HomeMy WebLinkAboutAP201900004 Correspondence 2019-10-11Evelyn Bufton
John R. Maus
BUFTON & MAUS, PLC
Attorneys at Law
Post Office Box L`.
7380 Gordonsville Road
Gordonsville, Virginia 22942
phone: (540) 832-6172
fax: (540) 406-5911
October 11, 2019
BY EMAIL TO MALLEY3PALBEMARLE.ORG
Ms. Marsha Alley, Recording Secretary
Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Re: County's Motion for Rehearing of Bufton & Maus appeal (AP201900004)
Dear Ms. Alley:
Enclosed herewith is our Objection to the County's Motion for Rehearing. Because
(1) Mr. Herrick chose to send our copy of his motion by the slowest means available (i.e., by
US Postal Service), rather than by fax or email, each of which addresses he had, (2) Mr.
Herrick suggests that the BZA must act quickly on the County's motion and (3) we are about
to enter a 3-day holiday weekend, I am sending a copy of this letter and our Objection to the
BZA chairman, John Shepherd.
Thanking you for your continuing courtesy, I remain
VetIV tru
hn R. Maus
Enclosure
Cc: Mr. Herrick (by first class mail)
Mr. Bowling (by first class mail)
Mr. Shepherd (by email)
Cili.�e_�[►�iG��.
BEFORE THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
In Re: Bufton & Maus Law Office Appeal No AP2019-00004
Objection to Motion for Rehearing
Applicants respectfully move the Albemarle County Board of Zoning
Appeals (hereinafter, "the BZA") to deny the motion of the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors for rehearing pursuant to Rule 5(J) of the BZA's rules and,
in support hereof, state that:
1. Rule 5(J) provides that the BZA may grant a motion for rehearing
provided that an appeal has not been taken to the Circuit Court only if:
A. new evidence can be presented that, in the opinion of the BZA, is
relevant and material to the decision but could not have been
presented at the original hearing, or
B. in the opinion of the BZA, one or more relevant and material
conditions or situations have changed so as to bear on the BZA's
original decision.
2. On its face, the County's Motion for Rehearing does not allege that new
evidence has been discovered that could not have been presented at the
original hearing, nor does it allege that there has been any change of
circumstances since the BZA hearing and decision.
3. Instead, the County's Motion for Rehearing suggests that the BZA acted
improperly by:
A. Shifting the burden of proof from the Applicants to the administrative
officer, and
B. Misinterpreting the application of Virginia Code §15.2-2311(C).
4. Neither of the grounds set forth in paragraphs 3A and 3B above is
grounds for rehearing under Rule 5(J).
S. The Motion for Rehearing also curiously - and incorrectly - alleges that
the County's decision to question the BZA ruling somehow constitutes a
change in relevant and material conditions or situations.
WHEREFORE, Applicants respectfully move the Board of Zoning Appeals
to deny the County's Motion for Rehearing.
John R. Maus, Attorney at Law
Virginia State Bar No. 13420
Bufton & Maus, PLC
Post Office Box E
Gordonsville, Virginia 22942
Phone: 540-832-6172
Fax: 540-406-5911
Certificate
I certify that, on October 11, 2019, I sent a copy of the foregoing pleading
by first class mail, postage prepaid, to:
Andrew W. Herrick, Deputy County Attorney
Albemarle County Attorney's Office
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
And
James M. Bowling, IV, Esq.
St. John, Bowling, Lawrence and Quagliana, LLP
416 Park Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902