## Facts

- Carl T. Norton owned an 1884 historic residence in Danville’s designated historic district (“Millionaires Row”).
- After three burglaries in 2001, and on police recommendation to improve visibility for patrol officers, Norton replaced a solid wooden front door with a door containing glass panes.
- The city zoning administrator advised Norton that he needed a certificate of appropriateness from the Danville Commission of Architectural Review (CAR) to keep the door, and that failure to comply could result in criminal charges.
- CAR, created by city ordinance under Va. Code § 15.2-2306, reviewed exterior changes visible from a public right-of-way and required a certificate for such alterations.
- In March 2002, CAR denied Norton’s application and directed restoration of the door to its “original condition,” which CAR concluded was a solid wooden door without glass.
- Norton reapplied; CAR again denied the request in May 2002, emphasizing the property’s perceived status as an “original wooden door” example.
- Norton appealed to the Danville City Council, which affirmed CAR largely on the ground that CAR believed the original door had been wooden.
- Norton sought certiorari in the circuit court, challenging both the council’s action as arbitrary and the ordinances as ultra vires; the circuit court upheld the city.
- Norton appealed to the Supreme Court of Virginia.

## Issues

1. Whether the City Council’s affirmance of CAR’s denial of a certificate of appropriateness was contrary to law or so arbitrary as to constitute an abuse of discretion.
2. Whether the Danville historic-district ordinances exceeded the authority granted by Va. Code § 15.2-2306 and were ultra vires and void.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the circuit court’s judgment.
- The Court held that the City Council’s action affirming the denial of the certificate of appropriateness was contrary to law/arbitrary and therefore an abuse of discretion.
- The Court rejected the broad facial ultra vires attack on the historic-district scheme, concluding the ordinances generally fell within the authority conferred by Va. Code § 15.2-2306.
- The Court concluded the ordinances were unlawfully applied in Norton’s case because the denial was not tied to the governing preservation standards and lacked adequate evidentiary support.

## Legal Principles

- A locality may regulate exterior construction, reconstruction, alteration, or demolition in a historic district visible from public ways through a certificate-of-appropriateness process authorized by Va. Code § 15.2-2306.
- Historic-district regulation must be exercised through standards grounded in the enabling statute and local ordinances; decisions must show a rational connection between those standards and the action taken.
- A governing body’s affirmance is reversible when it rests on conclusory assertions or legally irrelevant considerations rather than articulated, evidence-supported application of the preservation criteria.
- Courts may uphold the validity of a historic-district regulatory framework while setting aside a particular decision that is arbitrary or contrary to the statutory and ordinance-based requirements.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Virginia set aside the City Council’s denial of a certificate of appropriateness for Norton’s glass-paneled front door because the decision relied on unsupported assertions about the “original” door rather than an evidence-based application of the preservation standards, while still recognizing that Va. Code § 15.2-2306 authorizes historic-district review regimes in general.


Norton v. City of Danville, 268 Va. 402, 602 S.E.2d 126 (2004)