Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Appeal Dismissal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Albemarle County BZA dismisses appeal over property at 1701 Old Forge Road
Summary
The Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals voted 3-0 Dec. 2 to dismiss an appeal (PZ-2025-00002) of a zoning administrator’s notice of violation for 1701 Old Forge Road, finding the notice of appeal did not timely or specifically state grounds required under state and county filing rules.
The Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals voted to dismiss an appeal of a zoning notice of violation for 1701 Old Forge Road at its Dec. 2, 2025 meeting. The board recorded a 3-0 roll-call vote in favor of dismissal, with Miss Joseph, Mister Rosenberg and Mister Burkhart voting “aye.”
The county attorney, Andy Herrick, told the board the appeal, while timely filed, did not specify grounds as required by Virginia Code §15.2-2311(A) and Albemarle County Code §18-34.3(b). Herrick urged dismissal on that procedural basis and said the filing left county staff and counsel unable to prepare targeted rebuttal evidence.
Maynard Saip, the appellant’s attorney, said the appeal was filed in good faith by the property owner, Mr. King, and told the board he had provided a letter asserting grounds that had been mailed to the county and included in the meeting packet. Saip argued the statutory language should be read as directory rather than mandatory in this context and asked the board either to hear the case or continue it to the Jan. 6 meeting so the merits could be addressed.
Board members debated the difference in wording between the state statute and the county ordinance — specifically the placement and force of the word “shall” — and questioned when the appellant’s letter was submitted. Rosenberg said he would vote to dismiss based on his reading that the filing did not meet the specificity required by the statute and county code.
The chair explained that dismissal by the BZA ends the board’s role in the matter; Herrick and board members noted the county could then pursue civil penalties outlined in the county code or the appellant could seek relief in circuit court. County staff described the enforcement path: an initial civil penalty of $200, additional penalties of $500 every 10 days up to a $5,000 maximum, potential abatement orders and, in limited cases, criminal enforcement if the civil-penalty cap is reached.
A neighbor, Ed Basham, spoke during public comment, describing ongoing storage of heavy equipment and vehicles at the property and urging enforcement to remove debris he said had been on site for months or years.
The board concluded the hearing with the dismissal and advised the appellant that a circuit court appeal is available. The hearing was closed and the meeting continued with routine business.
