You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Granny's Cottage, Inc. v. Town of Occoquan

Citations: 3 Va. App. 577; 352 S.E.2d 10; 3 Va. Law Rep. 1583; 1987 Va. App. LEXIS 142Docket: No. 1092-85

Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia; January 6, 1987; Virginia; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, a corporation, Granny’s Cottage, Inc., was convicted of multiple violations of the Uniform Statewide Building Code (U.S.B.C.) for occupying several condominium units without obtaining Certificates of Use and Occupancy, as required under § 119.2. The primary legal issue revolved around whether each unit required an individual certificate despite ongoing renovations. The court affirmed that separate certificates were necessary to ensure compliance with public health and safety standards, rejecting Granny’s Cottage’s argument for a 30-day grace period post-renovation. Furthermore, the court examined the conflict between the Town's ordinance and the U.S.B.C., ruling that state law takes precedence and invalidating the Town's harsher penalty provisions. The case also addressed the statute of limitations, concluding that the prosecution was timely as the violations were not deemed continuous offenses. The court partially reversed the initial judgment regarding the imposed fines, remanding the case for sentencing in accordance with state law, thereby reinforcing the primacy of the U.S.B.C. over local ordinances in regulating building occupancy and safety standards.

Legal Issues Addressed

Continuing Offenses and Statute of Limitations

Application: The court ruled that violations of § 119.2 of the U.S.B.C. are not continuing offenses, impacting how the statute of limitations is applied.

Reasoning: It was determined that violations of § 119.2 of the U.S.B.C. are not continuing offenses.

Local Ordinance Penalty Provisions

Application: The penalty provisions in the Town's ordinance were found invalid as they conflicted with state law, which does not allow for penalties exceeding those stipulated by the U.S.B.C.

Reasoning: The penalty provision in Town ordinance § 4-14 conflicts with state law and cannot be upheld due to Code § 1-13.17.

Requirement for Certificate of Use and Occupancy

Application: The court held that each condominium unit must receive a Certificate of Use and Occupancy before it can be occupied, irrespective of ongoing renovations.

Reasoning: The Town argued that the law requires a Certificate of Use and Occupancy for each unit before occupancy, regardless of whether parts of the building were occupied during the renovations.

Uniform Statewide Building Code Precedence

Application: The court determined that the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (U.S.B.C.) takes precedence over conflicting local ordinances, ensuring uniformity in building code enforcement.

Reasoning: Code § 36-98 mandates that the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (U.S.B.C.) take precedence over local building codes, indicating a legislative intent for a uniform statewide building code.