Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board adopts remote participation policy, denies cumulative extra hearing time for Miller
Summary
Albemarle County’s Board of Equalization unanimously adopted a draft remote participation policy and denied Lawrence Miller’s request for cumulative extra hearing time, allowing him instead to combine his allotted time across three parcels into a single 30‑minute presentation.
Albemarle County’s Board of Equalization on May 1, 2025, unanimously adopted a draft remote participation policy and separately denied a request from Lawrence Miller for cumulative extra hearing time for three parcels; the board allowed Miller to combine his allotted presentation time so he may present all three appeals in a single 30‑minute block.
The remote participation policy decision followed questions from board members about limits on remote participation and whether vacation or being out of the country would be acceptable justifications. Board members were told the policy requires a physical quorum to be present; remote participation is allowed only if a quorum is present in person. County staff and the county attorney advised that county equipment and county accounts automatically cannot be used while outside the country; therefore the policy distinguishes between in‑country and out‑of‑country participation largely because of technical and equipment‑access constraints.
Board members asked whether being on vacation would qualify for remote participation; staff replied that vacation alone is not sufficient justification under the draft policy. The county attorney’s guidance was described as allowing out‑of‑country participation provided the member does not use county equipment or accounts; the board discussed whether to remove an out‑of‑country clause but ultimately voted to adopt the draft as presented.
On a separate matter, the board considered a request from Lawrence Miller for additional cumulative time across appeals for three parcels. Board members said they saw the three appeals as sufficiently similar that Miller could present them together; a motion denied his request for cumulative extra time but gave him the option to conjoin the presentations into a single 30‑minute slot. That motion passed unanimously.
Both actions were recorded as unanimous votes and will be reflected in the board’s rules and hearing scheduling practice going forward.
