Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Revocation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County attorney advises against revoking special-exception for Phyllis Lee Drive venue; board declines immediate action
Summary
County Attorney Popovich told supervisors that revoking a special-exception granted for a wedding/photography venue at 219 Phyllis Lee Drive would likely expose the county to a vested-rights claim; after discussion the board declined to pursue revocation and will monitor the situation.
The Amherst County Board of Supervisors heard legal advice Jan. 6 about a special-exception permit (2024-154) for property at 219 Phyllis Lee Drive, where neighbors have complained about events and alleged past violations.
County Attorney Mister Popovich reviewed the record and the ordinance’s revocation standards: the board may consider revocation if there has been a change in conditions affecting public health, safety or welfare since approval, repeated violations of conditions, or fraudulent/misleading information. He said initial complaints included events held before the Virginia Department of Transportation approved a property entrance — a timing issue that VDOT has since resolved — and allegations about loud music and an earlier verbal promise about amplifier use that was not written into the special-exception conditions.
Popovich said landowners can assert a vested-rights defense under the statute referenced in the presentation (cited in the record as "section 15.22307 of the code"), because a grant of a special exception is a significant affirmative governmental act. Given the legal risk and the potential cost of litigation, Popovich recommended that the board not pursue revocation at this time.
Board members who had requested the review said they sympathize with neighbors and described heavy constituent contact, but multiple supervisors said they were not prepared to move forward with revocation after the legal analysis and would prefer to monitor compliance and remain attentive to further complaints. No revocation motion was adopted.
The board did not direct immediate enforcement action beyond monitoring and will rely on any future, documented violations or further legal development before revisiting the matter.
