-size requirements) inconsistent with the parcel’s existing zoning classification.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the circuit court’s judgment.
- The Court held the Board lacked statutory authority to enact Sections 21-6 and 21-7 as open-ended, discretionary standards for approving or denying subdivision plats.
- The Court ruled the challenged provisions were invalid because the General Assembly had not authorized denial of otherwise compliant plats based on subjective rural-character judgments or discretionary lot-size/shape demands beyond zoning.
- Because the master plan satisfied valid subdivision requirements, the Board had no lawful basis to deny approval; the order requiring approval was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Dillon Rule, local governments possess only powers expressly granted by the General Assembly, necessarily or fairly implied from those grants, or essential and indispensable; doubts are resolved against the locality.
- A county’s discretion in subdivision regulation extends only as far as permitted by Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241 and 15.2-2242, which specify allowable subjects for subdivision ordinances.
- Subdivision authority cannot be used to impose de facto zoning standards or to block development allowed by the property’s zoning classification; zoning and subdivision powers are distinct and separately conferred.
- Ordinance provisions that confer “unfettered discretion” to deny plats based on subjective criteria not authorized by statute are ultra vires and void.

## Conclusion

The court held Augusta County exceeded its statutory subdivision authority by authorizing discretionary denial of a technically compliant preliminary plat based on rural-character and lot-configuration judgments, effectively imposing zoning-like limits inconsistent with existing zoning; the invalid provisions were void and the Board was required to approve the master plan.


Bd. of Supervisors of Augusta Cnty. v. Countryside Inv. Co., L.C., 258 Va. 497 (1999)