[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6642334,"mediaKeyId","2623231-5c3b9edfcea60d208557b8b199dfdf90","parentId",2623231,"title","BZA reviews rules of procedure; agrees to add state tie-vote language, discusses ex parte contacts and funding for alternates","audioSeconds",2173,"startMs",3073000,"endMs",5246000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2623231-5c3b9edfcea60d208557b8b199dfdf90&start=3073&end=5246","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2623231-5c3b9edfcea60d208557b8b199dfdf90/thumbnail_3073000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6642334/Albemarle-County/Virginia/BZA-reviews-rules-of-procedure-agrees-to-add-state-tie-vote-language-discusses-ex-parte-contacts-and-funding-for-alternates","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6642334-6e8005af2207892cf493ffcbf3b8e6d8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771145577&Signature=W7qG70oa5Ice2~yIT54qnfjlcW0Sf797MNtITq8RFPkghutz3yHve3ist2FwYfsmQMJ79kAH1YMCfjqgJhyVjGZ3tbwSzqfmsfVIJDxvOZ-CHGQ-d0i7UXqncxM7zII0l644RX2TU47rQSeSczYCC3J5cphIw5qMjmeI5aXPbGjchC15jXsonACY1LfQdSG0c5DvIC3TQHyEPcJI8nmq6pjZydboiwd8HtYoXP8wrZV1weX4xGJfo718zkgLdNrIn3NQfZmJljda2PMksEmP4NlJNtVfH5OsCawz4EyzDAdKwRbzsJHDEbuoSUuQBOYKyIIO7U~cVER2WfE9RFRcOg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Albemarle County","date","2025-02-12T11:21:16.363Z","article","Albemarle County’s Board of Zoning Appeals spent a substantial portion of its Feb. 4 meeting reviewing proposed changes to its rules of procedure and discussing board alternates and budget implications.

Board member Kurt Burkhart proposed several amendments, including requiring the chair to administer oaths and compelling witness attendance, adding a link to meeting recordings in the minutes, creating a standing ex parte-communications disclosure step on agendas, and inserting specific state statutory language for tie votes in appeals.

Nut graf: The board did not adopt rule changes immediately but reached consensus to have staff draft revisions that include the Code of Virginia tie-vote language used for appeals; the board also discussed long-running requests to add a paid alternate position and learned county budget guidance currently pressures departments to submit zero-increase budgets.

Key proposals and board reactions
Burkhart initially proposed changing the rule that currently reads the chair “may” administer oaths to “shall” administer oaths for witnesses. After discussion about statutory alignment and practical concerns — including whether subpoenas or perjury prosecutions would follow — Burkhart withdrew the mandatory wording and indicated he would instead consider a more limited approach (chair discretion or practice changes).

Board discussion covered ex parte communications at length. One member urged restraint: “I have, taken the position that subjects that we consider here are things I don't discuss with other people, especially elected officials,” saying judges avoid such communications because of appearance concerns. Other members noted that limited, inadvertent conversations happen and that staff has advised members to disclose any such contacts so all parties can be informed before a hearing.

Tie-vote statutory language and next steps
The group agreed it would be appropriate to add the exact language from Code of Virginia \u00015.2-2311 (tie votes in appeals) to the board’s rules and to the appeals guidance where relevant. The code language states in part: “in any appeal taken pursuant to this section, if the board's attempt to reach a decision results in a tie vote, the matter shall be carried over until the next scheduled meeting at the request of the person filing the appeal.” Members said staff should include the language in a revised draft for formal adoption at the next meeting.

Budget and alternate-member request
Board members raised a longstanding item: a request for a paid alternate to ensure a full five-member panel at hearings. Zoning staff said the county’s budget guidance for the coming fiscal cycle was to submit zero-increase proposals. Zoning Administrator Bart Svoboda told the board, “we were charged with no increases in our proposal,” and said staff had nonetheless transmitted the alternate request through departmental channels for consideration. The board discussed making a joint public-comment request to the Board of Supervisors or otherwise following up to ensure the request is reviewed.

Closing and next steps
The board asked staff to prepare a revised rules-of-procedure document that (1) inserts the statutory tie-vote language, (2) clarifies the appeals and tie-vote process for applicants, and (3) tracks other cleanups discussed (ex parte disclosure step, minutes/recording references). The board plans to act on a formal adoption at its next monthly meeting after the staff draft is circulated.
","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Meeting 2025-02-04","oneSentenceSummary","Board members debated amending rules to address ex parte communications, oath administration for witnesses, and adding a statutory tie-vote provision. The board asked staff to draft revised rules for adoption at the next meeting and discussed an outstanding request to fund a BZA alternate amid a constrained county budget.","taxTitle","Albemarle County, Virginia","taxId",4417,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6642340,"Albemarle County BZA denies Clark’s Tract lot-size variance request",2821,194000,3015000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2623231-5c3b9edfcea60d208557b8b199dfdf90&start=194&end=3015","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2623231-5c3b9edfcea60d208557b8b199dfdf90/thumbnail_194000.jpg","/articles/6642340/Albemarle-County/Virginia/Albemarle-County-BZA-denies-Clarks-Tract-lot-size-variance-request","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6642340-d0499096adec41446807c574e4d19673/orig.mp4?Expires=1771145577&Signature=DEyG7TKuxLiC-FDcGr83xtbx-G6LUwwoj-Vxfs5515V25~l8zTkPtaZ7UF9SpD-5lINJHiXQLf7eZfRT-EM22Z7jNtSzL1ZsRZ3RWzXzc13Wfzu76adDa78O1HFgvpx2cOE0VpQnESatKOiEyKLEhhIvEfiGV3a5CMJ9t~EWTPHK-TTezFnA2nUMZPHQWqkLm~0gKkEibCM~4kZX6gBNxOobAfgLpR-TQbUWfxGUUZpWeeWWW2GR94mCDe6KesvuQN~hgDU8SO2XkDkMrxfOejIvoHH9eiZyWmAL1xxIUTE2Xi2we8P5MQ0Jj6cspZNuGkV4UL6~VCuWt9oGaRbPvA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals voted 5-0 on Feb. 4 to deny a variance request that would have reduced an existing lot in the rural area from 7.01 acres to about 1.3867 acres.

The application, filed as VA202403654 for a property on Clark’s Tract, was presented by applicant Andrew Lin, who said the change would “adhere to the rural character by adding 5 acres of pasture from 654 to an existing horse farm and leaves a balance of 1.3 with a house in conformance with the neighboring 1 acre plus or minus size residences.” Lin told the board he sought the change to protect his viewshed and keep pastureland attached to his horse farm.

County staff, represented by Deputy Zoning Administrator Francis McCall, recommended denial. McCall told the board the application “does not meet all of those particular criteria” for a variance and therefore staff recommended denial. County Attorney Andy Herrick framed the board’s legal question succinctly: “The question for the board is, does this 2 acre minimum unreasonably restrict the utilization of the applicant’s 7 plus acre parcel?”

Nut graf: The board rejected the variance after deliberations that stressed the long-standing two-acre minimum for rural-area lots in Albemarle County’s zoning code and the narrow legal standard for approving variances. Members said the applicant had reasonable options short of reducing the required minimum, including deed restrictions or pursuing a rezoning.

Board discussion and reasoning
Board members asked staff and the county attorney about the origin and practical application of the two-acre minimum for the rural area. Staff and counsel said the two-acre minimum has existed since the county’s 1980 zoning ordinance; McCall and others said historical practice has largely carried that requirement forward. Herrick and other speakers noted many smaller lots in the area predate the 1980 ordinance.

Several board members said denial was appropriate under the variance criteria. One board member said the county’s rural lot minimum does not “unreasonably restrict the use of this property,” and that the request did not show the hardship standard required for a variance. Another board member noted the county’s comprehensive-plan focus on concentrating growth in designated growth areas rather than allowing increased density in the rural area.

Applicant response and alternatives
Lin described the parcel layout and his concern for the view from his barn and driveway. He pointed to on-site septic reserve areas and told the board that adjacent small lots lack suitable space for drain fields. During questioning, board members and counsel suggested alternatives the applicant could pursue, including scenic easements, deed restrictions, or a rezoning application to change the property’s zoning if the applicant sought smaller lot sizes through legislative processes.

Vote and outcome
Board member John Shepherd moved to deny the variance application; the motion was seconded. The roll-call vote was Joseph — Aye; Rosenberg — Aye; Burkhart — Aye; Shepherd — Aye; Carrington — Aye. The motion carried 5-0, and the board formally denied VA202403654.

Ending: procedural notes
The board heard the variance as the meeting’s first public hearing item after a short agenda amendment. The applicant’s appeal options were not altered by the board’s vote; counsel noted the applicant could pursue alternatives such as rezoning or private deed restrictions. The denial was recorded in the meeting minutes and will be reflected in the official decision notice.
","The Board of Zoning Appeals denied a request to reduce a rural-area lot from 7.01 acres to 1.3867 acres (case VA202403654). Staff recommended denial, and the board voted 5-0 to deny after finding the application failed to meet the variance standards in Albemarle County Code.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

BZA reviews rules of procedure; agrees to add state tie-vote language, discusses ex parte contacts and funding for alternates

Albemarle County BZA denies Clark’s Tract lot-size variance request