Where homeowners argued a high-pressure natural-gas pipeline required a special exemption from the Board of Supervisors, this argument was rejected. Because Washington Gas’s pipeline system is for the distribution of natural gas to consumers, it is exempted from the special-exception requirement.
Background
The question in these consolidated appeals is whether the Washington Gas Light Company may install a 24-inch-diameter high-pressure natural-gas pipeline without a special exception from the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Zoning Appeals, or BZA, agreed with the landowners that the pipeline was a transmission line that required a special exception.
The circuit court reversed. It found that Washington Gas’s entire pipeline system is for the distribution of natural gas to consumers, so it is exempted by the zoning ordinance from the special-exception requirement.
Standing
Washington Gas argues the landowners lacked standing to appeal to the BZA in the first place. The court disagrees. The circuit court’s factual findings here support both the proximity and particularized-harm requirements for standing.
Lillian Whitesell lives directly on Pimmit Drive where Phase 6 will be installed, and Washington Gas concedes that her location is close enough. And Whitesell showed particularized harm that is different from the harm to the public at large. Whitesell will be unable to drive in or out of her driveway during the workday for up to a week while the pipeline segment is laid in front of her property.
Exemption
The BZA determined that Phase 6 is a transmission line, not an ordinary distribution line that would be exempt from the special-exception requirement. Because it was unclear whether the BZA’s conclusion involved a “question of fact” or “question of law,” the circuit court analyzed it both ways. The court finds no reversible error in either branch of that analysis.
If the BZA made a factual finding that Phase 6 is a transmission line, Washington Gas then had to “rebut that presumption by proving by a preponderance of the evidence . . . that the board of zoning appeals erred in its decision.” It shouldered that burden by proving “that the Phase 6 pipe is a distribution pipe. It is not a transmission line.” And there is no evidence that the result would be any different if the BZA’s determination is viewed as a conclusion of law, reviewed de novo.
The landowners argue that the circuit court erred “by failing to accord appropriate deference” to the BZA’s interpretation of the zMod ordinance. They claim that the BZA’s decision was entitled to “great weight,” yet the circuit court gave it no weight. The court is not persuaded.
The BZA did not explain the legal basis for its conclusion that a pipeline can be a distribution line only if it connects directly to a customer’s home that it passes. Even if this court was legally required to give great weight to the BZA’s determination, this court would find it unpersuasive and not controlling considering the record in this case. Moreover, the two zoning-administrator letters from more than 30 years ago undercut the landowners’ argument for deference.
Nor can the landowners’ argument for giving weight and deference to the BZA’s interpretation be squared with the 2006 amendment to Code § 15.2-2314, which created a “de novo” standard for reviewing the legal conclusions of a board of zoning appeals.
Declaratory judgment
Because Washington Gas’s BZA appeal overturned the BZA’s ruling, it mooted the company’s declaratory-judgment action that sought the same relief on broader grounds. Assuming without deciding that this dispute is capable of repetition as to another Washington Gas project, the company would be free to file another declaratory-judgment action challenging the BZA’s authority.
Affirmed.
Zinner v. Washington Gas Light Company, Record Nos. 1941-23-4, 1962-23-4, July 1, 2025. CAV (Raphael). From the Circuit Court of Fairfax County (Oblon). Isak Howell (Evan Dimond Johns; Isak Howell Law Office; Appalachian Mountain Advocates, on briefs), for Christine Chen Zinner, Kurt Iselt, Sarah Ellis and Lillian Whitesell. Jeremy C. Marwell (Ronald J. Tenpas; Nathan Campbell; Alden L. Atkins; Shane M. Murphy; Laura Golden Liff; Vinson & Elkins LLP; Law Office of Alden L. Atkins, PLLC; Miles & Stockbridge, P.C., on briefs), for Washington Gas Light Company. Marc E. Gori, Assistant County Attorney (Elizabeth D. Teare, County Attorney; T. David Stoner, Deputy County Attorney; F. Hayden Codding, Assistant County Attorney; Office of the Fairfax County Attorney, on brief), for Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, Virginia. (Martin R. Crim; Sands Anderson PC, on brief), for Board of Zoning Appeals of Fairfax County, Virginia. VLW 025-7-168. 30 pp.
