Mathews County zoning appeal for 21 Pine Road postponed after clerical error, to be reheard within 100 days

A Mathews County Board of Zoning Appeals hearing on application 202500352 was not heard May 21 after the county’s zoning department advertised the wrong ordinance sections, the board said. The application, for a reduction of the 100-foot resource-protected area (RPA) buffer to 56 feet to allow construction of a 20-by-20 detached garage at 21 Pine Road in an R-1 district, will be rescheduled and re-advertised within the 100-day window required by the bylaws.

The board’s secretary, Susan Thomas, read the application and the reason it would not be heard, saying the published notice cited Section 175-22.6 of the Mathews County Zoning Ordinance rather than the sections staff identified as applicable: Section 175-22.11 and Section 175-22.16, which relate to reductions to the RPA buffer. Thomas also said the notice needed to include zoning yard reduction citations identified as Section 175-64.4(b) and Section 175-6.6(b). “The application 202500352 will not be heard tonight for the reasons of it was incorrectly advertised,” Thomas said.

Bobby Andre, the Mathews County planning director, told the board he and another staff member would be unavailable for the board’s June 11 date because they would be attending an out‑of‑county training. “We will…not be here for any on June 11. We are going to be up in Charlottesville,” Andre said when discussing scheduling options. The board initially noted a proposed rescheduled hearing date of June 11 at 7 p.m., but later accepted a motion to set the new hearing date to be determined so it can fall within the county’s 100‑day requirement and after the required re-advertising and neighbor notification.

An applicant representative who identified himself as the contractor said the applicant had learned of the delay only that afternoon and objected to the late notice, calling it “a late notice for the applicant.” The contractor also said he had been authorized to speak for the applicant that evening.

The board took these formal actions related to the application:

- The board voted to close the portion of the public hearing for application 202500352 and move the matter to new business for scheduling. Roll call for that vote recorded: “Mister Bergall? Aye. Mister Gibbs? Aye. Miss Thomas? Aye.”

- The board later approved a motion to schedule the hearing at a later date to be determined, within the 100-day period from the application filing, with the requirement that the application be re-advertised at least two weeks before the new hearing and that letters be sent to adjacent neighbors notifying them of the corrected filing. A roll-call on the motion to set the new date as “to be determined” was recorded as “Mister Merkwa? Aye. Mister Diaz? Aye. Miss Thomas? Aye.” (The transcript records these roll-call names and “Aye” votes.)

During discussion, the board and staff emphasized that the incorrect code citation in the published notice was a clerical error in the county zoning office and that the notice and signage need to reflect all applicable ordinance sections so the hearing can address all requested reductions at once. Thomas said the application must be re-advertised and adjacent property owners re-notified prior to the new hearing date. The planning director said staff would coordinate with the applicant on available dates.

No substantive ruling on the merits of the application was made at the May 21 meeting; the board’s actions were procedural: to close the public-hearing portion of the meeting and to set the application for a new hearing date within the 100-day filing window. The applicant’s hearing will be re-advertised and notices to neighbors sent before the rescheduled hearing.

The board also took the item under advisement and said it would discuss the communication issues with the planning department to avoid future clerical errors.