HomeMy WebLinkAboutAP201800002 Correspondence 2018-12-31 ROYER PETER J.CARAMANIS
Attorney at Law
CARAMANIS a pcaramanis@rcmplc.corn
200-C Garrett Street
M c D O N O U G H Charlottesville,VA 22902
(434)260-8767 1 Fax(434)710-4061
REAL ESTATE ■ BUSINESS ■ BANKING ■ WILLS, TRUSTS El ESTATES ■ CIVIL LITIGATION ■ CRIMINAL DEFENSE III FAMILY LAW • MILITARY LAW
COLLISON F.ROYER
PETER J.CARAMANIS DecemberX,2018
STACEY L.MCDONOUGH
JESSICA F.PHILLIPS
ERNEST A.HARPER Mr.John Shepherd,Chair
SHELLIE S.TAYLOR Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals
TAYLOR R.ODOM
SAMANTHA V.RICCI 401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville,VA 22902
Via Hand Delivery
RE: AP2018-00002-Roslyn Farm and Vineyard
Appellant: MESA Associates/John&Trula Wright
Dear Mr.Shepherd:
As you know, the above-referenced matter came before the Board of Zoning Appeals on
December 4, 2018. Based on procedural deficiencies at that hearing, as outlined below, I am
writing to request that this appeal be carried over to a future meeting,or reconsidered,as the case
maybe.
The issues are as follows:
1. At the meeting on December 4,2018,the motion made was"to deny the appeal." The resulting
vote was 2-2. According to the Albemarle County BZA Rules of Procedure Section 5.D.,a"tie vote
shall defeat the motion voted upon." In other words,the motion to deny the appeal was defeated
by the tie vote. According to Section 5.E., "the defeat of a motion to deny a matter shall not be
deemed to be approval of the matter. In such a case, the Chair shall call for another motion."
Accordingly,the defeat of the motion to deny the appeal did not serve to grant the appeal,but also,
therefore,did not serve to resolve the matter in any fashion,and the issue remains before the BZA
for determination. That evening,it was treated as if the result of the motion was to deny the appeal,
but based on the BZA's Rules of Procedure,that is an incorrect result. Since this matter does need
to come back before the BZA for some final action,and since the vote on December 4 was 2-2,we
respectfully request that the matter be carried over to a meeting after a fifth member of the BZA
has been appointed and can cast a deciding vote.
2. Also at the December 4,2018 meeting,you will recall that I interjected to ask if I could be heard
regarding a motion for deferral. I was immediately shouted down by the property owners'
attorney,and while it seemed the BZA briefly contemplated allowing me to be heard,ultimately,I
was not allowed that opportunity. It was my intent to request a deferral until a fifth BZA member
is appointed. According to the BZA Rules of Procedure 3.D.,"The BZA may defer any matter at the
request of a member of the BZA,the County staff,or the applicant or appellant. The request may
ROYER,CARAMANIS&MCDONOUGH,PLC IS A VIRGINIA PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
www.rcmplc.com
be made either orally at the meeting,or in writing,and may be made at any time prior to the vote
on the matter." At the time I attempted to request a deferral,no vote on the matter had been taken,
and I should have been allowed to be heard,but was not.
Because it seems that no final decision has been made on this appeal, we believe this request is
properly treated as a motion to carry over,and not as a motion for rehearing. That being said,to the extent
the BZA considers that a decision was actually made on December 4, despite the facts summarized in
numbered paragraph 1,above,we ask that you treat this as a request for a rehearing of the matter after a fifth
and deciding BZA member is seated.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. I would be glad to answer any questions you or the
other BZA members may have as you consider it.
Best regards.
Very truly yours,
Peter J. aramanis
Cc: John&Trula Wright
ROYER
CARAMNANISMcDONOUGH& Page 2 of 2