The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAP201900004 Other 2019-11-04VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE IN RE: OCTOBER 1, 2019 DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CASE NO. OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY Serve: David Bowerman, Secretary Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals 401 Berwick Court Charlottesville, VA 22901 WRIT OF CERTIORARI Upon the Petition of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (the "Board") for a writ of certiorari to review, the October 1, 2019 decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals (the "BZA") of Albemarle County, pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-2314, the Court hereby: 1. ALLOWS a writ of certiorari to review the October 1, 2019 decision of the BZA, and 2. ORDERS the Secretary or Chair of the BZA to make a return within 10 days of service upon said Secretary or Chair of the BZA. a. The BZA shall not be required to return the original papers acted upon by it but it shall be sufficient to return certified or sworn copies thereof. b. The return shall concisely set forth such other facts as may be pertinent and material to show the -grounds of the decision appealed from and shall be verified. DATE I ask for this: 01 LL 0 �Lj Andrew H. Herrick, VSB #37236 ALBEMARLE COUNTY ATTORNEY' S OFFICE 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 (434) 972-4067 , FAX (434) 972-4068 Counsel for Petitioner Albemarle County Board of Supervisors by VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE IN RE: ) OCTOBER 1, 2019 DECISION ) OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ) Case No. CL19-1699 OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY ) RETURN The Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals (hereinafter, the "BZA") respectfully makes its return to the Writ of Certiorari entered in the above -captioned case. A certified copy of the full and complete record of the proceedings before the BZA in the challenged decision, BZA Appeal No. 2019-004, is filed herewith. ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS By: Marsha Alley, Recording Secret VERIFICATION I, Marsha Alley, Recording Secretary of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, being duly sworn and say that I have read the foregoing return and know the contents thereof, and that the same is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Given under my hand this V6 day of -DCeCm et-- , 2019. '-Ml." 114-) Marsha Alley, Recording Vcretary Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY/C-@tN-T-Y OF G�,o.clo�ie3y� Ne Subscribed and sworn to before me this 4 h, day of ec.eM her , 2019, by Marsha Alley, who is personally known to me. Notary Public My Commission Expires: 7j31/aZ \�11111Ylllllllff/f��/,, Registration number: 77,?- 361 o ARY s * ' • RE r'UBL1C n r G. #7783351 � # i 0:. 1'COMM1SS10N WIRES . 21 0713 �`� Iffillltll CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 5, 2019, a true copy of the foregoing Return, and a certified copy of the full and complete record of the proceedings before the Board of Zoning Appeals of Albemarle County in Appeal No. 2019-004, was hand -delivered to James M. Bowling, IV, Esq., St. John, Bowling, Lawrence & Quagliana, LLP, at 416 Park Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4738; and to Greg Kamptner, County Attorney, County of Albemarle, Virginia, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22902-4596. I also hereby certify that on December 5, 2019, a true copy of the foregoing Return, and a certified copy of the full and complete record of the proceedings before the Board of Zoning Appeals of Albemarle County in Appeal No. 2019- 004, was mailed, postage prepaid, to John Maus and Evelyn Bufton, P.O. Box E, Gordonsville, VA 22942. Marsha Alley 3 Table of Contents AP 2019-004 Cover Sheet Official Decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals............................................................ 6 Preliminary Package (emailed and mailed to BZA members on September 10, 2019) TentativeAgenda.......................................................................................................... 10 Preliminary Package Cover Memo.....................................................................11 H02019-00233 Letter of Determination, dated July 30, 2019....................................12 Application for Major Home Occupation, submitted by applicant on June 4, 2019.........13 Application for Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Determination with Attachments, submitted by applicant on August 12, 2019......................................................... .16 Background and Case Precedent........................................................................18 Building Permit B2017-02431-NNR......................................................................20 Physical Address Notification..............................................................................22 GISMap.....................................................................................................23 Section 5.2A of the Zoning Ordinance ............................................. ,...................... 24 Section 10.4 of the Zoning Ordinance....................................................................27 Final Package (emailed and mailed to BZA members on September 23, 2019) Agenda......................................................................................................................... 28 Staff Report and Attachments....................................................................................... 29 Attachment A: Current GIS Map of the Property ............................................... 32 Attachment B: Building Permit B2017-02431-NNR........................................... 33 Attachment C: Major Home Occupation Clearance Application ........................ 41 Attachment D: Staff Email to the Applicant dated June 17, 2019...................... 46 Attachment E: Official Determination "RE: H02019-00233 Major Home Occupation Clearance"......................................................................................................... 47 Attachment F: AP201900004 Application......................................................... 49 Attachment G: Staff Email to the Applicant dated September 29, 2017 ............ 60 Attachment H: Building Permit Layout.............................................................. 62 Memorandum from Andrew Herrick, Deputy County Attorney ....................................... 63 Information Requested by John Shepherd................................................................ 66 N Additional Information Information Submitted by Applicant on September 30, 2019.................................... 106 Legal Advertisement and Notices Legal Advertisements from the Daily Progress........................................................... 117 AppellantNotification.................................................................................................. 122 Adjacent Owner Notification....................................................................................... 123 Adjacent Owner List and Map.................................................................................. 124 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on October 1, 2019 Staff PowerPoint Presentation Slides......................................................................... 126 Draft Minutes from October 1, 2019 BZA Meeting ...................................................... 136 Transcribed Minutes from October 1, 2019 BZA Meeting ........................................... 161 Qr COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 _ Phone (434) 29b-5$32 Faa (434) 972 4126 October 14, 2019 Evelyn Burton and John R. Maus P.O. Box E Gordonsville, VA 22942 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action AP201900004 Bufton & Maus (Evelyn Bufton and John R. Maus (owners/appellants)) TMP 50 — 49 Dear Ms. Bufton and Mr. Maus: At their meeting on October 1, 2019, the Board of Zoning Appeals voted 3:1 to overturn the determination of the Zoning Administrator based on Code of Virginia §15.2-2311(c). If you are aggrieved by this decision, you have the right to appeal it within thirty (30) days of the date of the decision, in accordance with Section 15.2-2314 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this decision shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing a petition specifying the grounds on which aggrieved with the Circuit Court of Albemarle County within the prescribed thirty (30) days. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, Bart J. Svoboda Zoning Administrator OF A �h �IRGIN�A COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Phone (434) 296-5832 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 0-- Board of Zoning Appeals Decision Summary Sheet Tuesday, October 1, 2019 972-4126 Project: AP201900004 Bufton & Maus TMP 50 - 49 (Sign #22) APPELLANT: Evelyn Bufton and John R. Maus SUBJECT PROPERTY: (PARCEL ID: 05000-00-00-04900, Acreage: 2.40 acres) is owned by Evelyn Bufton and John R. "Jack" Maus and is located at 7380 Gordonsville Road ZONING: Rural Areas (RA) ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Comp Plan Area designation of Rural Area 2. Comp Plan Land Use — Primary designation of Rural Area. APPEAL: The Appellants are appealing the denial of a Major Home Occupation Clearance (H02019-233) on the Subject Property. Decision: ❑ Approved ❑ Denied ❑ Deferred ❑ Upheld * Overturned ❑ Modified K Chairman's Signature: Sig 0 -r- 2 -A Date FOR OFFICE USE ONLY AP # ,�& /mil Ocllf2e; y SIGN' # ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION: Fee Amount 5 1 . Date Paid f Z ( By Wio ? _C Iteccipt r1-- - —(I By Application for Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Determination m Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Determination = S258 FEES to be paid after staff review for public notice: Appeals of the Zoning Administrator require a public hearing by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. The total fee for public notice will be provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body. Staff estimates the total cost of legal advertisement and adjacent owner notification to be behveen $350 and $450. This estimate reflects the average cost of public notice fees, but the cost of certain applications may be hither. Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices $2 Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50) $1.08 for each additional notice � actual cost of first-class postage Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public Actual cost hearing) (averages between S150 and 5250) Contact Person (Who should eve call%write concerning this project?): Jack Maus Address Post Office Box E _ City Gordonsville ---- — State VA Zip 22942 Daytime Phone (540) 894-1006 Fax # ( 540) 406-5911 _ E-mail jackmauslaw@gmail.com Owner of Record Evelyn Bufton and John R. "Jack" Maus Address Post Office Box E State VA Zip 22942 Daytime Phone ( 804 ) 432-0920 Fax 9 (540) 406-5911 E-mail ebuftonlaw@gmaii.com Applicant (Who is the Contact person representing?) Address Post Office Box E City Gordonsville Burton and John R. Maus City Gordonsville Daytime Phone ( 540) 894_1006 Fax # ( 540 ) 406-5911 State VA Zip 22942 E-mail jackmauslaw@gmai[.com County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126 Revised 1 111-12015 Page 1 0172 Project Name: Bufton & Maus Law Office Tax map and parcel: 050000-00-00-04900 Zoning: rural Physical Street Address (ifassigned); 7380 Gordonsville Road, Gordonsville Virginia 22942 Location of property (landmarks, intersections, or other): Rt. 231 approximately 2 miles north of the intersection with Lindsay Road - across from Fielder's Choice Farm The following information shall be submitted with the application and is to be provided by the applicant: 1) Completed application including subject of appeal. 2) Justification for applicant's position, includin; error in Zoning Administrators determination. You may use the space below; to provide this information or submit an attached sheet. 3) If applicable, a copy of the latest deed for the property involved, and the approved and recorded plat. 4) If applicable, the appropriate drawings showing all existing and proposed improvements on the property and any special conditions for the situation that may justify the appeal. 5) Reference to the relevant Zoning Ordinance section or other applicable regulations or case precedence to justify the appeal. 6) Appropriate fee made payable to the County of Albemarle. Explanation of error in determination and justification of applicant's position: As further ex lained on the attachment the 'usitification for applicants' position is that (1) they fully disclosed to the Department of Community Development their intended use for the buildin 2 the De artment issued a BuildingPermit approving the lacement of the building(3) the a licants relied on the Building Permit in locating the building, and(4) the appli- cants' reliance on the Building Permit and their expenditure of substantial funds to construct the building is to their detriment if they are unable to use the building for itPwner/Applicant Must Read and Sign intended purpose. I hereby certify that the information provided on this application and accompanying information is accurate, trite and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. t�- Sig p e of Owner or Contracf'Purchaser, .Agent Date:xO - r rint Name Daytime phone number of Signatory A Board of Zoning e O V e t- t rti `� c Q A i r Ut Appeals Action/vote: �o4a r cr5_ 41A.-I r r rs fv£ j aS Board of Zoning Appeals Chairman's signature: r C3 s 3 i` �cf ___ Date: Revised 11/1/2015 Page 2 01`2 9 'AL �"jRC'x1:yt�' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 401 MCINTIRE ROAD LANE AUDITORIUM, 2:00 P.M AGENDA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2019 1. Call to Order 2. Establish a Quorum 3. Public Hearing: A. Project Number: AP201900004 Bufton & Maus TMP 50 - 49 Property Owner/Appellant: Evelyn Bufton and John R. Maus Staff: Bart Svoboda/Kevin McCollum 4. Approval of Minutes A. June 4, 2019 5. Old Business 6. New Business 7. Adjournment �o BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING GUIDELINES Thank you for attending the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) meeting. The following information is provided to help ensure the meeting proceeds as efficiently and effectively as possible. As a courtesy to others, please turn off all cell phones during the meeting. General Information: This meeting is recorded and later transcribed into minutes approved at a later meeting date. Each item set for public hearing will begin with a presentation of the staff report. Next, the applicant or appellant for that item will be invited to speak. During the course of the process, the Chairman will open the public hearing to comments from the public. At the end of these proceedings the Chairman will announce that the public hearing is closed. Once the public hearing is closed, no further public comments will be allowed unless the Board asks for additional information from the applicant or appellant. The BZA reserves the right to digress from these guidelines in any particular case. To Members of the Public: If you wish to address the Board, please raise your hand or stand when the Chairman asks for public comments for that item. When it is your turn for comment, please come to the microphone and state your name for the record. For uncommon spellings, please spell your name for the recording secretary. If you are with a group of people, you may want to have a spokesperson present your position to the Board. In order to give all speakers equal treatment and courtesy, the Board requests that speakers adhere to the following guidelines: • Come forward to the speaker's podium and state your name, - Address comments directly to the Board as a whole - open public debate is prohibited; • State your position and give facts and other data to back it up — keep in mind that there is a 3 minute time limit for public comment; • Give written statements and other supporting material to the Recording Secretary (written comments are also welcome if you do not wish to speak). Additional Guidelines for Applicants and Appellants addressing the Board: • Please contact staff in Community Development ahead of the meeting to make any necessary arrangements for your presentation. The Recording Secretary will also need copies of any handouts given to the BZA members for the official record of the meeting. • Be clear in stating your position and do not repeat information that has been previously submitted to the Board. • Stay on topic by addressing the questions in the application or by responding directly to staffs determination(s). Focus on presenting facts and data that support your position. • Keep in mind there is a 15 minute time limit for presentations and a 5 minute time limit for rebuttal comments. The Board will ask any necessary follow-up questions to clarify points made during the presentation. • Understand that the Board of Zoning Appeals cannot change County ordinances. The BZA reserves the right to place additional time limitations on speakers, as necessary. JOA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 Memorandum To: Members of the Board of Zoning Appeals From: Kevin McCollum, Planner and Designee to the Zoning Administrator Division: Zoning Subject: Preliminary Package for AP-2019-004 "Burton & Maus" Board of Zoning Appeals - October 1, 2019 Meeting Date: September 10, 2019 To Whom It May Concern: This memorandum serves as cover sheet and provides information on all of the items included in the AP-2019-4 Preliminary Package. This appeal is scheduled for the Board of Zoning Appeals on October 1, 2019. Preliminary Package Items: 1. RE: HO2019-00233 Major Home Occupation Clearance - Bufton and Maus, PLC This letter, written on July 30, 2019, informed the applicant that the above referenced Zoning Clearance could not be approved at the time because the structure did not comply with the primary structure setbacks for the Rural Areas zoning district. 2. Clearance Application A copy of the Major Home Occupation Clearance Application - HO201900233. 3. Applicant Submittal This preliminary package includes all of the information the Applicant provided with their appeal application. VMIr A map of the subject property, 7380 Gordonsville Road. September 10, 2019 AP2019-4 Preliminary Package Page 2 5. Section 5.2A of the Zoning Ordinance This section of the Zoning Ordinance provides the regulations for Home Occupation Clearances in the Rural Areas zoning district. 6. Section 10.4 of the Zoning Ordinance This section of the Zoning Ordinance provides the area and bulk regulations for the Rural Areas zoning district. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 July 30, 2019 John R. Maus 7380 Gordonsville Rd Gordonsville, VA 22942 RE: H02019-00233 Major Home Occupation Clearance - Bufton and Maus, PLC Parcel ID 05000-00-00-04900 (2.40 Acres) (the "Property"), 7380 Gordonsville Rd, Gordonsville, VA 22942 Mr. Maus: In response to your request for a Major Home Occupation Clearance for the above referenced Property in the Rural Areas, please be advised of the following: Based on the information provided with the application and the site inspection conducted on June 13, 2019 the accessory structure on the Property, proposed with building permit B2017- 02431 NNR, does not meet the applicable setback and. yard requirements for primary structures required by Section 5.2A(c). Thus, the noted accessory structure cannot be used for the proposed Major Home Occupation until it is determined to comply with the primary structure setbacks for the Rural Areas zoning district. Therefore, in accordance with Albemarle County Code § 18-5.2A(c) and Albemarle County Code § 18-31.5(b) the above referenced Major Home Occupation Clearance cannot be approved at this time. Additionally, if the proposed Major Home Occupation operates on the Property without an approved Zoning Clearance it will be considered in violation and subject to Albemarle County Code § 18-36. If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty (30) days of this notice, in accordance with Virginia Code § 15.2-2311. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal may be taken only by filing an appeal application with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals, in accordance with Albemarle County Code § 18-34.3, along with a fee of $258. Additionally, a separate fee is required for the cost of providing notice and advertising of the appeal for a public hearing. Applications for Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's Determination are available at the Department of Community Development located at 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 or online at www.albemarle.oro/cdapps. This form applies to the appeal of a decision of the zoning administrator or any other administrative officer pertaining to the Zoning Ordinance. July 30, 2019 HO201900233 Page 2 Regulations pertaining to the filing of an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals are located in Chapter 18, Section 34.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. They may be reviewed online at www albemarle.org/countycodebza. (Please note that our online documents are in Adobe Acrobat PDF format and must be viewed with the Adobe Acrobat Reader or an equivalent. A link to download the free plug-in is available at the bottom of www.albemarle.org/cdapps.) Please contact me if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, A Kevin McCollum Planner Authorized Designee to the Zoning Administrator Attachments: Links shown can be copied and pasted into web browser Albemarle County Code § 18-5 (See Section 5.2A for Major Home Occupation requirements) httID_///www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms Center/Departments/County Attorney/Forms/Al bemarle County Code Ch18 Zoning05 Supplement Regulations.pdf Albemarle County Code § 18-31 (See Section 31.5 for Zoning Clearance requirements) http://www.albemarle.org/upload/imaaes/Forms Center/Departments/County Attorney/Forms/Al bemarle County Code Ch18 Zoning31 Admin Enforcernent.pdf Albemarle County Code § 18-10 - Area and Bulk Regulations Sec. 10.4 ("applicable setback and yard requirements for primary structures" ref. 5.2A(c)) http://www albemarie.org/upload/images/Forms Center/Departments/County Attorney/Forms/AI bemarle County Code Ch18 Zoning10 Rural Areas.pdf Albemarle County Code § 18-36 http:/Iwww.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms Center/Departments/County Attorney/Forms/AI bemarle County Code Ch18 Zoning36 Violations.pdf IdA FOR OFFICE USE ONLY l HO # 00 Fee Amount $r%` t ` Date Paid _By who? J . Receipt V I IC5—A Ck4 1 I � � By. r xw' Application for Major Home Occupation Clearance A'' (Only for parcels in the Rural Areas Zoning District) - � � Major Home Occupation Clearance = $27.00 + applicable fees This application may require additional review by the Fire Marshal. Fees in addition to those shown on this application may be required by the Fire Prevention Code Fee Schedule. A copy of the schedule is available from the Fire Marshal. Home Occupation, Major - An occupation, not expressly prohibited by section 5.2A, conducted for profit within a dwelling unit solely by one or more members of the family residing within the dwelling unit and up to two (2) additional persons not residing within the dwelling unit, with or without the use of accessory structures; provided that nothing herein prohibits the occupation from engaging other persons who work off -site and do not come to the dwelling unit or to any accessory structure to engage in the occupation. Applicant MUST HAVE the following information to apply: l) Tax Map and Parcel Number (or Address) and a description of the Home Occupation, 2) A Floor Plan Sketch on the next page with the following: a) The total square Ibotage of the dwelling; b) The square footage of area within the home being used for the occupation (note this cannot be more than 25% of the gross square footage of the dwelling). 3) If applicable, a survey, plat, or aerial map showing accessory structures and parking associated with the home occupation. The GIS Web enables easy viewiniz and Urintint? of aerial mans. Name of business: �17 h'I -�/�J�f f�'�z CO Type of Business: _ L/ C vy� _ -Tax map and parcel: 0o Contact Person (Who should we call'write concerning this project?): Address IM- 6� ��'1/ar s V0 L e o Lid, r✓ � f vl ,/C State v/o Zip Z0-5F, Daytime Phone (<� ��v Fax ti (-' Y�G.)}'v - S�� E-mail C /r�[.c4 Gf✓[-c/ Owner of Record (f �_G�J l�j '� Y� _Jc)n <-N- Address—� _ State —zip Daytime Phone Fax ## ( ') _ — _ E-mail _ DESCRIPTION OF USE (If necessary, attach an additional sheet. Include information about the number of vehicles and number of employees associated with the use, hours of operation, use of accessory structures. etc.): County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 441 Nfclrttlre Road Chartdttesvitle, VA, 22902 Voice: (434j 296-5832 Fax. (434) 9?2-4126 4/2Y2038 Page I ol4 1 Each major home occupation authorized in the Rural Areas zoning district is subject to the following: EIECK EACH BOX SO THAT IT IS CLEAR THAT YOU HAVE UNDERSTAND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS CLEARANCE M LOCATION & AREA This home occupation shall be conducted within the dwelling unit or accessory structures, or both, provided that not more than twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling unit shall be used for the home occupation and further provided that the cumulative area used for the home occupation, including the gross floor area within the dwelling unit or any accessory structure and the area used for outdoor storage as provided in section 5.2A(g), shall not exceed one thousan ve hundred (1500) square feet. Plants that are planted in the ground that are to be used for a major home occup to do not count toward the one thousand five hundred (1500) square feet limitation. [Section 5.2A (b) (1)] EXTERIOR APPEARANCE There shall be no change in the exterior appearance of a dwelling unit or other visible evidence of the conduct of the home occupation, except that one home occupation sign may be erected as authorized by section 4.15. Accessory structures shall be similar in fagade to a single-family dwelling, private garage, shed, barn or other structure normally expected in a residential area and shall be specifically compatible in design and scale with other residential development in the area pr 'which it is located. Any accessory structure that does not conform to the applicable setback and yard require nts for primary structures shall not be used for a home occupation. jSection 5.2A (c) (1)] ISITORS & SALES Customers, clients and students are permitted to visit the property where the home occupation is conducted. Only goods that are hand-crafted on -site and goods that are directly related to the home occupation, including but not limited to tools for pottery making and frames for artwork are permitted to be for sale to customers who comes to the site. [�J'r:F*� 2A (d) (1)] IC N�M&^`� trips �� t�. eel ? V ad, �c�`f Gvs �y S The traffic generated by the home occupation shall not exceed ten (10) vehicle round trips per day or more than thirty (30) vehicle round trips per week. For the purposes of this section, a "vehicle round trip" means one vehicle entering and exiting the site. [Section 5.2AL (e)] ARKING Lo �'` , p' All vehicles used in the home occupation and all vehicles of employees, customers, clients or students related to the home ccupation shall be parked on -site. [Section 5.2A (f)] L.drOUTDOOR STORAGE The storage of goods, products, equipment other than vehicles used in the home occupation, or any materials associated with the hon3e occupation, other than natural landscaping materials such as mulch and plants, outside of an enclosed ��HOU'R,S prohibited. [Section 5.2A (g)] OF OPERATION t./(,, R+'f-e The home occupation may operate tip to six (6) days per week and the hours of operation shall be between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. for those home occupations that have employees, customers, clients or students visiting the site. [Section 5.2A (h)] l�'I�UMBER OF VEHICLES The number of vehicles that may be used in the home occupation that are parked or stored on -site shall not exceed two (2) motor vehicles and two (2) trailers. [Section 5.2A (i)] D'NUMBER OF HOME OCCUPATIONS More than one home occupation is pennitted on a parcel, provided that the area occupied and the traffic generated by the home occupations shall be considered cumulatively and all requirements of this section shall apply. [Section 5.2A (j)] Major Home Occupation Clearance 4,23;2018 Page 2 of 4 I n_ EIPERFORMANCE The home occupation shall comply with the performance standards in section 4.14. [Section 5.2A (k)] Does the use involve procedures, machinery or chemicals that may cause the following? NOISE VIBRATION GLARE HEAT AIR POLLUTION WATER POLLUTION RADIOACTIVITY ELECTRICAL DISTURBANCE NON -DOMESTIC WASTE DISCHARGED TO A SEPTIC FIELD OR SEWER YES NO If S, then applicable standards must be addressed with a Certified Engineer's Report (available from staff). PROHIBITED USES (1) any use requiring a special use permit under section (l 0) shooting ranges 10.2.2 (2) animal rescue centers (11) commercial stables (3) automobile graveyards (12) rummage or garage sales other than those (4) restaurants determined by the zoning administrator to be occasional (5) storage yards (13) veterinary clinics or hospitals (6) gun sales, unless the guns are made on -site by one or (14) pyrotechnic (fireworks or bomb) device more family members residing within the dwelling unit manufacturing or sale (7) on -site pet grooming (15) Any other use not expressly listed that is (8) body shops determined by the zoning administrator to be contrary (9) equipment, trailers, vehicles or machinery rentals to the purpose and intent of section 5.2A. [Section :2A (1)] '077FIC'ATIONS & INSPECTIONS I will be 5e1�' y 17-. 5- o�- 5 i c,r¢-r� Written notice that an application for a zoning clearance for a major home occupation has been submitted will be sent to the owner of each abutting parcel under different ownership than the parcel on which the proposed home occupation would be located. The notice will identify the proposed home occupation, its size, its location, and whether there is a request for a waiver or modification, The notice shall invite the recipient to submit any comments before the zoning clearance is acted upon. The notice shall be mailed at least five (5) days prior to the action on the zoning clearance as provided in section 32.4.2.5. In addition, a public notice sign will posted on the property for the duration of the review [Section .2A (n)] SIGNAGE✓l� One sign that does not exceed four ll (4) square feet in sign area and only states the name of the person occupying the dwelling and identifies the product or service offered by the home occupation is permitted. No additional permit is required for this sign, however, it must not exceed 6 ft. in height and must be setback at least 5 ft. from the public road =DDITIONAL Section 4.15.2 (25) and 4.15.81 IMPROVEMENTS AND REVIEWS FROM OTHER AGENCIES A zoning clearance shall not be issued if, after review of any site, additional improvements are necessary to protect public health or safety. [Section 31.5 (c)] Other state and local resources, including but not limited to the Health Department, Virginia Department of Transportation. Building Official, and County Engineer are commonly asked to comment on Home Occupation applications. .'0aJu1 Horse Occupation Clearance 4,23,2018 Page 3 of4 N AIVI RS OR MODIFICATIONS MAYBE SOUGHT ONLY FOR THE FOLLONVING: AREA The area requirements in section 5.2A(b) may be waived or modified, provided that the waiver or modification shall not authorize the home occupation to occupy more than forty-nine (49) percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling. In granting a waiver or modification of the area requirement, the commission shall make the following findings in addition to those findings in section 5.1: (1) the nature of the home occupation requires storage or additional space within the dwelling unit to conduct the home occupation,- (2) the primary use of the dwelling unit as a residence is maintained, and (3) the waiver or modification would not change the character of the neighboring agricultural area or the residential neighborhood. ]Section 5.2A (ni) (1)] TRAFFIC The traffic limitation in section 5.2A (e) may be waived or modified. In granting a waiver or modification of the traffic limitation, the commission shall find, in addition to those findings in section 5.1, that the waiver or modification would not change the character of the neighboring agricultural area or the residential neighborhood. Section 5.2A (m) (2)] REVIEW PROCESS AND ADDITIONAL FEES WITHOUT WAIVER REQUEST ($27 + notice fees) I Submit Home Occupation application ($27). 2. Staff will review for completion and mail abutting owner notification (Fee varies based on number of letters). 3. Staff will visit property to post public notice sign, review parking areas, proposed location of sign, and storage areas (if applicable). 4. Staff will approve application if requirements have been met and pick-up public notice sign. WITH A SPECIAL, EXCEPTION ($27 + $457 + notice fees) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. i Submit Home Occupation application and Waiver application ($25 + $457), Staff will review for completion and mail abutting owner notification (Fee varies based on number of letters). Staff will visit property to post public notice sign, i review parking areas, proposed location of sign, and storage areas (if applicable). Staff will coordinate date of next available Planning Commission meeting to process special exception Staff will approve application if requirements have been met and pick-up public notice sign. Owner/Applicant Nitist React and Sign 1 hereby apply for approval to conduct the Home Occupation identified above, and certify that this address is my legal residence. I also certi iat I have read the restrictions on Home Occupations, that I understand them, and that I will abide by them. its certi onjunction. with a business license, represents zoning approval to conduct the Major Home Occupa fie c igna r`e of Applicant Bate Othe/ Official Date wilding Official Zoning Official ENGINEER'S REPORT ATTACHED: YES CONDITIONS: NO Crate Date P,!W Home W:upatton C]•i u'ance 4,23,201S Page 4 of4 14A o - ----------------- ------------------ ----------- -------- ---- ---------- -------------- -- -------- ------------------------- ----------------- ------------- - Ift X _-j C-D rr- Plans BUFTON & MAUS LAW OFFICE Con) inum,ty D evelopment Department Albemarle County 4�1 1,olclntire Road Charlottesville. V-42290-1-4696 -14 ZI 434i 29S-5832 Fax (434) 9(72-4126 ,4, 'x I '( vo �ce Planning Application PARCEL DWNER INFORMATION TMPJ 05000-00-00�-049�00 Ovvner(s): BUFTON, EVELYN & JO . HN R MAUS Application# =AP201900004 PROPERTY INFORMATION Legal Description ACREAGE Magisterial Dist, Rivanna Land Use Primary Residential Single-family (incl. modular homes Current AFD Not in A/F District Current Zoning Primary Rural Areas .PPLICATION INFORMATION Street Address 17380 GORDONSvILLE RD GORDONSVILLE, 22942 Entered By 4.pplication Type !Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Determination Buck Smith Project EVELYN BUFTON AND -10HN R MAUS Received Date .[OBT121 19 Received Date Final Submittal Date 108/12/19 Total Fees!— Closing File Date Submittal Date Final Total Paid L. 258 Revision Number .omments Legal 4d 113 APPLICATION) T JACK 1,14.US E'VELYN BUFTON AND ]OHN R MZ�IJS icatio P.O. W'E I nature of Conti -actor or Authorized Agent Date Comment G&RD*O_NSWLLE' 22942 5408941006 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY AP # ,A ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION: Fee Amount 1 k' Date Paid/:. j . By rho'.a'-} i�, Receipt= Application for Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Determination SIGN # m Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Determination = S258 i FEES to be paid after staff review for public notice: Appeals of the Zoning Administrator require a public hearing by the Board of Zoning Appeals Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. The total fee for public notice will be provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body. Staff estimates the total cost of legal advertisement and adjacent owner notification to be between $350 and S450. This estimate reflects the average cost of public notice fees, but the cost of certain applications may be higher. Preparing and nzailioi� or deli�ering up to ffty (5U) notices S2 i � — 4- - = -- i Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50) S 1.08 for each additional notice • actual I _ cost of first-class postage Legal advertisement (published twice in the rte%vspaper fo.r each public — � Actual cost hearing) [ �tyerages tv.1Nveen $15U and $25 oI Contact Person (Who should we call write concerning this proiect.)): Jack Maus -'address Post Office Box E _ Cite Gordonsville — - — --- — — — — _— State VA Zip 22942 Daytime Phone ( 540j 894-1006 _ Fax 4 ( 540) 406-5911 E-mail jackmauslaw@gmail.com Owner of Record Evelyn Bufton and John R. "Jack" Maus Address Post Office Box E _ City Gordonsville ---. —. State VA — Zip 22942 Daytime Phone ( 804) 432-0920 Fax # ( 540) 406-5911 _ E-mail ebuftonlaw@gmail.com Applicant ( Who is the Contact person representing'?): Evelyn Bufton and John R. Maus Address Post Office Box E — City Gordonsville — — _ State VA — Zip 22942 Daytime Phone ( 540) 894-1006 -- Fax il (540) 406-5911 E-mail jackmauslaw@gmail.com County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126 �i Revised 1 [ T,21015 Paec. Project Name: Bufton & Maus Law Office Tax map and parcel: 050000-00-00-04900 Zoning: rural Physical Street Address (if assigned): 7380 Gordonsville Road, Gordonsville, Virginia 22942 Location of property (landmarks, intersections, or other): Rt. 231 approximately 2 miles north of the intersection with Lindsay Road - across from Fielder's Choice Farm The following information shall be submitted with the applicationand is to be provided by the applicant: 1) Completed application including subject of appeal. 2) Justification for applicant's position, including error in Zoning Administrators determination. You may use the space below to provide this information or submit an attached sheet. 3) if applicable, a copy of the latest deed for the property involved, and the approved and recorded plat. 4) If applicable, the appropriate drawings showing all existing and proposed improvements on the property and any special conditions for the situation that may justify the appeal. 5) Reference to the relevant Zoning Ordinance section or other applicable regulations or case precedence to justify the appeal, 6) Appropriate fee made payable to the County of Albemarle. Explanation of error in determination and justification of applicant's position: As further explained on the attachment, the iusitification for applicants' position is that (1) they fully disclosed to the Department of Community Development their intended use for the building, (2) the Department issued a Building Permit approving the placement of the building, (3) the applicants relied on the Building Permit in locating the building, and(4) the appli- cants' reliance on the Building Permit and their expenditure of substantial funds to construct the building is to their detriment if they are unable to use the building for it9wrier/Applicant Must Read and Sign intended purpose. I hereby certify that the information provided on this application and accompanying information is accurate, true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date: S Sig e of Owner or Contract Purchaser, Agent 611 —Print Name Daytime phone number of Signatory Board of Zoning Appeals Action/vote: Board of Zoning Appeals Chairman's signature: Date: Revised 1 t/I/2015 Page 2 or2 17 ATTACHMENT TO APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DETERMINATION Background When the applicants applied for a building permit, they submitted a copy of the architectural plans for the structure, which called for a building of approximately 1000 square feet with 2 offices, a conference room, a bathroom and a small kitchenette. The applicants' clear intention was to use the building as a law office and to meet there with clients and other professionals incidental to their law practice. The Department of Community Development (hereinafter, "the Department") issued a building permit that required the building to be set back only 6 feet from the side property line. A copy of the building permit is attached as Exhibit 1. The foundation for the building was staked out so that it is parallel to the residence rather than the side property line. So, at its nearest point, the building is set back 14 feet away from the side property line. At its furthest point, the building exceeds the 25 foot side setback requirement. When the foundation was staked, the applicants asked the Department to send a representative to visit the site to make sure that the stakes were properly placed. When that representative said that the location was correct, the applicants constructed the building in that precise location. The building was constructed in full compliance with the Statewide Building Code as enacted by Albemarle County and has passed the final inspection. The applicants have been told by the Department of Community Development that they are entitled to a Certificate of Occupancy.' Indeed, within hours after the final construction inspection was done, the County's Tax Assessor visited the property to ascertain its effect on an increased property tax assessment. Now, the Zoning Administrator has determined that he cannot approve a Major Home Occupation Clearance because the entire building is not set back 2S feet from the side property line. The Department has indicated to the applicants that, although the building has been completed in full compliance with the building code, the Department has, at the time of filing of this Application, withheld the Certificate of Occupancy because it did not want to influence the zoning process. Those are two entirely different issues and the Department's refusal to issue a Certificate of Occupancy under these circumstances is arbitrary and capricious. 1 I Case Precedent to Support the Appeal The applicants have been unable to find any legal precedent that precisely deals with this situation. However, there are other legal precedents that are instructive about the appropriate resolution of this appeal. The law in Virginia is clear that, if one person relies on the representations of another to their detriment, the person making the representation is prevented (or estopped) from later taking a different position. Allowing one party to change positions under certain circumstances would be unfair. That's why the doctrine is called "equitable estoppel." said: In Stewart v. Lady, 251 Va. 106, 465 S.E.2d 782 (1996), the Supreme Court of Virginia To establish equitable estoppel, it is not necessary to show actual fraud but only that the person to be estopped has misled another to his prejudice (internal citation omitted) or that the innocent part acted in reliance upon the conduct or misstatement by the person to be estopped. Khoury v. Memorial Hospital, 203 Va. 236, 123 S.E.2d 533 (1962) ....Elements necessary to establish equitable estoppel, absent a showing of fraud and deception, are a representation, reliance, a change of position, and detriment. 251 Va. at 112- 113, 465 S.E.2d at 785. All of those elements necessary to prove equitable estoppel are present in the applicants' case: • There was a representation (that the side setback was only 6 feet), • The applicants relied on the representation, • The applicants changed their position (they spend over $$120,000.00 to build the office where it was permitted), and • The applicants have suffered a detriment (that the County Lvill not allow them to use the building for its intended purpose). The principle of equitable estoppel applies to zoning issues as well. In Chapel Creek, Ltd. V. Mathews County, 12 Va. Cir 350 (1988), a developer had acquired a parcel of land on which he intended to build a 6-unit apartment building. He received approval for that and, when he learned that the County was going to enact an ordinance that prevented expansion 2 I 8A of that project, took additional steps to increase the size of his project before the ordinance became effective. When the Zoning Administrator denied the building permit for the expanded project, the developer sued and lost. However, the Court said this; The doctrine of equitable estoppel provides that the right to use or develop land cannot be infringed upon by legislative action when the owner or developer of such land has in good faith relied upon some act or failure to act by a governmental body and made a substantial change in position. (Internal citations omitted) ...[A] property owner may acquire a valid nonconforming use or acquire a vested right to complete construction of a nonconforming building where, in good faith and in reliance upon a validly issued building permit, the property owner has begun substantial construction or has incurred substantial expenses relating directly to the construction. (internal citations omitted) The most obvious missing link in petitioner's case is the threshold government act, the issuance of a building permit. 12 Va. Cir, At 353. Unlike the developer in Chapel Creek, the applicants in this case had a validly issued building permit and constructed the building in accordance therewith. The applicants have finished construction of the building as it was permitted and, as indicated above, have spent in excess of $120,000,00 to do so. As a result, Albemarle County is estopped from denying the applicants a zoning clearance. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Virginia., in Gee v. City of Norfolk, 281 Va. 423, 706 S.E.2d 330 (2011) applied language from Jones v. Board of Governors, 704 F.2d 713 (4t" Cir. 1983) in which that Court said: [S]ignificant departures from stated procedures of government and even from isolated assurances by governmental officers which have induced reasonable and detrimental reliance may, if sufficiently unfair and prejudicial, constitute procedural due process violations. 281 Va. at 436. The decision of the Zoning Administrator is so unfair and prejudicial that it violates the applicants' due process rights under both Article 1, §11 of the Constitution of Virginia, and under the Sth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States as made applicable to the States through the 14", Amendment. Finally, it appears that the Zoning Administrator takes the position that the setback requirements in Code §18-10.4 are mandatory. However, the heading at the top of the setback table merely says that "Area and bulk regulations within the RA, rural areas, zoning 3 district are as follows:" That's not enough to make the setback requirement mandatory. Even if the word "shall" could be inferred from the ordinance, the Supreme Court of Virginia has recently ruled that "shall" is not always mandatory, but that it can also be directory. Rickman v. Commonwealth, 294 Va. 531, 808 S.E.2d 395 (2017). In fact, the Court said that: Under Virginia law, the use of the term "shall" in a statute is generally construed as directory, rather than mandatory, and, consequently, no specific, exclusive remedy applies unless the states manifests a contrary intent. (internal citations omitted). 294 Va. at 539. In fact, one of the decisions cited in Rickman, was Tran v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 260 Va, 654, 536 S.E.2d 913 (2000). In Tran, the Board of Zoning Appeals issued a ruling outside of the 90-day period prescribed by Virginia Code §15.2-2312. The Supreme Court of Virginia ruled that the word "shall" in the statute was directory, not mandatory so that a BZA decision outside the 90-day limit was valid. As indicated above, the County Assessor has determined that the structure adds value to the property. The Department of Community Development recently visited the property and assigned the office building a separate 911 address. The applicants were told that, so long as the building was going to be visited by third parties, it needed a separate 911 address in case of an emergency. The applicants don't understand why the County needs to plan for the presence of third parties if the applicants are not allowed to have them in the building. In summary, for all of the reasons set forth above, the applicants submit that the decision of the Zoning Administrator to deny them a Major Home Occupation approval was incorrect and should be reversed by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Iqa County of Albemarle 3U LDING PERMIT - Pace ; Conlim;nity De-,eioprnentCepartment 4A lvzintire Road Charlottes•: ille. VA229'�2-4Y95 Voice 1434' 296-5832 Fax f134:t 972-412 TMP 05000-00-00-04900 Current BUFTON, EVELYN & JOHN R.MAUS Oiner(s) ' =.tres 2.40 Primary Rural Areas .� -` Zoning t--� Major Sub � a• Building Permit f •�017-02431-NNR k'I %V Entered Syr 3enniferSmith on IQYIS/2017 Sub Application Tr �;Stvrage�iui i�Ilg%accessory structure (tiew ori.) Associated Building f`r __ - — Permit Street .Addressdtr 7�$I�`�$ S+JILLE RD GORDONSVILLE, 22942 :•)'ork Class } Frame Type I 'later SuPj !New 'Wood T Cartesian well , irk'a'aluation Jurisdictional Area Other Foot Found, Desc. $ 48,000.00 No Service !'work J NEW STRUCTURE FOR HOME OFFICE —-� Description: Directions 73$0 GORDONSVILLE RQ _ - _---- Legal I ACREAGE Description- j Private Disposal I-oL;ntdation T Other Use Group Construction Type Square Footages: 1 —-----------J of Stories 1 Porches 5 074 Unfinished Basement Ist Floor ]g2 Decks Other Unfinished 2nd Floor Garage Total Unfinished Sq, 3rd Floor Footaae _-- Sr:imming Pool Finished basement Other Habitable Total Habitable Sq. Footage I Total Building Sq, Footage j ;Et Backs `---- ----- Front C� 2onina Pre -Construction, � Land Use' Fire .L•larms Required' Bldg Pre -Construction? Left Side � Right Side Back '117VIVIT.-FA off I.' Fire Sprinkler 19u.P.�. Code;'Year Dwelling Units � �,ccessor}' Structures � Hobile%Prefab, Homes t•lobile Offices�,Prefab, Units Carports B Bedrooms Baths 1.0 PaintSpraw Booths Garages Kitchens Sv;imming PooIe Hot Other .. _ - � - � Tubs'�Spas i.R.es. Onl,-I Ele•:•ators`.Es,alatorssLift- Contact T rc Cit State ' =1F C�,� ' •r.rk PF^re j `bufton e;elyn c. john r rncell —P 0 BOX E - ---` -- -•- -_-� -=--- same:'ow•ner,.`aoent m ` Comriunit�- Deseiopn)entDepartment li ;s CountZ of Albemarle 4C,, Mclnbre Road Charlottesville. V422902-4596 BUILz�fP�''G PB�A-;'? - Page 2 , Voice �.434i 296-5&32 Fax i43?1 972-'?"128 Sub Application Typel$t01`age building/accessary structure (new orl Associated Building( Street Acldressd7380 GORDONSVILLE RD GCRDONSVILLE, 22942 Separate permits may be required for Electricai, Plumbing, Heating, Ventilating and Au- Conditioninci. This permit becomes null and void if work or construction authorized is not co{i-merized within 6 months, or if construction or wort: is suspended or abandoned for a period of 6 months at any time afterv,ork is commenced. I hereby certify that I have read and examined this application and know the same to be true and correct, .All provisions of laws and ordinances governing this type of work will be complied with whether specified herein or not. The granting of a permit does not presume to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of any other state or local law r-eguiating construction Or the n.=rFnrmanra of rnnchrn rtinn , By signing this building permit, the owner and/or their agent hereb;, grant employees of the Albemai'e CoLinty Ccnirnurzity Development Real Estate Departments the right to enter and inspect the subject property Nlon,day through Friday betvdeen t -�e hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., holidays excepted. If you are not the owner of record, please check which applies: _ I certify that I am the agent for BUFTON, EVELYN & JOHN R MAUS , the `Owner, and am authorized to submit this application on behalf of the Owner under the agency granted to me. I am neither the Owner nor the Owner's agent. I certify that written notice of this application, by providing a copy of this application, will be mailed to the Owner at the following address P O BOX E GORDONSVILLE VA 22942 within 1G days of today's date as required by Virginia Code § 15.2-2204(H). I understand that, if I do not provide the notice to the Owner as provided herein, the buiiding permit application and every other subsequent approval, permit o:- certificate related thereto could be determined to be void. ufe ✓i .. '.3 '�i{L�k'rA. ='Lti ^EC _nE i it'eE EL CTRO dIC RECORDS STATEMENT: Albemarle County is creating and using electronic records and electronic signatures as aiiowed by the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (Virginia Code § 59.1-479 et seq.). As an applicant to the Building Permit Process, you may consent to receive, or have online access to, electronic records and receive and create records having electronic signatures related to Buildinq Permits, Correspondence, Inspection Tickets and Certificates of occupancy (the Euildinq Please initial here if you AGREE to receive and/or use electronic records and e;ech-onic signatures for Building Permit transactions. r.i:;Wz 1�1 0, —. Con-licmr {r Aumrolziro AC=-Rt J Your agreement to conduct Building Permit transactions by electronic reans does not preventyou from refusing to conduct other .ransacftns by electronic means. OwA C/D Cd 4 n �" Z H � w r � z m z y J b C �7 o 4Z � � z trJ � t7 � a n x r CIO CD CD n 0 ;) County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 DATE, 08/05/2019 TO: BUFTON, EVELYN &]C)MN R MAUS POBOX E {][}RC>C)N5VILLEVA2294Z [C. Post Office, GORDONSVILLE FROM., Geographic Data SerV|c85({SD5) 434-296-5832 SUBJECT: Physical Address N0tifiCatjOr ' NEW CONSTRUCT ION TMP; 05000-00-00-04900 PERMIT#: B2017-02431NNFl PHYSICAL ADDRESS; 7382 GORDONSVILLE RD As of the date of this letter, the physical address located at the above Tax Xap Parcel (TMP) and/or Building Pernnit# is currently in our addressing system. Tocnsunr proper(ocet'ion byemergency service providers, timely nnaU delivery, and the accuracy of other County records, please do the fo!|ow!ng: ° If applicable, contact your telephone company to ensure this physical address is associated with your|ond|ine te|eQhona number; ` Pi ` : sbur�turc i accor^nh Nbernnrie County's P\oad N.arning and ProperiyNumbering Onjinanceand Manuai;* ng this ac:dre�s, �:onJJ;ct y:`r post. If !his is an address chance and ynu did '� nhy. /y rnovc, �o not submit a Chsngo of Address form with the USPS. Any quesdons abou� rnuU dc;very, zip code <nforroadon, ano determining where a mailbox should Le insta|'ed, vvi!< be hiand|ed byJthe posto�5ce, ~ I[opp|icab\e, unsure that your records are up to doie vviLh Vo�er Re3isLroUnn "434-97I- 41,73), School Trcnspo/ta-Lion (434'973'5716), and the County's Fipa:ce [}spa/tm. en'. (434-296'5851); ° Alert ocher County and non -County entities (e.g. credit card, utilities, etc.) as necessary. Note: any change in your physical address does not require the deed to your Property tobe re- recorded at the courthouse. *The County's Road Naming and PropertyNurnbering Ordinance requires that this physical address number be �:sted so it is easily visible from the named street or road. The number ^!- T,^^c narned street or road, the address nurnberandroad' oonne nnus� appearon Lhe rnu||bax. Thc nurneno|sdisplayed should be at least three inches in height on o contrasting background and any previously displayed numbers, which could be confused with or niistaken for the address assigned, shall be removed from the mailbox and property. if you should have any questions regarding this physical address, please do not hesitate to contact our office. ALBEMARLE COUA'TY CODE 5.2A HOME OCCUPATIONS IN THE RURAL AREAS ZONING DISTRICT Each home occupation authorized in the rural areas zoning district shall be subject to the following: a. Purpose and intent. The purpose for authorizing home occupations in the rural areas zoning district is to encourage limited home -based economic development, balanced with the need to protect and preserve the quality and character of the county's agricultural areas and residential neighborhoods in the rural areas zoning district. The regulations in this section are intended to ensure that authorized home occupations will be compatible with other permitted uses, the agricultural areas, and the residential neighborhoods by regulating the scale, hours, external activities, external appearance and other impacts that may arise from a home occupation. b. Location and area occupied by a home occupation. A home occupation shall be located and sized as follows: Major home occupations. A major home occupation shall be conducted within the dwelling unit or accessory structures, or both, provided that not more than twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling unit shall be used for the home occupation and further provided that the cumulative area used for the home occupation, including the gross floor area within the dwelling unit or any accessory structure and the area used for outdoor storage as provided in section 5.2A(g), shall not exceed one thousand five hundred (1500) square feet. Plants that are planted in the ground that are to be used for a major home occupation do not count toward the one thousand five hundred (1500) square feet limitation. Minor home occupations. A minor home occupation shall be conducted entirely within the dwelling unit, provided that not more than twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling unit shall be used for the home occupation and further provided that the gross floor area used for the home occupation shall not exceed one thousand five hundred (1500) square feet. C. Exterior appearance. The exterior appearance of a parcel with a home occupation shall be subject to the following: Major home occupations. There shall be no change in the exterior appearance of a dwelling unit or other visible evidence of the conduct of a major home occupation, except that one home occupation sign may be erected as authorized by section 4.15. Accessory structures shall be similar in fagade to a single-family dwelling, private garage, shed, barn or other structure normally expected in a residential area and shall be specifically compatible in design and scale with other residential development in the area in which it is located. Any accessory structure that does not conform to the applicable setback and yard requirements for primary structures shall not be used for a home occupation. 2. Minor home occupations. There shall be no change in the exterior appearance of a dwelling unit or other visible evidence of the conduct of a minor home occupation. d. Visitors and sales. Visitors and sales related to a home occupation shall be subject to the following: Major home occupations. Customers, clients and students may visit a major home occupation. The sale of goods by the major home occupation to a customer who comes to the site is prohibited except for goods that are hand-crafted on -site and accessory goods that are directly related to a major home occupation, including but not limited to tools for pottery making and frames for artwork. 18-5-22.46 Zoning Supplement 4116, 8-7-19 � ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE Minor home occupations. No customers, clients or students may visit a minor home occupation for a purpose related to the home occupation. The sale of goods or the provision of services by the minor home occupation to a customer, client or student at the site is prohibited. e. Traffic generated by a major home occupation. The traffic generated by a major home occupation shall not exceed ten (10) vehicle round trips per day or more than thirty (30) vehicle round trips per week. For the purposes of this section, a "vehicle round trip" means one vehicle entering and exiting the site. f. Parking. All vehicles used in a home occupation and all vehicles of employees, customers, clients or students related to a major home occupation shall be parked on -site. g. Outdoor storage. The storage of goods, products, equipment other than vehicles used in a home occupation, or any materials associated with a home occupation, other than natural landscaping materials such as mulch and plants, outside of an enclosed structure is prohibited. h. Days and hours of operation for major home occupations. Major home occupations may operate up to six (6) days per week and the hours of operation shall be between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. for those home occupations that have employees, customers, clients or students visiting the site. Number of vehicles used in a home occupation. The number of vehicles that may be used in a home occupation that are parked or stored on -site shall not exceed two (2) motor vehicles and two (2) trailers. j. Number of home occupations. More than one home occupation is permitted on a parcel, provided that the area occupied and the traffic generated by the home occupations shall be considered cumulatively and all requirements of this section shall apply. k. Performance standards. All home occupations shall comply with the performance standards in section 4.14. Prohibited home occupations. The following uses are prohibited as home occupations: (1) any use requiring a special use permit under section 10.2.2; (2) animal rescue centers; (3) junkyards; (4) restaurants; (5) storage yards; (6) gun sales, unless the guns are made on -site by one or more family members residing within the dwelling unit; (7) on -site pet grooming; (8) body shops; (9) equipment, trailers, vehicles or machinery rentals; (10) shooting ranges; (11) commercial stables; (12) rummage or garage sales other than those determined by the zoning administrator to be occasional; (13) veterinary clinics or hospitals; (14) pyrotechnic (fireworks or bomb) device manufacturing or sales; and (15) any other use not expressly listed that is determined by the zoning administrator to be contrary to the purpose and intent of section 5.2A. M. Waivers and modifications. The waiver or modification of any requirement of section 5.2A is prohibited except as provided herein: Area. The area requirements in section 5.2A(b) may be waived or modified, provided that the waiver or modification shall not authorize the home occupation to occupy more than forty-nine (49) percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling. In granting a waiver or modification of the area requirement, the commission shall make the following findings in addition to those findings in section 5.1: (1) the nature of the home occupation requires storage or additional space within the dwelling unit to conduct the home occupation; (2) the primary use of the dwelling unit as a residence is maintained; and (3) the waiver or modification would not change the character of the neighboring agricultural area or the residential neighborhood. 18-5-22.47 Zoning Supplement 4116, 8-7-19 S ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE Traffic. The traffic limitation in section 5.2A(e) may be waived or modified. In granting a waiver or modification of the traffic limitation, the commission shall find, in addition to those findings in section 5.1, that the waiver or modification would not change the character of the neighboring agricultural area or the residential neighborhood. n. Zoning clearance required; notice of request. No home occupation shall commence without a zoning clearance issued under section 31.5. For each zoning clearance requested for a major home occupation, the zoning administrator shall provide written notice that an application for a zoning clearance has been submitted to the owner of each abutting parcel under different ownership than the parcel on which the proposed home occupation would be located. The notice shall identify the proposed home occupation, its size, its location, and whether any waiver or modification is requested. The notice shall invite the recipient to submit any comments before the zoning clearance is acted upon. The notice shall be mailed at least five (5) days prior to the action on the zoning clearance as provided in section 32.4.2.5. (Ord. 11-18(1), 1-12-11:Ord. 19-18(3), 6-5-19) 18-5-22.48 Zoning Supplement 4116, 8-7-19 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE c. Provisions of section 10.3.3, rural preservation development, shall be applied to the entire parcel. Combination of conventional and rural preservation development within the parcel shall not be permitted, provided that the total number of lots achievable under section 10.3.1 and section 10.3.2 shall be permitted by authorization of more than one (1) rural preservation tract. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to preclude the director of current development and zoning from approving a rural preservation development for multiple tracts of adjoining land, or on land divided or otherwise altered prior to the effective date of this provision; provided that, in either case, the provisions of section 10.3.3 shall be applicable; d. The area devoted to development lots together with the area of roadway necessary to provide access to such lots shall not exceed the number of development lots multiplied by a factor of six (6) expressed in acres; e. No rural preservation development shall contain less than one (1) rural preservation tract. The director of current development and zoning may authorize more than one (1) rural preservation tract in a particular case pursuant to the various purposes of rural preservation development as set forth in section 10.3.3.2 or in accord with section 10.3.3.3.c, as the case may be; No rural preservation tract shall consist of less than forty (40) acres. Except as specifically permitted by the director of current development and zoning at time of establishment, not more than one (1) dwelling unit shall be located on any rural preservation tract or development lot. No rural preservation tract shall be diminished in area. These restrictions shall be guaranteed by perpetual easement accruable to the County of Albemarle and the public recreational facility authority of Albemarle County in a form acceptable to the board. In accordance with Chapter 14 of the Code of Albemarle, the director of planning and community development shall serve as agent for the board of supervisors to accept such easement. Thereafter, such easement may be modified or abandoned only by mutual agreement of the grantees to the original agreement; g. Each application for a rural preservation development is subject to the review and approval of the director of current development and zoning. (§ 20-10.3.3.3, 11-8-89; § 18-10.3.3.3, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 04-18(1), 5-5-04 effective 7-1-04) Sec. 10.4 Area and bulk regulations. Area and bulk regulations within the RA, rural areas, zoning district are as follows: REQUIREMENTS DIVISIONS BY DIVISIONS BY SPECIAL RIGHT USE PERMIT Gross density 0.5 du/ac 0.5 du/ac Minimum lot size 2.0 acres 2.0 acres Minimum frontage existing public roads 250 feet 250 feet Minimum frontage internal public or private roads 150 feet 150 feet Yards, minimum: Front (existing public roads) 75 feet 75 feet Front (internal public or private road)(Amended 11-13-91) 25 feet 25 feet Side 25 feet 25 feet Rear 35 feet 35 feet Maximum structure height 3 5 feet 3 5 feet (§ 20-10.4, 12-10-80; 8-14-85; § 18-10.4, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 08-18(7), 11-12-08) 18-10-8 Zoning Supp. 4113, 6-5-19 Ok AL COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 401 MCINTIRE ROAD LANE AUDITORIUM, 2:00 P.M AGENDA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2019 Call to Order 2. Establish a Quorum 3. Public Hearing: A. Project Number: AP201900004 Bufton & Maus TMP 50 - 49 Property Owner/Appellant: Evelyn Bufton and John R. Maus Staff: Bart Svoboda/Kevin McCollum 4. Approval of Minutes A. June 4, 2019 5. Old Business 6. New Business 7. Adjournment i s BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING GUIDELINES Thank you for attending the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) meeting. The following information is provided to help ensure the meeting proceeds as efficiently and effectively as possible. As a courtesy to others, please turn off all cell phones during the meeting. General Information: This meeting is recorded and later transcribed into minutes approved at a later meeting date. Each item set for public hearing will begin with a presentation of the staff report. Next, the applicant or appellant for that item will be invited to speak. During the course of the process, the Chairman will open the public hearing to comments from the public. At the end of these proceedings the Chairman will announce that the public hearing is closed. Once the public hearing is closed, no further public comments will be allowed unless the Board asks for additional information from the applicant or appellant. The BZA reserves the right to digress from these guidelines in any particular case. To Members of the Public: If you wish to address the Board, please raise your hand or stand when the Chairman asks for public comments for that item. When it is your turn for comment, please come to the microphone and state your name for the record. For uncommon spellings, please spell your name for the recording secretary. If you are with a group of people, you may want to have a spokesperson present your position to the Board. In order to give all speakers equal treatment and courtesy, the Board requests that speakers adhere to the following guidelines: • Come forward to the speaker's podium and state your name; • Address comments directly to the Board as a whole - open public debate is prohibited: • State your position and give facts and other data to back it up — keep in mind that there is a 3 minute time limit for public comment; • Give written statements and other supporting material to the Recording Secretary (written comments are also welcome if you do not wish to speak). Additional Guidelines for Applicants and Appellants addressing the Board: • Please contact staff in Community Development ahead of the meeting to make any necessary arrangements for your presentation. The Recording Secretary will also need copies of any handouts given to the BZA members for the official record of the meeting. • Be clear in stating your position and do not repeat information that has been previously submitted to the Board. • Stay on topic by addressing the questions in the application or by responding directly to staffs determination(s). Focus on presenting facts and data that support your position. • Keep in mind there is a 15 minute time limit for presentations and a 5 minute time limit for rebuttal comments. The Board will ask any necessary follow-up questions to clarify points made during the presentation. • Understand that the Board of Zoning Appeals cannot change County ordinances. The BZA reserves the right to place additional time limitations on speakers, as necessary. STAFF: Kevin McCollum and Bart Svoboda PUBLIC HEARING: October 1, 2019 STAFF REPORT: AP2019-00004 APPLICANT/APPELLANT: Evelyn Bufton and John "Jack" R. Maus Description of Property-: According to current real estate assessment records, Tax Map 50, Parcel 49 contains 2.40 acres+/- and is located in eastern Albemarle County along State Route 631 (Attachment A). There is one dwelling and one accessory structure located on the property at 7380 and 7382 Gordonsville Rd, respectively. The property fronts on State Route 631, an Entrance Corridor, and is zoned Rural Areas, RA. Background: On October 17, 2017, the appellant applied for a building permit, B2017-02431- NNR (Attachment B) for an accessory structure. On December 7, 2017, the County issued that building permit for an accessory structure now located at 7382 Gordonsville Rd, building permit B2017-02431-NNR (Attachment B). The building permit application described the structure as a storage building/accessory structure with a work description of "new structure for home office." Based on the information provided, staff applied the following accessory structure setbacks for the RA; Front - 75', Rear - 6', and Side - 6'. On June 4, 2019, the Applicant applied for a Major Home Occupation Clearance to use the accessory structure as a law office (Attachment C). After inspecting the property to verify that the proposed Major Home Occupation met all the applicable regulations, staff sent an advisory email on June 17 noting that the side setback did not appear to be met and informing the applicant that the proposed Major Home Occupation Clearance cannot be approved until they can confirm that the structure meets the applicable setbacks (Attachment D). Determination and Applicant's Appeal: On July 30, 2019, staff wrote an official determination informing the applicant that the Major Home Occupation Clearance application could not be approved until staff determines that the accessory structure complies with the primary structure setbacks for the Rural Areas zoning district (Attachment E). On August 12, 2019, the Applicant submitted an appeal of "the decision of the Zoning Administrator to deny them a Major Home Occupation approval" (Attachment F). Grounds for Zoning Administrator's Determination: The Zoning Administrator based the determination on the information provided with the application as well as the site inspection conducted on June 13, 2019. During that inspection, staff noted that the accessory structure did not meet the applicable setback and yard requirements for primary structures required by Section 5.2A(c). Therefore, in accordance with Albemarle County Code § 18-5.2A(c) and Albemarle County Code § 18-31.5(b), the proposed Major Home Occupation cannot be approved until it is determined to comply with the primary structure setbacks for the Rural Areas zoning district. The Appellant's Justification for Appeal: The justification for the Applicants' position is that (1) they fully disclosed to the Department of Community Development their intended use for the building, (2) the Department issued a building permit approving the placement of the building, mm (3) the Applicants relied on the building permit in locating the building, and (4) the Applicants' reliance on the building permit and their expenditure of substantial funds to construct the building is to their detriment if they are unable to use the building for its intended purpose. Staff Response: Staff responses to the four major points of the Appellant's justification. 1. The Appellants' first argument is that the intended use of the accessory structure, a commercial law office, was fully disclosed to the Department of Community Development. Staff contends that the information provided on the building permit does not indicate in any way the use of the accessory structure for a commercial law office Major Home Occupation. The building permit was issued for a "storage building/accessory structure" with a work description of "new structure for home office." Based on this information staff correctly applied the accessory structure setbacks for the Rural Areas zoning district which are Front - 75', Rear - 6', and Side - 6'. Because "home offices" can exist as part of a single-family dwelling in the Rural Areas and are significantly different than a Major Home Occupation, there is not enough evidence to support the claim that use of the accessory structure as a commercial law office was fully disclosed to the Department of Community Development. Additionally, a Major Home Occupation Clearance was not submitted until over a year and a half after the building permit was issued. If the applicant submitted the Major Home Occupation Clearance alongside the building permit, the County would have known the intended use and would have applied the appropriate setbacks on the building permit. 2. The Appellants' second argument is that the County issued a building permit approving the placement of the building. Staff agrees with this statement. The County issued a building permit for the accessory structure at the correct setbacks. The accessory structure that exists on the property right now meets the applicable accessory structure setbacks. The accessory structure does not, however, meet the applicable setbacks to be used as a Major Home Occupation. The appellant was notified, by email (Attachment G), on September 29, 2017 of the required setbacks for a Major Home Occupation. 3. The Appellants' third argument is that they relied on the building permit in locating the building. Staff contends that the intended law office use was not known to staff and that given the information provided (Attachment H), the appropriate setbacks for an accessory structure were applied. 4. The Appellants' last argument is that the applicants' reliance on the building permit and their expenditure of substantial funds to construct the building is to their detriment if they are unable to use the building for its intended purpose. 30 Staff contends that the intended purpose of the building, based on the information provided on the building permit application, was an accessory structure. Therefore, the structure is able to be used and is no detriment to the Appellants. Summary: On July 30, 2019, the Zoning Administrator issued a determination that the proposed Major Home Occupation cannot be approved until it is determined to comply with the primary structure setbacks for the Rural Areas zoning district. The Applicants of that Major Home Occupation are appealing "the decision of the Zoning Administrator to deny them a Major Home Occupation approval." Despite the Appellants' grounds for the appeal, presented above, staff contends that the determination made was correct and that the Board of Zoning Appeals should affirm this determination. Proposed Motions: Staff recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals upholds the Zoning Administrator's determination regarding Major Home Occupation Clearance, HO2019-233. Attachments: Attachment A.: Current GIS Map of the Property Attachment B: Building Permit B2017-02431-NNR Attachment C: Major Home Occupation Clearance Application Attachment D: Staff Email to the Applicant dated June 17, 2019 Attachment E: Official Determination "RE: HO2019-00233 Major Home Occupation Clearance" Attachment F: AP201900004 Application Attachment G: Staff Email to the Applicant dated September 29, 2017 Attachment H: Building Permit Layout 31 C a Rr v d t C6 T v 04 a ►o - n !" LO �Ga M h 6� fh Q �- q O LO O M 1 cO L[5 a 2 sZD Fi Y*. i c � � 1 County of Albemarle — �5 r M�'� n BUILDING PERCtlT - Pale i TMP I 050GO-00-00-04900 I Current`g Owner(s) Acres 2.40 Primary'Rural Areas Zoning Building Permit 0I7-0243I—NNR Sub Application Tr !Storage ui ing f accessary structure (new or Street Address: 738 SVILLE RD GORDONSVILLE 22942 :Caiftesian Well 'Mork Valuation Jurisdictional Area Other Foot ; Found, Desc,; $ 46,000.00 No Service Alork I NEW STRUCTURE FOR HOME OFFICE Description: 1 .`Private Directions 17380 GORDONSVILLE RD Attachment B: Building Permit B2017-02431-NN R Legal i ACREAGE — Description: Attachment B: Building Permit B2017-02431-NNR 8i JOHN R M Major Subdiv. Entered By., JenniferSmfth On 1001'1812017 Associated Building Permit Other Use Group Construction Type 'Square Footages: # of Stories 1 Porches 5041 Unfinished Basement 1st Floor 792 Decks Other Unfinished 2nd Floor Garage Total UnFi.nished Sq, 3rd Floor Footage Swimming Pool Finished Basement Other Habitable Total Habitable Sq. Footage Total Building Sq. Footage 5et Backs' Front J' Zoning Pre -Construction? ? Land Use? ` Back C: Fire Alarms Required? ': Bldg pre -Construction? Left Side Right Side Fire Sprinkler NAPA, CodeArear Dwelling Units r.ccessorY Structures hlobile+,prefab, Homes Mobile Offices+,Prefab, Units Carports B Bedrooms Baths 1.0 Paint Spray Booths Garages Kitchens Swimming Poc,16%Hot Other Tubs\spas (Res, Only) Elevators+,Estalatoi•s'}Lifts l orrtcCt I ypz- N=n a �_ bufton, c-vel•,n ,john r mau P O BOX E r�� Cit. 'state 1DCod 'lurk Phone C "" same,oxderyagent 3 J p County of Albemarle 8 UiLD/N•G PERMI T - Pace 2 TMP I 05000-00-00-049DO Current i)B Owner's1 Acres 2..40 Primary ,Rural Areas Zoning L. ___ . __- ., _. _. Building Permit =1 B2017-02431-NNR rage building/accessory structure (new or Sub A.pplicatior. TYPe�Sto Street Address:17380 GORDONSVILLERD GORDONSVILLE, 22942 Community Development Department 431 Iviclntire Road Ciiarlottes�•ille, V.A229D2-4596 Voice' 1434) 296-5832 Fax . (434) 972-4.126 r•fajor Subdiv. Entered 8y: Jenni`er Smith on 10/1612017 Associated Building Permit, Separate permits may be required for Electrical, Plumbing, Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning. This permit becomes null and void if work or construction authorized is not commenced within 6 months, or if construction or work is suspended or abandoned for a period of 6 months at any time after work is commenced. i hereby certify that I have read and examined this application and know the same to be true and correct. All provisions of laws and ordinances governing this type of work will be complied with whether specified herein or not. The granting of a permit does not presume to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of any other state or local law regulating construction or the n�rfnrmanro of rnn chri irtinn By signing this building permit, the owner and/or their agent hereby grant employees of the Albemarle County Community Development Real Estate Departments the right to enter and inspect the subject property Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., holidays excepted. If you are not the owner of record, please check which applies: I certify that I am the agent for BUFTON, EVELYN & JOHN R MAUS the Owner, and am authorized to submit this application on behalf of the Owner under the agency granted to me. I am neither the Owner nor the Owner's agent. I certify that written notice of this application, by providing a copy of this application, will be mailed to the Owner at the following address P O BOX E GORDONSVILLE VA 22942 01 within 10 days of today's date as required by Virginia Code 5 15.2-2.204(H). I understand that, if I do not provide the notice to the Owner as provided herein, the building permit application and every other subsequent approval, permit or certificate related thereto could be determined to be void. Syr.a a of Garar. Ca^:rac:or or A.::rorcee Aye.-. De:e . Syr %t* of fi:.ina off.u; or At:h.r¢�d Repr_ae-:a:ive D�:e EL CTRO IC RECORDS STATEMENT; Albemarle County is creating and using electronic records and electronic signatures as allowed by the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (Virginia Code § 59.1-479 et seq.). As an applicant to the Building Permit process, you may consent to receive, or have online access to, electronic records and receive and create records having electronic sionatures related to Buildino Permits, Correspondence, Inspection Tickets and Certificates of Occupancy (the Building Please initial here if you AGREE to receive and/or use electronic records and electronic signatures for Building Permit transactions. I c`afs a Owner. Cor: actor or Autrorized Area: Your agreement to conduct Building Permit transactions by electronic means does not preventyou from refusing to conduct other transactions by electronic means. SSOLI£I LIOZ `SI .ioquaonox AV IL•� �-r 'Gp4JA M� Q~j W O T y� R S'a Poo LOD Lo y AA p Is+ cc .. r lz F �j Q 11e . U ° F td Cn V) V] fl) ne � I F ° ao I o� WF � oz w° � Fz 4-4 o o N Q V� -o N co LQ H F" tv N c LC G LQ 0 co a c) 00 to FQ .,, �� zww tul.laaUltug uoiuiu O(t pi ! c•� Y V1 � � y � O � � ❑ ♦ V V C C d E T U vLI OE .a-4 d O ' �U J, � T � F O C y,� Y� X y F L H B •V F L � F � y L � a d •� N C � V � R m E 4 N o f r Y w C S G C W O w U v u p xp M A 7 u ti 3O o 3 e'`tn .L. '-^�'!�p W c F o /� C .o o :° •-�^ A 3� nl •E' a i.-� 'E ro 0.' ^ ''� � w c U E U c° r i7 a VY- yy Z U W t w eC y— C L 41 .2 f/�1 O M F C 6 U R 4i -9 .U. Q V U O C fUJ C C Q a W W O e zm r d 551 qTq •� cc O $ r u •« '� '_ C i '� WZ w U •L y a 3 `n C O S U :a m y s i W c e o 10 bo 0 •c 3 •° m ro ° c g �..0 • d r0 � a W•r^i, G. C 0. V 0.0. y -pp C �ro •C �pp v y i ro E W cR > c y y yy n x J. otr. p^. ti W R° G •° G w V U E tG J -C roro C °E O _ C V O _ o cc Ocn — w y G C y d eE E c r.- -z r-- -- --- i 3au•sojaju o)�?ua[uopplo 0099-Zb6 (Of g) 086ZZ VA: `oaogSOUAEM QA!JQ Jsaio3 9£OZ fulnoulfug UOTUTWO(j PIO 2a2 F?< i z a u z v � 1 U U tullaaUltug uoiultuo(l PIO TA q■ k� » !_!§ - I ,`� , , ± { -_ - 8z §[[)e �`§?* \�\ � § f \ � I @ / . § _ \/ ) z O j)!\ 3 %� ))/§|\ } . } 1 � I � ! i �CJ i r E U '.E7- o^ o — i I G e I O G PIO ri (11 W...' N by N > o w W J y � ago l z 6 O 3� Q H 0 z r�tTj z z y CD a. rz '-d M AID Attachment C: Major Home Occupation Clearance Application FOR OFFICE USE ONLY q no # z lu t � L. Vy`- �] !S2 Fee Amount y l Date Paid By who? J . �' C l t '� Receipt # �'5A Ck# 11 ` By; ftLa 24 Application for Major Home Occupation Clearance 0(Only for parcels in the Rural Areas Zoning District) Major Home Occupation Clearance = $27.00 + applicable fees This application may require additional review by the Fire Marshal. Fees in addition to those shown on this application may be required by the Fire Prevention Code Fee Schedule. A copy of the schedule is available from the Fire Marshal. Home Occupation, Major: An occupation, not expressly prohibited by section 5.2A, conducted for profit within a dwelling unit solely by one or more members of the family residing within the dwelling unit and up to two (2) additional persons not residing within the dwelling unit, with or without the use of accessory structures; provided that nothing herein prohibits the occupation from engaging other persons who work of site and do not come to the dwelling unit or to any accessory structure to engage in the occupation. Applicant MUST HAVE the fallowing information to apply: 1) Tax Map and Parcel Number (or Address) and a description of the Home Occupation. 2) A Floor Plan Sketch on the next page with the following: a) The total square footage of the dwelling; b) The square footage of area within the home being used for the occupation (note this cannot be more than 25% of the gross square footage of the dwelling). 3) If applicable, a survey, plat, or aerial map showing accessory structures and parking associated with the home occupation. The GIS Web enables easy viewing and printing of aerial mans. Name of Business: s• a��z C Type of Business: _ "/ Tax map and parcel: _m (�Y_ Do — 00 -- 0 (.`)-- �cq.c) C Contact Person �y(Who should we call!write concerning this project?): � 72_hZ7 / j` , / Address l70 t9 �s 1/;/ le l C E� �7 J City '11/_d J-" 6 ! State Y� Zip Daytime Phone �4 �U-� Fax # (�' 6) �UD sG%l E-mail i1Q Ct�a Lints/�'t�l Owner of Record Address Daytime Phone Fax # (� A'_ E-mail State Zip DESCRIPTION OF USE (If necessary, attach an additional. sheet. Include information about the number of vehicles and number of employees associated with the use, hours of operation, use of accessory structures', etc.): County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4I26 4/23/2018 Page I of 4 )� I Each major ho>rne occupation authorized in the Rural Areas zoning district is subject to the following: UNDERSTAND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS CLEARANCE 1_u7 LOCATION & AREA This home occupation shall be conducted within the dwelling unit or accessory structures, or both, provided that not more than twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling unit shall be used for the home occupation and further provided that the cumulative area used for the home occupation, including the gross floor area within the dwelling unit or any accessory structure and the area used for outdoor storage as provided in section 5.2A(g), shall not exceed one thousand ve hundred (1500) square feet. Plants that are planted in the ground that are to be used for a major home occup ion do not count toward the one thousand five hundred (1500) square feet limitation. [Section 5.2A (b) (1)] 7 EXTERIOR APPEARANCE There shall be no change in the exterior appearance of a dwelling unit or other visible evidence of the conduct of the home occupation, except that one home occupation sign may be erected as authorized by section 4.15. Accessory structures shall be similar in fagade to a single-family dwelling, private garage, shed, bam or other structure normally expected in a residential area and shall be specifically compatible in design and scale with other residential development in the area � which it is located. Any accessory structure that does not conform to the applicable setback and yard requires nts for primary structures shall not be used for a home occupation. [Section 5.2A (c) (1)] ISITORS & SALES Customers, clients and students are permitted to visit the property where the home occupation is conducted. Only goods that are hand-crafted on -site and goods that are directly related to the home occupation, including but not limited to tools for pottery making and frames for artwork are permitted to be for sale to customers who comes to the site. [�T:RAF'JF1C 2A (d) (1)) 1�b'+� f"►Ct^`� �i iP S pe-C t,a. etf ? Avg . ae`-t pC-4 Ccis t • d--e or 5 The traffic generated by ►he home occupation shall not exceed ten (10) vehicle round trips per day or more than thirty (30) vehicle round trips per week. For the purposes of this section, a "vehicle round trip" means one vehicle entering and exiting the site. f Section 5.2AL (e)) n ARKINC: fit✓ Gdt"-� 0 f �" #Lc �+ A �� r P� c{ 5 All vehicles used in the home occupation and all vehicles of employees, customers, clients or students related to the homeoccupation shall be parked on -site. [Section 5.2A (f)] 0-10 TDOOR STORAGE The storage of goods, products, equipment other than vehicles used in the home occupation, or any materials associated with the ho a occupation, other than natural landscaping materials such as mulch and plants, outside of an enclosed structur prohibited. [Section 5.2A (g)] t HOURS OF OPERATION jVkr,+`ire- b'e- .41 Qi ca f L-flv4- The home occupation may operate up to six (6) days per week and the hours of operation shall be between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m_ for those home occupations that have employees, customers, clients or students visiting the site. f SSecti�on 5.2A (h)] I _, UMBER OF VEHICLES The number of vehicles that may be used in the home occupation that are parked or stored on -site shall not exceed two (2) motor vehicles and two (2) trailers. [Section 5.2A (i)] 'UMBER OF )HOME OCCUPATIONS More than one home occupation is permitted on a parcel, provided that the area occupied and the traffic generated by the home occupations shall be considered cumulatively and all requirements of this section shall apply. [Section 5.2A (j)] Major Home Occupation Clearance 4,23/2018 Page 2 of4 ti� & PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The home occupation shall comply with the performance standards in section 4.14. [Section 5.2A (k)[ Does the use involve procedures. machinery or Chemicals that may cause the following? NOISE VIBRATION GLARE HEAT AIR POLLUTION WATER POLLUTION RADIOACTIVITY ELECTRICAL DISTURBANCE NON -DOMESTIC WASTE DISCHARGED TO A SEPTIC FIELD OR SEWER If S, then applicable standards must be addressed with a Certified Engineer's Report (available from staff). PROHIBITED USES (1) any use requiring a special use permit under section (10)' shooting ranges 10.2.2 (2) animal rescue centers (11) commercial stables (3) automobile graveyards (12) rummage or garage sales other than those (4) restaurants determined by the zoning administrator to be occasional (5) storage yards (13) veterinary clinics or hospitals (6) gun sales, unless the guns are made on -site by one or (14) pyrotechnic (fireworks or bomb) device more family members residing within the dwelling unit manufacturing or sale (7) on -site pet grooming (15) Any other use not expressly listed that is (8) body shops determined by the zoning administrator to be contrary (9) equipment, trailers, vehicles or machinery rentals to the purpose and intent of section 5.2A. [Section .2A (1)] uTIFICATIONS& INSPE('TIONS 5e"� tttt, 5-ovF s C%;/-H7 Written notice that an application for a zoning clearance for a major homAccupation has been submitted will be sent to the owner of each abutting parcel under different ownership than the parcel on which the proposed home occupation would be located. The notice will identify the proposed home occupation, its size, its location, and whether there is a request for a waiver or modification. The notice shall invite the recipient to submit any comments before the zoning clearance is acted upon. The notice shall be mailed at Ieast five (5) days prior to the action on the zoning clearance as provided in section 32.4.2.5. In addition, a public notice sign will posted on the property for the duration of the review. [Section .2A (n)] I(,t.IAGE Anj filhlaye One sign that does not exceed four (4) square feet in sign area and only states the name of the person occupying the dwelling and identifies the product or service offered by the home occupation is permitted. No additional permit is required for this sign, however, it must not exceed 6 ft. in height and must be setback at least 5 ft. from the public road =DDITrONAL Section 4.15.2 (25) and 4.15.81 IMPROVEMENTS AND REVIEWS FROM OTHER AGENCIES A zoning clearance shall not be issued if, after review of any site, additional improvements are necessary to protect public health or safety. [Section 31.5 (c)j Other state and local resources, including but not limited to the Health Department, Virginia Department of Transportation, Building Official, and County Engineer are commonly asked to continent on Home Occupation applications. Major Home Occupation Clearance 4/23/2018 Page 3 of 4 413 WAIVERS OR MODIFICATIONS MAY BE SOUGHT ONLY FOR THE FOLLOWING: AREA The area requirements in section 5.2A(b) may be waived or modified, provided that the waiver or modification shall not authorize the home occupation to occupy more than forty-nine (49) percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling. In granting a waiver or modification of the area requirement, the commission shall make the following findings in addition to those findings in section 5.1: (1) the nature of the home occupation requires storage or additional space within the dwelling unit to conduct the home occupation; (2) the primary use of the dwelling unit as a residence is maintained; and (3) the waiver or modification would not change the character of the neighboring agricultural area or the residential neighborhood. [Section 5.2A (m) (1)) TRAFFIC The traffic limitation in section 5.2A (e) may be waived or modified. In granting a waiver or modification of the traffic limitation, the commission shall find, in addition to those findings in section 5.1, that the waiver or modification would not change the character of the neighboring agricultural area or the residential neighborhood. [Section 5.2A (m) (2)) REVIEW PROCESS AND ADDITIONAL FEES WITHOUT WAIVER REQUEST ($27 + notice fees) I WITH A SPECIAL EXCEPTION ($27 + $457 +notice Submit Home Occupation application ($27). Staff will review for completion and mail abutting owner notification (Fee varies based on number of letters). Staff will visit property to post public notice sign, review parking areas, proposed location of sign, and storage areas (if applicable). Staff will approve application if requirements have been met and pick-up public notice sign. 1. Submit Home Occupation application and Waiver application ($25 + $457)_ 2. Staff will review for completion and mail abutting owner notification (Fee varies based on number of letters). 3. Staff will visit property to post public notice sign, review parking areas, proposed location of sign, and storage areas (if applicable). 4. Staff will coordinate date of next available Planning Commission meeting to process special exception 5. Staff will approve application if requirements have been met and pick-up public notice sign. Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign I hereby apply for approval to conduct the Home Occupation identified above, and certify that this address is my legal residence. I also certi - iat II have read the restrictions on Home Occupations, that I understand them, and that I will abide by them. is certi conjunction with a business license, represents zoning approval to conduct the Major Home Occupa fie 0 A 9 _ igna a of Applicant Date Othe Official _ Building Official Zoning Official _ ENGINEER'S REPORT ATTACHED: YES CONDITIONS: Date Date Bate NO Majo: Hoinc Occupation Clearance 423.'2038 °age 4 of 4 41� -- P------- -All ---------- ------ ---------------- fill I .1 4 3 --------- ------------- ------------------ -- --------------------------------------- .r- Plans BUFTON & MAUS LAW OFFICE Attachment D: Staff Email to the Applicant on June 17, 2019 Kevin McCollum From: Kevin McCollum Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 8:25 AM To: Jack Maus Cc: Rebecca Ragsdale; Keith Bradshaw Subject: Major Home Occupation Clearance Jack, Thanks for allowing us to come out and visit the property again on Thursday. Since then, Keith and I have met with the Zoning Administrator, along with the County Attorney's office, and have concluded that the Major Home Occupation Clearance cannot be approved until we can confirm that the structure meets the applicable setbacks, which are: Front — 75' Side — 25' Rear — 35' We can confirm that these setbacks are met by either seeing a physical survey that shows the location and distance of the structure to the property line or visibly seeing the property line in the field by clearly marked stakes. If the structure does not meet the required 25' side setback a boundary line adjustment is a possible solution to the bring the structure into compliance with the required Major Home Occupation side setback. The Building Permit (B2017-02431-NNR) was correctly approved given the information we were given at the time. The building was permitted as an accessory structure and no Major Home Occupation clearance was submitted alongside the building permit. Therefore, the setbacks were front — 75, side — 6, and rear — 6. Kwi^1 McGo-llu.vw Planner, Zoning Albemarle County Community Development kmccollum@albemarle.org 434-296-5832 x 3141 N� Attachment E: Official Determination "RE: H02019-00233 Major Home Occupation Clearance �A��I� r'IF�,131p' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 July 30, 2019 John R. Maus 7380 Gordonsville Rd Gordonsville, VA 22942 RE: H02019-00233 Major Home Occupation Clearance - Bufton and Maus, PLC Parcel ID 05000-00-00-04900 (2.40 Acres) (the "Property"), 7380 Gordonsville Rd, Gordonsville, VA 22942 Mr. Maus: In response to your request for a Major Home Occupation Clearance for the above referenced Property in the Rural Areas, please be advised of the following: Based on the information provided with the application and the site inspection conducted on June 13, 2019 the accessory structure on the Property, proposed with building permit B2017- 02431 NNR, does not meet the applicable setback and yard requirements for primary structures required by Section 5.2A(c). Thus, the noted accessory structure cannot be used for the proposed Major Home Occupation until it is determined to comply with the primary structure setbacks for the Rural Areas zoning district.. Therefore, in accordance with Albemarle County Code § 18-5.2A(c) and Albemarle County Code § 18-31.5(b) the above referenced Major Home Occupation Clearance cannot be approved at this time. Additionally, if the proposed Major Home Occupation operates on the Property without an approved Zoning Clearance it will be considered in violation and subject to Albemarle County Code § 18-36. If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty (30) days of this notice, in accordance with Virginia Code § 15.2-2311. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal may be taken only by filing an appeal application with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals, in accordance with Albemarle County Code § 18-34.3, along with a fee of $258. Additionally, a separate fee is required for the cost of providing notice and advertising of the appeal for a public hearing. Applications for Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's Determination are available at the Department of Community Development located at 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 or online at www.albemarle.org/cdapps. This form applies to the appeal of a decision of the zoning administrator or any other administrative officer pertaining to the Zoning Ordinance. q 7 July 30, 2019 HO201900233 Page 2 Regulations pertaining to the filing of an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals are located in Chapter 18, Section 34.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. They may be reviewed online at www.albemarle.orq/countycodebza. (Please note that our online documents are in Adobe Acrobat PDF format and must be viewed with the Adobe Acrobat Reader or an equivalent. A link to download the free plug-in is available at the bottom of www.albemarle.orq/cdapps.) Please contact me if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, xez# Kevin McCollum Planner Authorized Designee to the Zoning Administrator Attachments: Links shown can be copied and pasted into web browser Albemarle County Code § 18-5 (See Section 5.2A for Major Home Occupation requirements) http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms Center/Departments/County Attorney./Forms/AI bemarle County Code Ch18 Zoning05 Supplement Regulations.pdf Albemarle County Code § 18-31 (See Section 31.5 for Zoning Clearance requirements) http://www.albemarle,org/upload/images/Forms Center/Departments/County Attorney/Forms/Al bemarle County Code Ch18 Zoning31 Admin Enforcement.pdf Albemarle County Code § 18-10 - Area and Bulk Regulations Sec. 10.4 ("applicable setback and yard requirements for primary structures" ref. 5.2A(c)) http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms Center/Departments/County Attorney/Forms/Al bemarle County Code Ch18 Zoning10 Rural Areas.pdf Albemarle County Code § 18-36 httg://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms Center/Departments/County Attorney/Forms/Al bemarle County Code Ch18 Zoning36 Violations.pdf qIl Albemarle County Attachment F: AP201900004 Application Planning Application ARCEL OWNER INFORMATION TMP 05000-00-00-04900 Owner(s): BUFTON, EVELYN & JOHN R MAUS Application # AP20S 9000L%4 Legal Description ACREAGE w Magisterial Dist. Rivanna Land Use Primary Residential -- Single-family 9 Y (incl. modular homes Current AFD Not in A/F District L=� Current coning Primary Rural Areas APPLICATION INFORMATION Street Address 7_ GORDONSVILLERD GORDONSVILLE, 22942 Entered By �.pplicationType ,Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Determination ----i — Suck Smith i �3z zo19 Project EVELYN BUFTON AND JOHN R MAUS Received Date OB/12/19 Received Date Final EL�_ Submittal date OB/12/19 Total Fees 258 Closing File Date Submittal Date Final Total Paid 258 Revision Number Comments Legal4d SUB APPLICA 4PPLICA BUFTON. EVELYN & JOHN R MAUS -P 0 BOX E a.......... JACK MAUS 4P,O...... E P.O. BOX i er: EVELYN BUFTON AND JOHN R MAUS ignature ofcontractororAuthorizedAgent Date -GORDONSVILLEV _22942 ..... -.................. ........... ............... GORDONSVILLE '22942 5408941006 yq FOR OFFICE USE ONLY AP # U I f 00&7CJ 1 SIGN # ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION: Fee knount S0 Ti_ Date Paid 12 !,_ By who? LJu ( t�+/� l� ��§ e�� '� Receipt #/ Ckk By. Application for " Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Determination j® Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Determination = $258 I i FEES to be paid after staff review for public notice: Appeals of the Zoning Administrator require a public hearing by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. The total fee for public notice will be provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body. Staff estimates the total cost of legal advertisement and adjacent owner notification to be between $350 and $450. This estimate reflects I the average cost of public notice fees, but the cost of certain applications may be higher. I Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty, (50) notices i S215 i S Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50) $1.08 for each additional notice +actual cost of first-class postage Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public Actual cost ' hearing) (averages between $150 and $250) I Contact Person ( Who should we call%write concerning this project?): Jack Maus Address Post Office Box E City Gordonsville State VA Zip 22942 Daytime Phone (540) 894-1006 Fax # (540) 406-5911 E-mail jackmauslaw@gmail.com Owner of Record Evelyn Bufton and John R. "Jack" Maus Address Post Office Box E City Gordonsville State VA Zip 22942 Daytime Phone (804) 432-0920 Fax # (540) 406-5911 E-mail ebuftonlaw@gmail.com Applicant (Who is the Contact person representing?): Evelyn Bufton and John R. Maus Address Post Office Box E City Gordonsville State VA Zip 22942 Daytime Phone 5( 40) 894-1006 Fax # ( 540) 406-5911 E-mail jackmauslaw@gmail.com County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126 Revised I :!I/2G15 Page I oft 0U Project Name: Bufton & Maus Law Office Tax map and parcel: 050000-00-00-04900 Zoning: rural Physical Street Address (if assigned): 7380 Gordonsville Road, Gordonsville, Virginia 22942 Location of property (landmarks, intersections, or other): Rt. 231 approximately 2 miles north of the intersection with Lindsay Road - across from Fielder's Choice Farm The following information shall be submitted with the application and is to be provided by the applicant: 1) Completed application including subject of appeal. 2) Justification for applicant's position, including error in Zoning Administrators determination. You may use the space below to provide this information or submit an attached sheet. 3) If applicable, a copy of the latest deed for the property involved, and the approved and recorded plat. 4) If applicable, the appropriate drawings showing all existing and proposed improvements on the property and any special conditions for the situation that may justify the appeal. 5) Reference to the relevant Zoning Ordinance section or other applicable regulations or case precedence to justify the appeal. 6) Appropriate fee made payable to the County of Albemarle. Explanation of error in determination and justification of applicant's position; As further explained on the attachment the iusitification for applicants' position is that (1) they fully disclosed to the Department of Community Development their intended use for the building (2) the Department issued a Building Permit approving the placement of the building, (3) the applicants relied on the Building Permit in locating the building, and(4) the appli- cants' reliance on the Building Permit and their expenditure of substantial funds to construct the building is to their detriment if they are unable to use the building for itg)wner/Applicant Must Read and Sign intended purpose. I hereby certify that the information provided on this application and accompanying information is accurate, true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. of Owner or Contiact Purchaser, Agent nt Name Board of Zoning Appeals Action/vote; Board of Zoning Appeals Chairman's signature: Date:,��- �f s Daytime phone number of Signatory Date: Revised 11/1/2011 Page 2 of 2 �1 ATTACHMENT TO APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DETERMINATION Background When the applicants applied for a building permit, they submitted a copy of the architectural plans for the structure, which called for a building of approximately 1000 square feet with 2 offices, a conference room, a bathroom and a small kitchenette. The applicants' clear- intention was to use the building as a law office and to meet there with clients and other professionals incidental to their law practice. The Department of Community Development (hereinafter, "the Department") issued a building permit that required the building to be set back only 6 feet from the side property line. A copy of the building permit is attached as Exhibit 1. The foundation for the building was staked out so that it is parallel to the residence rather than the side property line. So, at its nearest point, the building is set back 14 feet away from the side property line. At its furthest point, the building exceeds the 25 foot side setback requirement. When the foundation was staked, the applicants asked the Department to send a representative to visit the site to make sure that the stakes were properly placed. When that representative said that the location was correct, the applicants constructed the building in that precise location. The building was constructed in full compliance with the Statewide Building Code as enacted by Albemarle County and has passed the final inspection. The applicants have been told by the Department of Community Development that they are entitled to a Certificate of Occupancy.' Indeed, within hours after the final construction inspection was done, the County's Tax Assessor visited the property to ascertain its effect on an increased property tax assessment. Now, the Zoning Administrator has determined that he cannot approve a Major Home Occupation Clearance because the entire building is not set, back 25 feet from the side property line. ' The Department has indicated to the applicants that, although the building has been completed in full compliance with the building code, the Department has, at the time of filing,of this Application, withheld the Certificate of Occupancy because it did not want to influence the zoning process. Those are two entirely different issues and the Department's refusal to issue a Certificate of Occupancy under these circumstances is arbitrary and capricious. 1 5`i- Case Precedent to Support the Appeal The applicants have been unable to find any legal precedent that precisely deals with this situation. However, there are other legal precedents that are instructive about the appropriate resolution of this appeal. The law in Virginia is clear that, if one person relies on the representations of another to their detriment, the person making the representation is prevented (or estopped) from later taking a different position. Allowing one party to change positions under certain circumstances would be unfair. That's why the doctrine is called "equitable estoppel." said: In Stewart v. Lady, 251 Va. 106, 465 S.E.2d 782 (1996), the Supreme Court of Virginia To establish equitable estoppel, it is not necessary to show actual fraud but only that the person to be estopped has misled another to his prejudice (internal citation omitted) or that the innocent part acted in reliance upon the conduct or misstatement by the person to be estopped. Khoury v. Memorial Hospital, 203 Va. 236, 123 S.E.2d 533 (1962) ....Elements necessary to establish equitable estoppel, absent a showing of fraud and deception, are a representation, reliance, a change of position, and detriment. 251 Va. at 112- 113, 465 S.E.2d at 785. All of those elements necessary to prove equitable estoppel are present in the applicants' case: There was a representation (that the side setback was only 6 feet), • The applicants relied on the representation, • The applicants changed their position (they spend over $120,000.00 to build the office where it was permitted), and The applicants have suffered a detriment (that the County will not allow them to use the building for its intended purpose). The principle of equitable estoppel applies to zoning issues as well. In Chapel Creek, Ltd. V. Mathews County, 12 Va. Cir 350 (1988), a developer had acquired a parcel of land on which he intended to build a 6-unit apartment building. He received approval for that and, when he learned that the County was going to enact an ordinance that prevented expansion K 53 of that project, took additional steps to increase the size of his project before the ordinance became effective. When the Zoning Administrator denied the building permit for the expanded project, the developer sued and lost. However, the Court said this: The doctrine of equitable estoppel provides that the right to use or develop land cannot be infringed upon by legislative action when the owner or developer of such land has in good faith relied upon some act or failure to act by a governmental body and made a substantial change in position. (Internal citations omitted) ...[A] property owner may acquire a valid nonconforming use or acquire a vested right to complete construction of a nonconforming building where, in good faith and in reliance upon a validly issued building permit, the property owner has begun substantial construction or has incurred substantial expenses relating directly to the construction. (internal citations omitted) The most obvious missing link in petitioner's case is the threshold government act, the issuance of a building permit. 12 Va. Cir. At M. Unlike the developer in Chapel Creek, the applicants in this case had a validly issued building permit and constructed the building in accordance therewith. The applicants have finished construction of the building as it was permitted and, as indicated above, have spent in excess of $120,000.00 to do so. As a result, Albemarle County is estopped from denying the applicants a zoning clearance. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Virginia, in Lee v. City of Norfolk, 281 Va. 423, 706 S.E.2d 330 (2011) applied language from Jones v. Board of Governors, 704 F.2d 713 (41h Cir. 1983) in which that Court said: [S]ignificant departures from stated procedures of government and even from isolated assurances by governmental officers which have induced reasonable and detrimental reliance may, if sufficiently unfair and prejudicial, constitute procedural due process violations. 281 Va. at 436. The decision of the Zoning Administrator is so unfair and prejudicial that it violates the applicants' due process rights under both Article 1, §11 of the Constitution of Virginia, and under the Sth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States as made applicable to the States through the 14th Amendment. Finally, it appears that the Zoning Administrator takes the position that the setback requirements in Code §18-10.4 are mandatory. However, the heading at the top of the setback table merely says that "Area and bulk regulations within the RA, rural areas, zoning 'M district are as follows:" That's not enough to make the setback requirement. mandatory. Even if the word "shall" could be inferred from the ordinance, the Supreme Court of Virginia has recently ruled that "shall" is not always mandatory, but that it can also be directory. Rickman v. Commonwealth, 294 Va. 531, 808 S.E.2d 395 (2017). In fact, the Court said that: Under Virginia law, the use of the term "shall" in a statute is generally construed as directory, rather than mandatory, and, consequently, no specific, exclusive remedy applies unless the states manifests a contrary intent. (internal citations omitted). 294 Va. at 539. In fact, one of the decisions cited in Rickman, was Tran v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 260 Va. 654, 536 S.E.2d 913 (2000). In Tran, the Board of Zoning Appeals issued a ruling outside of the 90-day period prescribed by Virginia Code §15.2-2312. The Supreme Court of Virginia ruled that the word "shall" in the statute was directory, not mandatory so that a BZA decision outside the 90-day limit was valid. As indicated above, the County Assessor has determined that the structure adds value to the property. The Department of Community Development recently visited the property and assigned the office building a separate 911 address. The applicants were told that, so long as the building was going to be visited by third parties, it needed a separate 911 address in case of an emergency. The applicants don't understand why the County needs to plan for the presence of third parties if the applicants are not allowed to have them in the building. In summary, for all of the reasons set forth above, the applicants submit that the decision of the Zoning Administrator to deny them a Major Home Occupation approval was incorrect and should be reversed by the Board of Zoning Appeals. 4 55 County of Albemarle BUILDING PERART -Page ; TMPI OSODO-00-00-04900 1 Acres 2.40 Primary Zoning fRura! Areas Community Devei opm ant Department 4C1 IYfcintire F,oad Charlottesville, VA22902-4596 Voice, (4341 296-6832 Fax (434) 972-4128 Current BUFTON, EVELYN & JOHN R MAUS Owners) Major Subdiv, Acreage Building Permit 017-02431-WNR VI Sub Application Ty iStorage ut ingf accessory structure (new or Street Address: 738 , fbDl ILLE RD GORDONSVILLE, 22942 V1ork Glass i Frame Type I Water Supply Type' Wood.' Ce,'tes:ian .tNgll. .t,orkValuation Jurisdictional Area Other Foot/ Found, Desc.: f $ 48,000.00 IlNo Service 'Mork NEW STRUCTURE FOR HOME OFFICE Description: Entered By., Jennifer Smith an 10/18/2017 Associated Building Permit Sewage [Disposal Type Foundation Typi I — Directions 1, 7380 GORDONSVILLE RD Legal ACREAGE Description: 1 Use Group I 1 Construction Type Square Fo,otages: r--� � # of Stories 1 Porches 5041 Unfinished Basement 1st Floor 792 Decks Other Unfinished 2nd Floor Garage Total Unfinished Sq. Footaae 3rd Floor S,nrimming Fool Finished Basement Other Habitable Total Habitable Sq. Footage Total Building Sq, Footage Set backs: ZoningPre-Construction? ? L--- Front �' �; Back I_.��J l Land Use. Fire Alarms Required? ! Bldg Pre -Construction? j Leh Side Right Side Fire Sprinkler NAPA. Code/'year Dwelling Units Accessory Structures � r•lobile';Prefab. Homes � Mobile Offices\Prefab, Units Carports e Bedrooms Baths 1.01 Paint Spray Booths Garages Kitchens Svdmming Pools•,Hot Other � Elea�atorslEscaiators',,Lihs Tubs%Spas (Res, Only) 56 County of Albemarle 8U/LDING PEFtA,•'rIT - Per,* 2 TMPI 05000-00-00-04900 Current I Onwnerfsl Acres 2.401 Primary !Rural Areas Zoning L —�_ Building Permit =I B2017-02431-NNR Sub application Type !Storage building/accessory structure (new or Street Address: 7380 GORDONSVILLE RD GORDONSVILLE, 22942 Contmunih; Development Department 401 MclntireRoad Charlottesville, V.422932-4595 Voice • f434) 296-5632 Fax . f434j 972-4126 Major Acreage Subdiv, Entered By: Jennhzer Smith 1,n 10,/1812017 Associated Building Permit Separate permits may be required for Electrical, Plumbing, Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning. This permit becomes null and void if work or construction authorized is not commenced within 6 months, or if construction or work is suspended or abandoned for a period of 6 months at any time after work is commenced. I hereby certify that I have read and examined this application and know the same to be true and correct, All provisions of laws and ordinances governing this type of work will be complied with whether specified herein or not. The granting of a permit does not presume to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of any other state or local law regulating construction or the n--Fnrmanra of rnnchrnrfinn By signing this building permit, the owner and/or their agent hereby grant employees of the Albemarle County Community Development Real Estate Departments the right to enter and inspect the subject property Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., holidays excepted. If you are not the owner of record, please check which applies: I certify that I am the agent for BUFTON, EVELYN & JOHN R MAUS ❑ the Owner, and am authorized to submit this application on behalf of the Owner under the agency granted to me. I am neither the Owner nor the Owner's agent. I certify that written notice of this application, by providing a copy of this application, will be mailed to the Owner at the following address P O BOX E GORDONSVILLE VA within 10 days of today's date as required by Virginia Code .§ 15.2-2.204(H). I understand that, if I do not provide 2the 2 notice to the Owner as provided herein, the building permit application and every other subsequent approval, permit or certificate related thereto could be determined to be void. of {Omer. Com::racor or A, orced Age-,, — Dale -Fy. ;are cR ri:ira _fficaar 0, 01.hor' Re.preaerza,'ee *D*- EL CTRO IC RECORDS STATEMENT: Albemarle County is creating and using electronic records and electronic signatures as allowed by the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (Virginia Code § 59.1-479 et seq,). As an applicant to the Building Permit Process, you may consent to receive, or have online access to, electronic records and receive and create records having electronic signatures related to Building Permits, Correspondence, Inspection Tickets and Certificates of Occupancy (the Buildinq Please initial here if you AGREE to receive and/or use electronic records and electronic signatures for Building Permit transactions. !'_.".ais of Oun_r. Cor.,rac,ororAui. Your agreement to conduct Building Permit transactions by electronic means does not preventyou from refusing to conduct other transactions by electronic means. 6717 °z n 0 y z, W G CD CL e d CD N CD d Y WJ mr wA48 - •III I` County of Albemarle Department of Community Development �� _ _ "•, :' t? 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 �2G.Izh - DATE: 08/05/2019 TO: BUFTON, EVELYN & JOHN R MAUS P 0 BOX E GORDONSVILLE VA 22942 CC: Post Office, GORDONSVILLE FROM. Geographic Data Services (GDS) www.albemarle.or__ /clads 434-296-5832 SUBJECT: Physical Address Notification - NEW CONSTRUCTION TMP: 05000-00-00-04900 PERMIT#: B2017-02431NNR PHYSICAL ADDRESS: 7382 GORDONSVILLE RD As of the date of this letter, the physical address located at the above Tax Map Parcel (TMP) and/or Building Permit# is currently in our addressing system. To ensure proper location by emergency service providers, timely mail delivery, and the accuracy of other County records, please do the following: • If applicable, contact your telephone company to ensure this physical address is associated with your landline telephone number; Per>L the arldres:; for this structure in accordance with Albemarle County's Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance and Manual;* To rccoivc nncil using this address, contact your post. If this is an address change and you didn't phy ica!ly move, do not submit a Change of Address form with the USPS. Any questions about mail delivery, zip code information, and determining where a mailbox should be installed, will be handled by Lhe post office; If applicable, ensure that your records are up to date with Voter Registration (434-972- 4173), School Transportation (434-973-5716), and the County's Finance Department (434-296-5851); • Alert other County and non -County entities (e.g. credit card, utilities, etc.) as necessary, Note: any change in your physical address does not require the deed to your property to be re- recorded at the courthouse. *The County's Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance requires that this physical address number be posted so it is easily visible from the named street or road. The number ^named street or road, the address number and road name must appear on the rmailbox, The numerals displayed should be at least three inches in height. on a contrasting background and any previously displayed numbers, which could be confused w th,or-mistaken for the address assigned, shall be removed from the mailbox and property. If you should have any questions regarding this physical address, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Attachment G: Staff Email to the Applicant on June 17, 2019 Kevin McCollum From: Rebecca Ragsdale Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 3:39 PM To: Kevin McCollum Subject: FW: Building Law Office on Home Property From: Rebecca Ragsdale Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 7:21 PM To: Jack Maus <maus48@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Building Law Office on Home Property Mr. Maus, We allow small offices as a home occupation as long as the requirements of the major home occupation checklist are met: http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community Development/forms/applications/ Major Home Occupation Clearance.pdf If you would like to build an accessory structure to accommodate the home occupation, it may be no more than 1500 square feet in size and must be 75' from the front property line/edge of VDOT right of way, 25' from the side property lines, and 35' from the rear property line. If the structure for the home occupation is not yet built, you would need to apply for a building permit. The home occupation could not be approved until after the structure gets its CO. We can set up a time next week to chat about this in more detail if you would like. I'm free to meet or give you a call any time- after 2:30pm on Monday and have other scattered openings throughout next week. Rebecca From: Jack Maus [mailto:maus48@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 7:37 PM To: Rebecca Ragsdale <rragsdale@albemarle.org> Subject: Building Law Office on Home Property Dear Ms. Ragsdale: My wife, Lyn Bufton, and I live in the northeastern corner of Albemarle County at 7380 Gordonsville Road. We are both lawyers and recently formed a law partnership. We would like to build a law office in a corner of our 2.4 acre lot. I stopped by the Community Development Office ye�terday without an appointment and was given your name as a contact person to see whether that's possible and, if so, what we need to do to get started. Please let me know when it would be a good time to explore this further. My cell phone number is 540-894- 1006. Thank you, Jack Maus (PI 1au-so[anu,T)2uawoppio 0095-Zb6 (0t g) 086ZZ VA '-ogsauABAA anuQ 1saIoq 9COZ O I Ln .r 00 -guljooulsua UOTUTWO(I '-%10 Q �.. - C �'C-'• � `, �� ICI � d w > �� f G €� Kett e c ._' ,: - tv3�E€SeLp�& i c � I Z 6 2 COUNTY OF ALBEMART .F MEMORANDUM TO: Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals FROM: Andrew H. Herrick, Deputy County Attorney DATE: September 19, 2019 RE: Bufton & Maus Appeal; No. AP 2019-4 On behalf of the County, the County Attorney's Office submits the following summary of legal issues raised in the Bufton & Maus Appeal (No. AP 2019-4). Appellants Evelyn Bufton and John R. Maus are appealing the denial of a home occupation clearance H02019-00233. 1. Summary of Facts On or about October 18, 2017, Appellants Evelyn Bufton and John R. Maus applied for a building permit for an accessory structure in the Rural Areas (RA) zoning district. On or about December 7, 2017, Building Permit B2017-02431-NNR was issued, authorizing the construction of the accessory structure. The building permit noted side and rear setbacks of six feet, consistent with County Code § 18-4.11.2(b). Following completion of construction, on or about June 4, 2019, the Appellants applied for a major home occupation clearance, pursuant to County Code § 18-5.2A. Specifically, the Appellants applied to operate a law office from the newly -constructed accessory structure, which is located within 25 feet of the side property line. In an official determination dated July 30, 2019, the Zoning Administrator's designee denied the Appellants' application for a major home occupation clearance. On or about August 12, 2019, the Appellants filed the present appeal. 2. Applicable Standards A. Standard of Review: Presumption of Correctness I A ellant's Burden of Proof Virginia Code § 15.2-2309(1) enables the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to "hear and decide appeals from any order, requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative officer in the administration or enforcement of [the zoning ordinance]. The decision on such appeal 63 shall be based on the board's judgment of whether the administrative officer was correct." See Board ofZonmgAppeals ofJames City County v University Square Associates, 246 Va. 290 (1993). Virginia Code § 15.2-2309(1) further provides: "The determination of the administrative officer shall be presumed to be correct. At a hearing on an appeal, the administrative officer shall explain the basis for his determination after which the appellant has the burden of proof to rebut such presumption of correctness by a preponderance of the evidence." [emphasis added] B. Applicable Zoning Ordinances This appeal primarily involves two provisions of the County's zoning ordinance: 1. County Code § 18-5.2A outlines the standards by which major home occupations may be conducted in the Rural Areas (RA) zoning district. Most notably for the present case, County Code S 18-5.2A(c)(1) provides: "Any accessory structure that does not conform to the applicable setback and yard requirements for primary structures shall not be used for a home occupation." (emphasis added) 2. County Code § 18-10.4 in turn provides that the applicable side setbacks for primary structures in the Rural Areas zoning district are 25 feet. 3. Application/Analysis At its core, this appeal misunderstands the critical distinction between structures (on the one hand) and uses (on the other). Building permits and use clearances (such as for home occupations) are analyzed and issued by separate offices under separate standards. The County's Building Official issues building permits, following the standards of the Uniform Statewide Building Code (USBC). By contrast, the County's Zoning Administrator issues zoning clearances for certain uses, following the standards of County Code § 18-31.5 and (in the case of home occupations in the Rural Areas) County Code § 18-5.2A. Note that these requirements address 'the use of a structure or property. A structure meeting the structural requirements of the USBC may not necessarily meet the separate requirements needed to qualify for a certain use, such as an approved home occupation. In this case, the newly -constructed accessory structure did and does meet all applicable USBC requirements. Therefore, the new accessory structure was properly issued a building permit, despite being ,vihin the side setback applicable to primary structures, and may still be used for any use permitted in accessory structures in the Rural Areas zoning district. Unfortunately for the Appellants, a major home occupation simply isn't one of those permitted uses, at least where the accessory structure is within a setback applicable to primary structures. Though the Appellants have other potential use(s) of the accessory structure or may seek a boundary line adjustment (among other potential remedies), County Code § 18-5.2A(c)(1) simply does not permit home occupation use within the setbacks applicable to primary structures, as here. 4. Rebuttal The appeal objects to the determination on two grounds. Neither is legally persuasive. 2 �q A. Equitable estoppel does not apply. Despite the Appellants' argument, equitable estoppel does not apply to the County's zoning determination in this case. As the Virginia Supreme Court has ruled: "To establish equitable estoppel, it is not necessary to show actual fraud, but only that the person to be estopped has misled another to his prejudice, Security Co. V. Juliano, Inc., 203 Va. 827, 834, 127 S.E.2d 348, 352 (1962), or that the innocent party acted in reliance upon the conduct or misstatement by the person to be estopped. Khoury v. Memorial Hospital, 203 Va. 236, 243, 123 S.E.2d 533, 538 (1962)." T. v. T., 216 Va. 867, 872-73, 224 S.E.2d 148, 152 (1976). (emphasis added) In this case, the County -issued Building Permit was neither misleading nor a misstatement The Building Permit properly allowed the construction of the proposed structure in the proposed location. However, as noted above, the use of that structure was and is a separate matter. As a result, the Building Permit did not (and could not) give zoning approval for a home occupation use. The Appellants apparently inferred a home occupation use approval from the Building Permit where none was actually granted. The County's approval of the Building Permit and disapproval of the subsequent home occupation use application are consistent and do not represent a change in position on the County's part. Therefore, equitable estoppel does not apply. Even if equitable estoppel did apply, it would only preclude the County from revoking its initial Building Permit, which the County has not sought to do. B. The setback requirement is plain unambiguous and mandatory. Despite the Appellant's argument, the setback requirement in the County's zoning ordinance is plain, unambiguous, and mandatory. Before outlining specific dimensions, Albemarle County Code § 18-10.4 begins: "Area and bulk regulations within the RA, rural areas, zoning district are as follows:" (emphasis added). The Appellants attempt to confuse the issue by introducing the distinction between the mandatory ("must") and directory ("will") uses of the ambiguous term "shall." Fortunately, the ordinance in question actually uses the clear and unambiguous term "are." The alternative, a "directory" setback, would eliminate defined setbacks altogether. As the Virginia Supreme Court noted (in the case cited by the Appellants): [A] "shall" command in a directory statute carries no specific, exclusive remedy. Instead, it empowers the court to exercise discretion in fashioning a tailored remedy, if one is called for at all." Rickman v. Commonwealth 294 Va. 531, 537, 808 S.E.2d 395 398 (2017) In arguing for a "directory" setback, the Appellants are arguing (perhaps without realizing it) that courts should "exercise discretion in fashioning a tailored [setback[, if one is called for at all." That clearly is not the meaning or intent of the County's setback requirements, as written. Setbacks are in fact mandatory requirements, not directory guidance. 5. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, the denial of a home occupation clearance HO2019-00233 was correct. Because the Appellants have failed to rebut the presumption of correctness, their appeal should be denied, and the denial of the zoning clearance affirmed. Cc: Bart Svoboda, Zoning Administrator 65 Information Requested by John Shepherd & L I- COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 - Fax (434) 972-4126 CER TIFICA TE OF OCCUPANCY This is to certify that the detached personal home office, as further described below, has been inspected and found to be in compliance with the 2012 edition of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. Construction Information Building Permit # B20170243INNR Type of Construction 5-B Sprinkler System lNone Designated Special Conditions or Modifications For personal use only, IR-5 Use Group Property Information Date: August 15, 2019 Building Official: Zoning Administrator: b I Residential Inspection County of Albemarle - Inspections Division - (434) 296-5832 ,0 'A TVIP 05000-00-00-04900 Owner: BUTTON. EVELYN & JOHN R MAUS Phone: Cell Phone: U r- Permit Number: B2017-02431-NNR New Owner: Power Company: Central Virginia Phone: Cell Phone: LegaiDescription: Acreage Street Address: 7380 GORDON - SVILLE RD GORDONSVILLE Directions'. 7380 GO RDONSVILLE RD Work Description: NEW STRUCTURE FOR HOME OFFICE DateScheduled. 2/1512019 Type: Administration COMMENT Re -inspection APPROVE REJECTED Insulation Printed: 2/1412019 4:28 Pr,/i Scheduled By: Eileen Wittwer Inspectors Comments. L -lx xnp /2 A_ s Cr)41 V_91U Inspeq;pX_Narne In VD'HOF VlIRGINIA DEPARTMENT HEALTH Protecting You and Your &7vironment Albemarle County Health Department 1138 Rose Hill Drive Charlottesville, VA 22903 (434) 972-6219 Voice (434) 972-4310 Fax Sewage Disposal System Operation Permit Properti, Oivner Evelyn Buf#on 7380 Gordonsville Road Gordonsville, VA 22942 Phone: (804) 432-0920 Health Dept. ID: 101-17-0590 Bldg Permit #:.B2017-02431-11NR Tax Map/GPiN: 50-49 Locality: Albemarle County Property Location Property Address: 7380 Gordonsville Road Gordonsville, VA 22942 L Evelyn Bufton is hereby oranted permission to operate a Residential Conventional Onsite Selvage System at the above referenced location, under the following parameters: Daily Flow: 300 gallons Number of Bedrooms: 2 This permit is issued in accordance with the provisions of -Fitle 32.1, Chapter 6 of the Code of Virginia as Amended, and Section 12VAC 5-610-340 of the Sewage Handling and Disposal Regulations of the Virginia Department of 1-lealth. The issuance of an operation permit does not denote or imply any guarantee by the department that the sewage disposal system will function for any specified period of time. It shall be the responsibility of the owner or any subsequent owner to maintain, repair, or replace any sewage disposal system that ceases to operate in accordance with the regulations. July 9. 2019 Travis Davis -j cites —, Effective Date Environmental Health Specialist, Sr. Signature LR Residential Inspection County of Albemarle - Inspections Division - (434) 296-5832 0{ aI -& TM P: 05000-00-00-04900 Owner BUFTON EVELYN & JOHN R MAUS Phone: Ce11 Phone: it Permit Number: B2017-02431-NNR New Owner t,711;�1Af Power Company: Central Virginia Phone: Cell Phone: LegalDescription: Acreage Street Address: 7380 GORDONSVILLE RD GORDONSVILLE Directions: 7380 GORDONSVILLE RD Work Description: NEW STRUCTURE FOR HOME OFFICE DateScheduled: 5/22/2019 Type: Administration COMMENT Final Building Final Electric Final Mechanical Final Plumbing Printed: 5;21/2019 4:26 PM Scheduled By: Eileen Wittwer Ins-,ectors Comments: :540-894-1006 A.M. Re -Inspection APPROVE REJECTED � Lt7 ❑ ❑ ❑ Inspectors Name 'ID Residential Inspection County of Albemarle - Inspections Division - (434) 296-5832 zS�0 A TMP: 05000-00-00-04900 Owner: BUFTON, EVELYN &JOHN R MAUS �`- Phone: Cell Phone: -��- Permit Number: B2017-02431-NNR New Owner: t7I d1P Power Company: Central Virginia Phone: Cell Phone: Leg aIDescription: Acreage Street Address: 7380 GORDONSVILLE RD GORDONSVILLE Directions: 7380 GORDONSVILLE RD Work Description: NEW STRUCTURE FOR HOME OFFICE DateScheduled: 4/25/2019 Type: Administration COMMENT Re -Inspection APPROVE REJECTED Final Building Final Electric Final Mechanical Final Plumbing Final Zoning Printed: 4/24/2019 4:14 PM Scheduled By: Keith Huckstep Inspectors Comments: am please. Sly "TA/ 4) t'l 0 � j , "� `�" Inspectors Name '1l Residential Inspection County of Albemarle - Inspections Division - (434) 296-5832 0F Aj-I �f TMP: 05000-00-00-04900 Owner BUFrON, EVELYN & 3OHN R MAUS I Phone: Cell Phone. -;, Permit Number: B2017-02431-NNR L New Owner: Power Company: Central Virginia Phone: Cell Phone: LegalDescription, Acreage Street Address: 7380 GORDONSVILLE RD GORDONSVILLE Directions: 7380 GORDONSVILLE RD Work Description: NEW STRUCTURE FOR HOME OFFICE DateScheduled: 2/19/2019 Type: Administration COMMENT Re -Inspection APPROVE REJECTED Insulation Printed. 2/i5/2C99 4:06 PM Scheduled By: Keith Huckster) Inspectors Comments: r✓ l In pectors Name `1� Residential Inspection County of Albemarle - Inspections Division - (434) 296-5832 �40F Al TMP: 05000-00-00-04900 Owner: BUFTON, EVELYN & JOHN R MAUS Phone: Cell Phone: 'rk - Permit Number: B2017-02431-NNR New Owner: ~�ti7iL►Power Company: Central Virginia Phone: Cell Phone: LegalDescription: :Acreage Street Address: ; 7380 GORDONSVILLE RD GORDONSVILLE Directions: :7380 GORDONSVILLE RD Work Description: !NEW STRUCTURE FOR HOME OFFICE DateScheduled: 2/5/2019 i Type: Administration COMMENT Insulation Printed: 2/4/2019 4:13 PM \ Scheduled By: Cindy Dotson Inspectors Comments: Re -Inspection APPROVE REJECTED ns . ectors Name Residential Inspection County of Albemarle - Inspections Division - (434" 296-5832 OF AI,13 TMP: 05000-00-00-04900 Owner: BUFTON, EVELYN & JOHN R MAUS o ; Phone: Cei: Phone: tt Permit Number: B2017-02431-NNR u „ New Owner X ' x •1!' I'pAGI^�P Power Ccmpany: Central Virginia Prone: Cell Phone: Legal Description: iAcreage Street Address: 7380 GORDONSVILLE RD GORDONSVILLE Directions: �7380 GORDONSVILLE RD Work Description: INEW STRUCTURE FOR HOME OFFICE DateScheduled: 1 /2912019 Type: Administration COMMENT Rough -in Mechanical Printed: 1/28/2019 4:14 PM Scheduled By: Eileen Wittwer Insoectors Comments: Re -Inspection APPROVE REJECTED C I spectors Name LJ 9 rye`'" Residential Inspection County of Albemarle - Inspections Division - (434) 296-5832 qOF Al TMP: 05000-00-00-04900 Owner: BUFTON, EVELYN & JOHN R MAUS Phone: Cell Phone. G Permit Number: 82017-02431-NNR New Owner: �Tr I,Rq;.tSP` Power Company: Central Virginia Phone: Cell Phone: Lega[Description: Acreage Street Address: 7380 GORDONSVILLE RD-GORDONSVILLE i J�.��''` Directions: '7380 GORDONSVILLE RD Work Description: ':NEW STRUCTURE FOR HOME OFFICE - DateScheduled: 1 /22/2019 Type: Administration COMMENT Re -Inspection APPROVE REJECTED ❑ ❑ ❑ Framing Walls-,� �� la_m 804-432-0920- ✓ — 4 ❑ Inside Gas Line\�; (,� f ❑ ❑ Printed: 1/18/2019 4:13 PM � � Scheduled By: Eileen Wittwer l / yrispl ctors Name Inspectors Comments: ( j ru Tom.AIL&❑ Residential Inspection County of Albemarle - Inspections Division - (434) 296-5832 OF AL TMP: 05000-00-00-04900 Owner BUFrON. EVELYN & JOHN R MAUS p P: one: Cell Phone: Permit Number: B2017-02431-NNR New Owner: c 7 "J rr" : 0 r'IRGTA�A Power Company: Central Virginia Phone: LegalDescription: lAcreage Street Address: 7380 GORDONSVILLE RD G_O_R_DONSVILLE Directions: 17380 GORDONSVILLE RD W CeiJ Phone: _ Z3 i W k Descrit'onj SEW STRUCTURE FOR 5 or p i L— HOME OFFICE DateScheduled: 1 /1.8/2019 Type: Administration COMMENT Re -Inspection APPROVE REJECTED Outside Gas Line Underground Tank ;Printed: 1/17/2019 4:13 PM Scheduled By: Eileen Wittwer Inspectors Comments: J540-832-0090 A.rdl. s tiame 7� Residential Inspection County of Albemarle - Inspections Division - (434) 296-5832 � OF At TMP: 05000-00-00-04900 Owner- BUFTON, EVELYN & JOHN R MAUS Phone: Cell Phone: Permit Number: B2017-02431-NNR New Owner, �lIn1IA Power Company: Central Virginia Phone: Cell Phone: LegalDescription: ;Acreage Street Address: ' 7380 GORDONSVIL_LE RD GORDONSVILLE Directions: 7380 GORDONSVILLE_RD Work Description: NEW STRUCTURE FOR HOME OFFICE DateScheduled: 1 /11 /2019 Type: Administration COMMENT --__ —_ _ Re -Inspection APPROVE REJECTED Framing Walls } `'rQSf A�6_4-43_2-0 0 A111- _g Rough -in Electric Rough -in Mechanical Rough -in Plumbing Printed: 1/10/2019 4:16 PM Scheduled By: Eileen Wittwer Inspectors Comments: F_� � r k 0 l _- spectors Name �n Residential Inspection County of Albemarle - Inspections Division - (434) 296-5832 .0 A[ TMP: 05000-00-00-04900 Owner: BUFFON, EVELYN & 30HN R MAUS Phone: Cell Phone: r- Permit Number B2017-02431-NNR New Owner: Power Company: Central Virginia Phone: Lega I Description: ACREAGE Street Address: 7380 GORDONSVILLE RD GORDONSVILLE Directions: 7380 GORDONSVILLE RD Work Description: NEW STRUCTURE FOR HOME-O.FFICE. DateScheduled: 8/30/2018 Type: Administration COMMENT Footing jA.M. 804-432-0920 Preliminary Zoning .�-?5, 8* 55-(o Printed- 8/29/2018 4:1 ', P,'V, Scheduled By: Eileen Wittwer Inspectors Comments: Cell Phone: Re -Inspection APPROVE REJECTED L1 ins,oectors Name 'ls Cou ity of Albemarle BUfLDING PERM IT - Pace 9 Community, Development Department 4-01 McIntire Road Charlottesville. V.422902-45S5 Voice: i434t 295-5832 Fax: i434j 972-4125 TMP I 05[300-00-I]0-049OC# I Current BUFTON, EVELYN & 3OHN R MAUS - Ownarfs)� _......... --- - " Acres F.4{1 Prima Zoning Rural Areas Major Subdiv. Acreage Building permit = B-2017-0243i1- Entered By: Jennifer Smith on 1o11i3/',7o37 Sub Application Type,Stprage Building/accessory structure (new or i � Associated Building ._._.__...__......_....-_.._.._.-...LJ permit Street Address: 738 GOGORDONSVILLE RD GORDONSVILLE, 22942 I few :' ood ' iartesian 1i1e11 Private _... ....__...:>........::......... :........... : Other ,pork Valuation Jurtstiktional Area Other Foot Found. Desc.: $ 48f000_00 No Service I. Work NEVJ STRUCTURE FCIR HOME OFFICE Description: Directions raOU uVKL►UF1�V1LLr KL) Legal I ACREAGE Description: l Use Group Construction Type Square Footages: # of Stories 1 I Porches 1 5041 Unfinished Basement ist Floor 171921 Decks Other Unfinished 2nd Floor Garage Total Unfinished Sq, 504 3rd Floor Swimming Pool Footage Finished Basement Other Habitable Total Habitable Sq, Footage 792 Total Building Sq. Footage 12961 :et Backs I Front Back Zoning Pre -Construction? ;° Land Use? i � Fire Alarms Required? Bldg Pre -Construction? Left Side Riaht Side r Fire Sprinkler fd-.P.�. Code,'1'ear i I D•nellina Units Accessory Structures Flobile%prefab, Homes Mobile Offices`,Prefab. Units Carports e Bedrooms Baths 1.0 Paint Spray Booths Garages Kitchens B S..+.L',Spes (Res. Only) immina Pools'�.Hot .l R Other — � Elevators'tEscalator=':Liles Tub_ Cortact Type � �i:�T1�8 '=i""'rFa'r. � - .• -_ .`. ---• bufton, evelyn John r maus :PO B03 E C.it, Mate iip Phone same,!o,.' et.r:-a gent y - liq f County f Albemarle 8l.,+lLDING PERNT - Page 2 TMP1 05000-00-00-04900 Acres I 2,401 Primary :Rural Areas Zonina Current Own a ri's } Community Development Department 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville. VA 22902-459a Voice: (43) 295-5832 Fax : r'434i 972-4126 BUFfON, EVELYN & JOHN R MAUS Building Permit =1 B2017-02431—NNR � Sub Application Type 'Storage build i ng /accessio ry structure renew or Street Address. -I 7380 GORDONSVILLE RD GORDONSV'ILLE, 22942 * Plajor ACreage. Subdiv.1 Entered By: Jennifer Smith on 10/1812017 Associated Building Permit I Contractor Number I StateLicenseNurr6ar ! License Class 1 Separate permits may be required for Electrical, Plumbing, Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning. This permit becomes null and void if work or construction authorized is not commenced within 6 months, or if construction or work is suspended or abandoned for a period of 6 months at any time after work is commenced. I hereby certify that I have read and examined this application and know the same to be true and correct. All provisions of laws and ordinances governing this type of work will be complied with whether specified herein or not. The granting of a permit does not presume to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of any other state or local law regulating construction or the narFnrmanrP of rnncf-mrtinn By signing this building permit, the owner and/or their agent hereby grant employees of the .Albemarle County Community Development Real Estate Departments the right to enter and inspect the subject property Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., holidays excepted. If you are not the owner of record, please check which applies: I certify that I am the agent for BUTTON, EVELYN & JOHN R MAUS , the Owner, and am authorized to submit this application on behalf of the Owner under the agency granted to me. I am neither the Owner nor the Owner's agent. I certify that ,written notice of this application, by providing a copy of this application, will be mailed to the Owner at the following address P O BOX E GORDONSVILLE VA 22.942 ❑ within 10 days of today's date as required by Virginia Code § 15.2-2.204(H), I understand that, if I do not provide the notice to the Owner as provided herein, the building permit application and every other subsequent approval, permit or certificate related thereto could be determined to be void. S,,rnr..re of w=r;=et. Cc .rs::or or A.! n rzea Age-. Oa e 2ira::rre of=;idirg cMcia% or ^.'z23 Represer aT;V, :)a:e ELECTRONIC RECORDS STATEMENT: Albemarle County is creating and using electronic records and electronic signatures as allowed by the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (Virginia Code § 59.1-479 et seq.). .As an applicant to the Building Permit process, you may consent to receive, or have online access to, electronic records and receive and create records, having electronic signatures related to Building Permits, Correspondence, Inspection Tickets and Certificates of Occupancy (the Buildinq Please initial here if you AGREE to receive and/or use electronic records and electronic signatures for Building Permit transactions. ai= c cr ALoo --1 Ate - Your agreement to conduct Building Permit transactions by electronic means does not prevent you from refusing_to conduct other transactions by electronic means. �'t OF Ax�r County Q { Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Building Application Inspection Line: (434) 972-4179 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126 TMP Current J use # Street Name Apt /Suite Owner(s)&dip v. n r 1 L:�W-,k Fra Me Type; Water Supply Type: Sewage Disposal Footing /Foundation �! Type: Type: ❑ Addition ❑ lConcrete ❑ Artesian Well I ❑ None ❑ Basement iV�, �� ❑ I Alteration ❑ Demolition ❑ Masonr ❑ I ❑ I None I Private ❑ Crawl S ace `�� Other ❑ Private ❑ Public ❑ None New ❑ Steel Central Well / ❑ KI Other 1. ❑ Other ❑ Vin I ❑ Public ❑ � ❑ Slab ❑ Remodel � Wood ❑ ❑ E____1 ❑ Jurisdictional Area Other Foot/ Found Desc.: Work Valuation Power Company Work Description 4I9B-+ci Directionsa� 01 "JA V Use Group � Construction Type��' Square Footages: # of Stories Porches 7 st Floor 6 9 � Decks 011 2nd Floor Garage 3rd Floor Swimming Pool Finished Basement Unfinished Basement Other Habitable Other Unfinished Total Habitable Sq. Footage Total Unfinished Sq. Footage Total Building Sq. Footage Setbacks: � ont Back Zoning Pre -Construction? Land Use? Fr ❑ ❑ Fire Alarms Required? Bldg Pre -Construction? Left Side Right Side Fire Sprinkler NAPA Code Year? q1 21 Dwelling Units Accessory Structures Mobile / Prefab. Homes Mobile Offrces/Prefab. Units Carports Bedrooms Baths Paint Spray Booths Garages Kitchens Ul Swimming Pools/Hot �- —iIITubs/Spas (Res. Only) Other Elevators/Escalators/Lifts APPLICATION■NTACT INFORMATION i Primary Contact ceff Name /�. i9 /r a .n / �o� 7' �-n a� i Phone #; ��Gf-CP— Street Name Fax # I �i7 i City /State Ec Zip Code { E-mail %� f U j ► wLj, Cellulaz # Owner / Ap cant Name Phone # Street Name Fax # City / State Zip Code E-mail Cellular # i i Mechanics Lien Name Phone # I i Street Name Fax # City J State i Zip Code E-mail Cellular It General Contractor Name 1 /�2 Phone # Street NameFax # � s City / State I Zip Code E-mail! ! Cellular # SUBCONTRACTOR INFORMATION J- Business Name: license Types: State License # Locality License # I J i I i L 1 ±I I f J I Separate permits may be required for Electrical, Plumbing, Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning. This permits becomes null and void if work or construction authorized is not commenced within 6 months, or if construction or work is suspended or abandoned for a period of 6 months at any time after work is commenced. I hereby certify that I have read and examined this application and know the same to be true and correct. All provi- sions of laws and ordinances governing this type of work will be complied with whether specified herein or not. The granting of a permit does not presume to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of any other state or local law regulating construction or the performance of construction. By signing this building permit, the owner and/or their agent hereby grant employees of the Albemarle County Community Development & Real Estate Departments the right to enter and inspect the subject property Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., holidays excepted. If you are not the owner of record, please check which applies: a I certify that I am the agent for The Owner, and am authorized to submit this application on behalf of the Owner under the agency I am neither the Owner nor the Owner's agent. I certify that written notice of this application, by pro- viding a copy of this application, will be mailed to the Owner at the following address: Within 10 days of today's date as required by Virginia Code §15.2-2204(H). I understand that, if I do not provide the notice to the Owner as provided herein, the building permit application and every other subsequent approval, permit or certificate related thereto could be determined to be void. /U % /7 S' ture of Owner, C ntractor, or Authorized Agent Date Signature of Owner, Contractor, or Authorized Agent Date ELECTRONIC RECORDS STATEMENT: Albemarle County is creating and using electronic records and electronic signatures as allowed by the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (Virginia Code § 59.1-479 et. Seq.), As an applicant to the Building Permit process, you may consent to receive, or have online access to, electronic records and receive and create records having electronic signatures related to Building Permits, Correspondence, Inspection Tickets and Certificates of Occupancy (the Building Permit transactions). Initials of Owner. Contractor or Authorized Agent Date Your agreement to conduct Building Permit transactions by electronic means does not prevent you from refusing to conduct other transactions by electronic means. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT V'DHOF HEALTH Protecting You and Your Environment -Omm-4431 L L Page 1 of 3 Albemarle County Health Department 1138 Rose Hill Drive Charlottesville, VA 22903 (434) 972-6219 Voice (434) 972-4310 Fax PE Construction Permit Well and Sewage Contractors: Please notify Health Department and OSE or PE 48 hours prior to installation to arrange for inspection November 30, Z017 Evelyn Bufton" 7380 Gordonsville Road Gordonsville, VA 22942 RE: Site Address: 7380 Gordonsville Road, Gordonsville, VA 22942 Tax Map/GPIN: 50-49 (Albemarle County) HDID: 101-17-0590 Reserve: 100% reserve area provided Usage Desscription: Detached office with bathroom Dear Evelyn Bufton : This letter and the attached drawings, specifications, and calculations (8 pages) dated November 15, 2017, constitute your permit to install a sewage disposal system and on the property referenced above. Your application for a permit was submitted pursuant to § 32.1-163.5 of the Code of Virginia, which requires the Health Department to accept private soil evaluations and designs from an Onsite Soil Evaluator (OSE) or a Professional Engineer working in consultation with an OSE for residential development. VDH is not required to perform a field check to verify the private evaluations of OSEs or PEs and such a field check may not have been conducted for the issuance of this permit. The soil absorption area ("site"), sewage system design, a were certified by Michael Craun, PE as substantially complying with the Board of Health's regulations (and local ordinances if the locality has authorized the local health department to accept private evaluations for compliance with local ordinances). This permit is issued in reliance upon that certification. VDH hereby recognizes that the soil and site conditions acknowledged by this permit are suitable for the installation of an onsite sewage system. The attached plat shows the approved area for the sewage disposal system; there are additional records on file with the Albemarle County Health Department pertaining to this permit, including the Site and Soil Evaluation Report. This construction permit is null and void if any substantial physical change in the soil or site conditions occurs where a sewage disposal system is to be located. If modifications or revisions are necessary between now and when you construct your dwelling, please contact the OSE/PE who performed the evaluation and design on which this permit is based. Should revisions be necessary during construction, your contractor should consult with the OSE/PE that submitted the site evaluation or site evaluation and design. The OSE/PE is authorized to make minor adjustments in the location or design of the system at the time of construction provided adequate documentation is provided to the Albemarle County Health Department. The OSE/PE that submitted the certified design for this permit is required to conduct a final inspection of this sewage system when it is installed and to submit an inspection report and completion statement. As the owner, you are responsible for giving reasonable notice to the OSE/PE of the need for a final inspection. If the designer is unable to perform the required inspection, you may provide an inspection report and Tax Map/GPIN: 50-49 HDID: 101-17-0590 Page 2 of 3 completion statement executed by another OSE/PE. The Albemarle County Health Department is not required to inspect the installation but may perform an inspection at its sole discretion. No part of this installation shall be covered until it has been inspected by the OSE/PE as noted herein. The sewage system may not be placed into operation until you have obtained an Operation Permit from the Albemarle County Health Department. This Construction Permit is null and void if conditions are changed from those shown on your application or if conditions are changed from those shown on the Site and Soil Evaluation Report and the attached construction drawings, specifications, and calculations. VDH may revoke or modify any permit if, at a later date, it finds that the site and soil conditions and/or design do not substantially comply with the Sewage Handling and Disposal Regulations, 12 VAC 5-610-20 et seq., or if the system would threaten public health or the environment. This permit approval has been issued in accordance with applicable regulations based on the information and materials provided at the time of application. There may be other local, state, or federal laws or regulations that apply to the proposed construction of this onsite sewage system. The owner is responsible at all times for complying with all applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations. If you have any questions, please contact me. This permit expires: June 01, 2019. This permit is not transferable to another owner or location. Sincerely, Josh Kirtley Environmental Health Technical Specialist Albemarle County Health Department CC: Craun, Michael PE Tax Map/GPIN #: 50-49 HDID#: 101-17-0590 WHAT YOU WILL ?NEED TO GET YOUR SEPTIC SYSTEM OPERATION PERMIT Page 3 of 3 • Your system must have a satisfactory inspection at the time of installation. This will be done by either a representative of the local Health Department, a private OSE, or a PE, depending on the designer of your permitted system. If your system is designed/inspected by an OSE or PE, they must submit a copy of the inspection results, complete with an as -built diagram, to the Health Department. • Please ensure that your contractor turns in a Completion Statement to the local Health Department after installation. • If your permit is for an alternative system, you must sign, have notarized, and record the attached Notice of Recordation in your locality's land records. Please bring proof of this recordation to the local Health Department Allow 5 business days after the last piece of documentation is received for the Operation Permit to be issued. To avoid delays, clearly label each piece of documentation with the property Tax Map /GPIN number and HDID number shown above and on your construction permit. Please note that due to the individual circumstances of your permit there may be additional required items not covered by this checklist. If you have any questions about any of the items on this list, please do not hesitate to contact the Albemarle County Health Department at (434) 972-6219. Albemarle County VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Louisa County PD Box 7546 Thomas Jefferson Health District PO Box 336 Charlottesville, VA 22906 Revised March 29, 2009 Louisa, VA 23093 (434) 972-6219 - Office (540) 967-3707 - Office (434) 972-4310- Fax ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES (540) 967-3733 - Fax Fluvanna County Greene County Nelson County PO Box 136 PO Box 38 r�rnlnnrng0 Box 9B Palmyra, VA 22963 Stanardsville, VA 22973 Lingslon, VA 22949 ��• JL LJ ` i� � (434) 591-1965 - Office (434) 985-2262 - Office �( 4) 263-4297 - Office (434) 591-1961- Fax (434) 985-4822 - Fax 434) 263-4304 - Fax REQUEST FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION WITH EXISTING SEWA GE DISPOSAL city , Fdmsv Home Phone: fork Phone: Celli Phone: Parcel: Subdivision, Applicant's Na e Isv3 pplicant's Address t q m,eW) State Zipr� City Home Phone: Work Phone: Cell Phone: PROPERTY INFORMATION Directions to Pr perty: j Buildini Section Block Lot r Proposed New Co Agent's Name Agent's Address State Permit�Number: n Zip PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS Circle One 1.) Was your septic system installed and approved within the last 10 Years? �ZD Un 2.) Does proposed addition or replacement come within 20' of the drain field or reserve area? 3.) Does proposed addition or replacement come Within 50' of your well? YES 1.) Are there wet spots in your yard, slow running drains, backups, or discolored spots in lawn? YES NO 3y signing this statement you are requesting that the Environmental Health Specialist evaluate your ystern and are granting b4cWbarQ2rmjs.sion to enter your property- if a site visit is needed, I ou may be required t uncoveVour ep#F tank and distribution box lids. re SEE PAGE 2 FOR HEALTH DEPARTMENT FINDINGS PAGE 1 of 2 DIM PAGE 2 of 2 HEALTH DEPARTMENT USE ONLY Site Visit WAS NOT made and existing water supply WAS NOT evaluated, unless otherwise noted under comments. ADEQUATE DESIGN A review of our records indicate the existing sewage disposal system (SUS) and reserve area (where indicated) appears to be adequately designed for the proposed use. This does not imply that the existing SDS wilt continue to function properly for any minimum period. No conflicts were noted when the attached site plan (including footprint) was compared to those records. Exact locations may vary from records and it is suggested that the exact location of the SDS be confirmed before beginning construction. INADEQUATE DESIGN Existing SDS inadequate. Applicant must apply at the Health Department for a sewage disposal construction permit. Permit must be issued and a copy submitted to building inspections before Building/Zoning permit is issued. COMMENTS: �0to UP t-f )--.D 181- i 7 -Ogia /,v✓ ealth Deparfficial 3 ©,tJo� ► � Date Qa 01) Revised March 29, 2009 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 E I a I "We OWWW". j CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR LICENSURE EXEMPTION AFFIDAVIT Section 108.4 of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code requires that any person applying for a building permit be duly licensed as a contractor/subcontractor under the terms of Chapter 11 of Title 54.1 of the Code of Virginia, or be exempt from such licensure. "Contractor" means any person, that for a fixed price, commission, fee, or percentage undertakes to bid upon, or accepts, or offers to accept, orders or contracts for performing, managing, or superintending in whole or in part, the construction, removal, repair or improvement of any building or structure permanently annexed to real property owned, controlled, or leased by him or another person or any other improvements to such real property. I have applied for the building permit identified above. I affirm that 1 am familiar with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code requirement for contractor/subcontractor licensure under the terms of Chapter 1 I of Title 54.1 of the Code of Virginia, and that I am exempt from such licensure. The basis for my exemption is the following (applicant must initial at least one): 1. The work is performed by a government agency with its own forces 2. The work is bid upon or undertaken for the United States armed services under the Armed Services Procurement act The work is bid upon or undertaken for the United States government on federal property 4, The work. is bid upon or undertaken for the Virginia Department of Transportation on state highway and/or'bridges. 5..�; The dpplicant is excluded by another law, such law being: The applicant is a material supplier rendering advice but not providing construction or installation sery es 7. e applicant is performing or supervising work on no more than one primary residence owned by i er for his/her own use during any 24-month period 8. The applicant is performing or supervising work on his/her own property as a gift to an immediate family member, provided that such family member (mother, father, son, daughter, brother, sister, grandchild, grandparent, mother-in-law or father-in-law) lives in the house 1 q 9. The applicant is performing or supervising work on industrial or manufacturing facilities, or on a commercial or retail building for his/her own use 10. The applicant is performing or supervising work on residential dwelling unit(s), subject to the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, owned by him/her 11. The applicant is an owner -developer, provided that any third -party purchaser is made a third -party beneficiary to the contract between the applicant and a licensed contractor whereby the contractor's obligation to perform the contract extends to both the applicant and the third -party purchaser 12. The work is undertaken by students as part of a career and technical education project, established by any school board, on the construction of portable classrooms or single-family homes I understand that any reference to me in this document also includes the company or entity that I own, work for or represent. I understand that even if I am exempt from licensure pursuant to the provisions of Exemptions 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 above, I must comply with all other provisions of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. I understand that even if I am exempt from licensure pursuant to the provisions of Exemptions 7, 10, 11 or 12 above, I shall obtain a certificate of occupancy, or other evidence of building code compliance, prior to conveying the property described in the building permit application to a third -party purchaser, unless such purchaser has acknowledged in writing that no certificate of occupancy, or other evidence of building code compliance has been issued and that such purchaser consents to acquire the property without a certificate of occupancy or other evidence of building code compliance. I understand that working without a valid contractor's license, or without being duly exempt from such licensure_. subjects me to criminal prosecution. ne - printed) (applicant's signature) Signed and sworn to before me by: PfL:n (applicant's name — printed), COMMONWEALTH F VIR CITY/COUNTY OFt2b()v- Rlksv t ; The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this D day of , 20 1 ,T My Commission Expires: � �LS I IX� r;,111 iA VrAl 'JL ary Iublic Revised: 05/2011 f% t ffo L , P, OD15;e4v d Construction Permit 17 ®SE/PE Report For: Repair Voluntary Upgrade Permit Permit Property Location: 911 Address: 7380 Gordonsville Rd. Lot Section GPIN or Tax Map # TM 50-49 Latitude Subdivision Page of D Certification Subdivision Letter Appr val �e --t City; Gordonsville Health Dept ID # � 01- �1-0`�> C� 0 Longitude Applicant or Client Mailing Address: Name: Bufton, Evelyn & John R Maus R �� Street: P O BOX E A"j LOU City: Gordonsville State VA Zip Code 22942 Prepared by: OSE Name License # Address City State Zip Code PE Name Michael F Craun License # 036859 Address 2036 Forest Drive city Waynesboro State VA Zip Code 22980 Date of Report 11/16/17 Date of Revision #1 OSE/PE Job # 1317057 Date of Revisio Contents/Index of this report (e.g., Site Evaluation Summary, Soil Profile Descriptions, Site f see table of contents on next page Plans - 11"x17" - Separate - 5 pages Certification Statement I hereby certify that the evaluations and/or designs contained herein were conducted in accordar the Sewage Handling and Disposal Regulations (12 VACS-610), the Private Well Regulations (12 V� Alternative Onsite Sewage Systems (12VAC5-613) and all other applicable laws, regulations and p Department of Health. I further certify that I currently possess any professional license required t Commonwealth that have been duly issued by the applicable agency charged with licensure to pc ❑The work attached to this fover page has been conducted under an exemption to the practice of engineering, specifically the exemption in Code oypirginia Section 54.1-402.A.11 I recommend that a (select one): onstruction permit El certification letter 0 subdivision approval Obe (select one) Issued E] r air permit 0 voluntary upgrade Q Denied ❑ Vic OSE/PE Signature Date l' /- ts ✓t This form contains personal information subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Revised 12/1/2014 Iql Table of Contents Page 2— of � Cover page/Certification Statement Table of Contents Application Page Supplemental Calculations W. Old Dominion Engineering qI Commonwealth of Virginia. Application for: ❑✓ Sewage System ❑Water Supply Owner Burton, Evelyn & John R Maus Mailing Address P O Box E Gordonsville, VA 22942 Agent Mailing Address Site Address 7380 Gordonsville Rd Gordonsville, VA 22942 Directions to Property: Subdivision Tax Map TM 50-49 Section Other Property Identification Sewage System (o VDH Use only Health Department ID# [Due Date Phone Phone Fax Phone Phone Fax tl �?i Email Iynbulfon@gmail.com Block Lot Dimension/Acreage of Property 2.4 acres Type of Approval: Applicants for new construction are advised to apply for a certification letter to determine if land is suitable for a sewage system and to apply for a construction permit (valid for 18 months) only when ready to build. ❑Certification Letter lE Construction Permit © Voluntary Upgrade 0 Repair Permit Proposed Use: Single Family Home (Number of Bedrooms 2 ) Multi -Family Dwelling (Total Number of Bedrooms ) Other (describe) Addition of an office with an office bathroom - minor modification Basement? ElYes 0No Walk -out Basement?DYes[j]No Fixtures in Basement[]YesE]No Conditional permit desired? [:]Yes D4o If yes, which conditions do you want? ❑ Reduced water flow ❑ Limited Occupancy ❑ Intermittent or seasonal use ❑ Temporary use not to exceed 1 year Do you wish to apply for a betterment loan eligibility letter?DYesQNo *There is a $50 fee for determination of eligibility. Water Supply Will the water supply be❑Public orE)Private? Is the water supplyE]Existing orE3Proposed? If proposed, is this a replacement well? DYes MNo If yes, will the old well be abandoned? ❑Yes E]No Will any buildings within 50' of the proposed well be termite treated? MYes ©No All Applicants Is this a private sector OSE/PE application? DYes ONo If yes, is the OSE/PE package attached? ElYes ONo Is this property indeed to serve as your (owners) principal place of residence? DYes rn_�No In order for VDH to process your application for a sewage system you must attached a plat of the property and a site sketch. For water supplies, a plat of the property is recommended and a site sketch is required. The site sketch should show your property lines, actual and/or proposed buildings and the desired location of your well and/or sewage system. When the site evaluation is conducted the property lines, building location and the proposed well and sewage sites must be clearly marked and the property sufficiently visible to see the topography. I give permission to the Virginia Department of Health to enter onto the property described during normal business hours for the purpose of processing this application and to perform quality assurance checks of evaluations and designs certified by a private sector Onsite Soil Evaluator or Professi neer a necessary until the sewage disposal system and/or private water supply has been constructed and approved. Signatur f er/ Ag t Date This form contains personal information subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Revised 12/l/2014 Page q of a Supplemental Calculations Project Narrative An office is being added to the property. The office will typically have one or two occupants. There will be one convenience bathroom in the office. The sewer cannot flow by gravity to the septic tank. A sewage lift pump chamber located outside the garage will be used to lift the wastewater to the septic tank. To aid the septic tank in holding back solids, an effluent filter will be added. No expansion of the current septic permit is being requested. Total Nitrogen Removal Calculation (per GMP 156) N/A Treatment Level Septic Tank Effluent Sewage Lift Pump and Tank — One 24" diameter pump basin, 50" tall will be used as a sewer ejector lift pump basin. The pump operation will be automatic through an integrated float. A separate alarm will be used to signal a high level event. Pump tank requirements such as storage above alarm, minimum storage volume, and manual over ride are waived for this design. Deviation from regulation justification: • The sewage ejector only serves one convenience bathroom in the office. If the sewage ejector malfunctions, the owner has other bathroom facilities in the main house to use. 24" diameter 1.96 gallons per inch Invert in C 24" Alarm Float = 20" Pump On - 14" Pump Off - 6" Pump Volume = 15.7 gallons Alarm Storage = 8 gallons q�i Page of J Pump Size Calculation Job Description: ITM 50-49 Pump: Sewa e Pump Prepared by: IMFC Date: 11/15/2017 Worksheet - Pump Sizing A) Desired Pump Capacity 35.00 gpm B) Pipe size 2 inch C) Pressure loss in 100 ft. of pipe 0.89 psi D) Friction head in 100 ft. of pipe 2.06 ft. E) Static head i) Height from pump to tank outlet 4 ft. ii) Elevation increase or decrease 4 ft. F) Total static head 8 ft. G) Friction head i) Equivalent length of fittings 125 ft. ii) Distance from pump to outlet 315 ft. iii) Total equivalent length of pipe 440 ft. iv) Total effective feet 9.04596 ft. vi) Headloss through Water Meter 0 ft_ 0 psi vii) Headloss through Zone Valve 1 0 ft. 0 psi viii Head at PM 0 ft. 0 psi H) Total friction Head 9.04596 I) Total dynamic head 17.05 ft. J) Minimum pump capacity 35.00 gpm K) Estimated Velocity 3.82 fps L) Choose the pump Little Giant 10SN (35 gpm @ 19') 95 u. 4 x xs T `ta.+ ;Zt&d...x, #is i,, h;:3 "�tx t� ri �•.f,x. -F:S n�%...i�.iittleGMT 10SN SERIES -112 HP Sewage and effluent wastewater transfer, dewatering Permanent Split Capacitor (PSC) ■ Energy -saving low amp draw ■ Designed for continuous duty ■ 2" FNPT (51 mm) and 3" FNPT (76.2 mm) discharge models ■ Handles solids up to 2" (51 mm) diameter Multiple switch options for automatic operation 140 OF (60'0 liquid temperature rating cCSAus listed 10SN-CIA-SFS 5i1346 10SN-CIA 1/Z 115 2" Integ!alSnap-Action Float 9"-12" 3"-6" 22.26cm-30.48cm 7.62 cm - 15.24 cm. 20'" 6.1m 375!bs j 17.5Kg 511323 QSN-GA-RF 1/2 115 2" Piggyback Mechanical Float 9 14 2" 6" 22.86 cm - 35.56 cT 5 cm - ,-5.24 cm 20' 6.1 m j 36.51bs 16.56 Kg 511326 j 10SN-CIA-RF 1/2 l 115 3" Piggyback Mechan',caiFloat I 9"-14" 2"-6" 20' 3751bs I 22,86 cm - 35.56 cm 5 cm -15.24 cm 63 m 17.5 Kg 511344 '0sN-CIM '/2 115 3` Manual - _ 20' 3^.5lbs m 6.1 ?6�.55.Kg j 511322 105,'r'-C!M i 1/2 115 j 2" Manual - i _ 20' 35 ibs _ 63 m 1. Kg r 511328 10SN CiM I i/2 208 23G 2` Manual - _ 20' j 36 2 s 6.1m 1 16.33'(g 511345 i 10SN-C1M' 1/2 208-230 3" Manual 20' 36lbs 62 rn 16.33 Kg 86 ll� Ve SEWAGE PUMPS 10SN SERIES -112 HP IOSN-CIA-SFS IOSN-CIA-RF 9 i L B 10SN-OM IOSN-CIA-SFS 13.12" I0S4" 9.25" 3333 cm 26.77 cm 23.5 cm IOSN-CIA-RF 11.4" 11.64" 6.8" 28.96 cm 29.5 cm 17.27 cm 10SN-CIM 11.4" 11.64" 15F 28.96 cm 29.5 cm 1727 cm I.PM 0 100 200 300 400 30 25 20 IS 10 5 C 6 x 0 0 20 CAPACITY - GPM 40 60 80 9 6 3 N IIII -r IITfI C ti 0 E 100 120 Cover Epoxy -coated cast iron/ *Thermoplastic Motor Housing Epoxy -coated cast iron Impeller Material Thermoplastic elastomer Impeller Type Non -clog Volute Epoxy -coated cast iron Mechanical Shaft Seal Nitrile with carbon and ceramic faces Fasteners Stainless steel Shaft Steel Bearings Upper sintered sleeve and lower ball bearin s Power Cord SJTW--SJTOW un srs mooeis On 30' IOSN-CIA-RF and IOSN-CIM models J'7 itF® Franklin Electric Hotline:1.800.101.1894 1 www.lif[Niant.com - - ACCESSORIES APPLICATIONS ■ Indoor high water alarm +.�•-G1A11T FEATURES ■ NEMA 1 thermoplastic enclosure ■ Mechanical float switch with 15 ft (4.6 m) cable ■ Alarm has red LED warning light, horn with silence switch, and test button ■ 9 VDC battery backup ■ UL and (SA listing lternNo. Model Volts .d 513288 HWAB 115 1.83 m APPLICATIONS f s` ■ Switch repair kit FEATURES ■ Easy -to -install, NEMA 1, 3J4 hp device fi ■ low-cost alternative to conventional duplex control panels ■ Operates two manual sump, sewage or.effluent pumps ■ Alternates to standby pump if energized pump fails to turn on ■ Audible alarm and red light indicator ■ Operates single-phase pumps with 15 max. run amps ■ cULus listing 100 1 1 , 1 573289 IDC-115 NS 75 29 m LittleGIAIYT H, APPLICATIONS ■ indoor/outdoor high water alarm FEATURES ■ Type 3R watertight thermoplastic enclosure ■ Mechanical float switch with 15 ft (4.6 m) cable ■ Alarm has red warning light, horn with silence switch, and test button ■ Includes pre -mounted terminal block so enclosure can also be used as a junction box ■ UL and CSA listing 513273 303HWXT 115: T I APPLICATIONS ■ Remote water sensor and alarm s"s ■ Warns of leaks and overflows in bath, kitchen, laundry, attic, basement, or anywhere there is a potential for leaks to occur jjYOM FEATURES * Remote sensor detects water and sounds alarm ■ 85 decibel alarm sounds for three days ■ Sensor and alarm can be placed up to 6 ft apart ■ Sensor has both suction cup and adhesive to secure in place ■ Includes wall mounting hardware ■ Space saving design Circuit test/reset button ensures system is working • Low battery signal when battery needs replaced • Requires one 9 V battery (not included) -11 1 Its. e 513379 1 HW-9 I 9V/DC i i28 ® E Sewage Dl*sposal SyMinor Modification Design 0 THIS PLAN IS BEING SUBMITTED UNDER PROVISION 32.1-163.6 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA M AND DOES NOT POSE A GREATER RISK OF MALFUNCTION AS DEFINED IN THE SHDR 350 THAN CURRENT REGULATORY DESIGNS. T" TM 50-49 7380 Gordonsville Rd LA ~r' Gordonsville, VA 22942 2.4 Acres Bufton, Evelyn & John R MausT P 0 Box E ;CD Page M CHAEL CRAUN Gordonsville, VA 22942 Specifications 2 �� LICENSE 036859 � Site Plan 3 Septic Tank Details 4 ss� 1�`0 ° Sewage Pump Details 5 ti�� 300 gallon per day system (2 BDR) STE New Sewage Ejector Station Existing 1000 Gallon Septic Tank with effluent filter Existing Drainfield Old Dominion Engineering 2036 Forest Drive Waynesboro, Va 22980 Phone: (540) 942-5600 email: olddomeng@ntelos.net General 1. Modifications or substitutions to the specified equipment or layout must be approved by the engineer. 2. The contractor should inspect the site prior to submitting an estimate to the owner. Any potential conflicts should be reported to the engineer. By submitting an estimate the contractor indicates that he has investigated the site and has found no discrepancies with the plans and specifications. 3. A preconstruction conference is mandatory before starting installation of the system. Contact engineer to discuss important aspects of installation. The engineer will not certify the system at the final inspection unless a preconstruction conference is done prior to installation. 4. A final inspection is required — The installation must pass inspection by the engineer. Notify the engineer of the planned inspection date in advance. Prior to final inspection the contractor should shoot all invert elevations and take as -built triangulation measurements. The contractor shall provide as -built measurements to all components of system to the engineer at the final inspection. The OWNER is responsible for paying the engineer's inspection fees. 5. If adverse subsurface conditions are encountered (rock, groundwater, utilities, etc.) contact the engineer. 6. If site conditions vary contact the engineer. 7. The contractor is responsible for maintaining all set back distances as required by local ordinances and health department and payment for all inspections by health department. 8. Installation shall be in accordance with Virginia Department of Health Sewage Handling and Disposal regulations and in accordance with erosion and sediment control guidelines. 9. A separate Project Manual contains calculations, equipment cut sheets, etc. A separate package contains AOSE soil information. 10. Notify "MISS Utility" prior to excavation. Gravity Sewer/Effluent Main/Force Main 1. Gravity sewer from the office to the sewage ejector tank is 4" SCH 40 PVC sewer. Cleanouts every 50'. 2. Effluent mains shall be 4" schedule 40 PVC and have a slope of 6" per 100' minimum. 3. Force main and pressure piping shall be 2" Schedule 40 PVC . Ar �lo�`�` 'i�,► g � MCA1L F. CRAUN LICEN E NO. 03 859 IQ `!PNA L EN Ar i Septic Tank 1. Septic Tank - existing. Check tank to make sure it is not leaking and check tees for alignment. The tank and all seams shall be waterproof. 2. The access port on the outlet end of the tank shall have a 24" waterproof riser. The riser shall be attached to the tank and sealed.. Riser shall reach the surface and shall be covered at the surface with lockable, watertight lids. 3. Zabel A300 12x20-VC-Ball effluent filter on tank. I i Garage Sewage Ejector Tank � 1. 24" diameter Polylok Basin with 24" Heavy Duty Lid. 50" min height. Basin to be waterproof. 2. Pipe penetrations to be waterproof with Polylok grommets. 3. Inlet to tank shall be 4" SCH 40 PVC. Outlet is 2" SCH 40 PVC. 4. The risers shall extend 2" above final grade and shall be covered at the surface with a plastic, lockable, watertight lid. The risers shall be 24" in diameter. I 5. If rock is encountered in the tank hole then tank shall be bedded with 8" #68 stone. Tank shall be backfilled in layers with sufficient compaction (> 95% compaction) to avoid settling. Backfill material shall be free of debris and large stones. 6. Tank shall be backfilled in layers with sufficient tamping to avoid settling. Backfill material shall be free of debris and large stones. 0 POO Sewage Ejector Pump • 1. Little Giant 10SN-CIA-RF (1/2 HP). Pump shall deliver 35 gpm C 19 ft. Pump operation is to be controlled by an integrated piggyback float. Hardwired electrical connection in waterproof junction box. 2. Install 3/16 vent hole location before check valve per Little Giant recommendation a Alarm Panel 1) Indoor!Outdoor Little Giant Alarm 303HV1-'XT Alarm (513273). Alarm to be installed on office. Alarm to be audiovisual and controlled by float. All electrical connections shall be hardwired in a waterproof junction box. i �2 Project Notes/Specifications 1317085 IM Dotes: / \ 1. Exact location of tanks will vary based upon topography and landscaping. F . Provide Engineer with proposed as -built triangulation measurements at 3. Before pricing conference. / U 3. Before pricing system installation, the contractor shall inspect the site and `� � verify dimensions, elevations, and layout of system. 4. Separation distance between building and septic tank, pump tank, header line or force main: \ O 0 10' - when located below basement floor 20' - when located above basement floor 5. 5' separation distance between property line or easement from any septic or dripfield component 6. 15' separation to power lines. EXISTING bJD � 7. 50' separation from lift station or farce main and well. — — _ IIIC WELL 1 SEWAGE EJECTOR � / 24" POLYLOK BASIN 50" HIGH (MIN) O / I LITTLE GIANT I OSN-CIA-RF PUMP 1 / LITTLE GIANT HIGH WATER ALARM }^ n O DETAIL 5-1,= LAST 5' OF FORCE MAIN IS 4" SCH 40 PVC. / z°scx40PVC o ENTER MAIN SEWER / 4" SCH 40 PVC WITH 4" SCH 40 PVC WYE CLEANOUT I \ I I � OFFICE I / o � i I I 2BDR House EkISTING O I DRkNFIELD / O \ i _ ct 1 \ \ / s O EXISTING 1000 GALLON TOP SEAM SEPTIC TANK \ \ �� "D NEW 24" RISER \ \ m NEW ZABEL A300 12X20-VC-BALL DETAIL 4-1 \ \ �p1JS Ar H 0 \ / t �� E Sewage Disposal 3 CLEANOUT " MICHAEL F. CRAUN Site Flan 4" SCH 40 PVC \ \ _ LICENSE NO. TM 50-49 LRevision e 036859 go 0 7380 Gordonsville Rd 1317085 Gordonsville, VA 22942 LV► /oNaL Gi� Scale 1" = 50` /0, �� HOUSE A -ND - OFFICE USE SILICON ADHESIVE BETWEEN RISER JOINTS BRING TO JUST BELOW GRADE OF EXISTING SLATE PATIO WITH EZ SET POLY RISERS D BOX DRAINFIELD 5,000 PSI REINFORCED CONCRETE SCREW DOWN' RISERS WITH STAINLESS STEEL SCREWS HIGH PRESSURE SEALS BRING TO 2" ABOVE GRADE POLY RISERS AND LID 24" HEAVY DUTY POLYLOK RISER COVER 2" UNION AND 2" BALL VALVE POLYLOK 24" DIAMETE POLYLOK WATER TIGHT GROMME OFFICE High 1, LITTLE GIANT IOSN-CIA-RF SEWAGE PUMP AUTOMATIC NOTES: 1. SEWAGE EJECTOR PUMP TANK IS NEW 24" DIAMETER X 50" DEEP POLYLOK BASIN 2. INLET - 4" SCH 40 PVC, OUTLET - 2" SCH 40 PVC 3. TANKS PENETRATIONS MUST BE WATERPROOFED AND NOT LEAK; USE POLYLOK GROMMET. 4. 24" RISER ON TANK. 5. STRAP ALL PIPING TO TANK WITH PLASTIC STRAPS AND STAINLESS STEEL ANCHORS 6. FLOAT HEIGHTS WILL NEED TO BE ADJUSTED IF TANK DIMENSIONS VARY FROM 1.96 GAL PER INCH 7. EASY ACCESS TO VALVES AND UNIONS 24" SEWAGE EJECTOR PUMP TANK SECTION VIEW POLYLOK WATER TIGHT GROMMET EXISTING 4" SEWER TO SEPTIC TANK Sive lift rope PUMP ON/OFF rco1 Scclz Palylok 24" 13asin One - 4" penerratlon [4" PolYlok Gronunct) One - 2" penetration 0" Pnlylok Grommet) One - 1" penetration (I " Polylok Grommet] Water test prior to backfill AW O OF `MICHAFCPAU`N�y Arm LICENSE NO. 036K9 ilk� S/ONA L EN '\AF Sewage Ejector Details 5 1317085 j A'A I t/lz 4, 1 4 ALL WORK SUBJECT TO FIELD IMSPECTIO?,j Ba01}-�;31NNfC 104. 'IT4 5 ��c -4 k V ,7 1 Information Submitted by Applicant September 30, 2019 } �i':<<-.. '��'Yr"4.r• iT i,-. .r:f� '�i--�• r_ _ :r'_ :111'�'•. :7,. - .{.4.. ,. �� :�: }.��i?�r:`• '#. ^ hr rti ti.�JK:� '-Ise• .i - a�:�i+• _. • i;'�`;� •�.�r �,f•, .. • rr+ ,ffi:�•r �- rCy�: j `+ '•:Y:. .'r+• 't. •�•"'•, ;�. t. ' VA ---------- Jx ------- ----- ---------------- ----------- 92, -------------- )N 4 V Positive As of: August 16. 20 : 9 ', :34 PA! Z 4.1 3d. of ,.Yuper visom of'Ri:.e'hmorttl )?. Rhoads, Supreme Court of Virginia August 31, 2017, Decided Record No. 161209 Reporter 294 Va 43 ", 803 S.E.2d 329 'f": 2017 Va. LEXIS 110 �`��', 2017 WL 3765193 It BC)ARI) OF St1PERVISURS 01- RIC.HtVIUND COUNTY v• .JANIE L. RHOADS, ET AL. Prior History: [***1] FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF RICHMOND COUNTY Harry T Taliaferro, III; Judge. Z3tl of'Supe:rvisors v. Rhoods 20.16 T,u. L.t_XTY 202 Disposition: Affirmed. Case Summary Overview HOLDINGS: [1]-'G'cr. Code Art?). § 15.2-23.1.1(C) was correctly applied to conclude that a certificate issued by a zoning administrator was not void ab initio where, due to its plain language and remedial nature, �5 .15.2-23.11(1.;.'j manifestly created a legisiatively-mandated limited exception to the general principle that a building permit issued in violation of applicable zoning ordinances was void; [2]-The signed certificate wa.s a written order by the zoning administrator as it clearly constituted a determination that the owners' building plans for a garage complied with the zoning ordinances; [-]- Pursuant to 1 15.2-2� t.he owners had a vested right to use their property in the manner originally approved by the zoning administrator where a.pin•oval was within the adn11'n1strat0r's delegated authority, more than 60 days had passecl, and (lie owners materially relied upoii the c e el r11111CLL can. Outcome Judgment affirmed. Counsel: For BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF RICHMOND COUNTY, Appellant: MCROBERTS, ANDREW RAY, (ESQ.). MAC:KENZIE, C:HRISTOPHER MICHAEL, (ESQ.,). For RHOADS, JANIE L., RHOADS, EDMUND, RHOADS, CRYSTAL, RHOADS, MEADE, Appellees: MONDAY. MONICA TAYLOR, (ESQ.), WRIGHT, KATHLEEN LYNCH, (ESQ.), BUGG, ALBERT DAVIS, JR., (ESQ.), BUGG, ALBERT DAVIS, III, (ESQ.). Judges: OPINION BY JUSTIC::E S. BERNARD GOODWYN. Opinion by: S. BERNARD GOODWYN opinion [**331] [*46] PRESENTT: All the Justices OPINION BY JUSTICE S. BERNARD GOODWYN In this appeal,',ve consider whether the circuit court erred in applying (,'c�c1c� �S_.1.5.2-?. _L (- anci ruling ghat property owner>s had a vested right to the tt.se of their property in violation of a zoning ordinance, when more than 60 days elapsed after the .zoning administrator issued a deteriziination which alloxvetl John MAUS 294 Va, 43, *46; 803 S.E.2d 329, **331; 2017 Va. LEXIS 110, —1 Pige 2 of 7 that use, -Ind the property owners materially changed their poslti011 ill good ft[ith reliance upon that cletermination. [*47] BACKGROUND Janie Rhoads, Edmund Rhoads, Crystal Rhoads, and Meade Rhoads (collectively, the Rhoadses) o""ll property, in Richmond County (the Property).1 On November 13, 2013, the R11oad-ses filed an application for a Zoning Certificate of Compliance (Application) [***2] to build a "2-story all unfinished detached garage" (Garage) tail t:he Property, and attached architectural drawings of the proposed Garage. The Richmond County (County) zoning administrator, Morgan Quicke (Quicke), visited the Property, Which has a one-story primary dwelling, before checking t11e box for "Approved" 011 the Application and signing the Certificate of Compliance (Certificate) on November 18, 2013.2 The Certificate included instructions regarding how- to appeal if the Application was denied. The Rhoadses completed the Garage in June 2014 at a cost of approximately $27,000. In July 2014, Joseph Quesenberry, the new County zoning administrator (Quesenberry), inforined the Rhoadses that the previously approved Garage was in violation of Richmond County Zoning ()rdinance. (Zoning, Ordinance) Section 2-3-6 (the Ordinance), because it was taller than the primary structure on the Property. Oil September 24, 2014, a written notice of zoning violation was sent to the Rhoadses, advising them that the Garage was in violation of the Ordinance (Notice). The Rhoadses appealedi the Notice to the County Board of Zoning, Appeals (BZA) by letter doted October 13, 2014. The stated grounds for the appeal 'Meade Rlionds wss not initially a party to the two lawsuits discussed below, but tie later became an owner of the Property and Was added as a defendant to [lie ill _jt.u-Iatian case brought by the Board by Order dated October 19. 2015. 2Quicke was both the County administrator and the acting Coat-tty zoning official at the brae. %were that the [***3] R110a.dses had. received a Certificate of Compliance signed by the County,,., zoning administrator, the Rhoadses had relied upon the Certificate in building the Garage, and, under C"ncJw ti5 15. 2- 2311((�'Z, their "rights [had] vested and the permits for erection of the [Garage) are not subject to revocation or reversal." The BZA denied the Rhoadses' appeal, and affirnled Quesenberry's decision that the Garage violated the Ordinance. On February 23, 2015, pursuant to C'ocle s' 15.2- "ilfl, the Rhoadses appealed the BZA's decision 'by filing a petition for [*48] certiorari in the Circuit Court of Richmond County (Rhoadses' Appeal'). The County Board of Supervisors (Board) filed an answer to the Rhoadses' Appeal and also filed a complaint for declaratory and illjullctive relief against the Rhoadses, requesting a declaration that the Garage is in violation of the Ordinance and an 1111unction to prevent the continued violation of the Ordinance (Board Case). On October 19, 2015, the circuit court held an ore leans hearing to address both the Rhoadses' Appeal and the Board Case, and admitted into evidence n joint stipulation of undisputed facts and evidence regarding the history of the Property and the Garage project. The Rhoadses stipulated that the Garage [***4] violated the Ordinance, but for the Approval of the zoning adM11-li8trat0r, and the Board stipulated that Quicke visited the Property in September 2013, and "knew, as of that site visit, that the primary structure was one-story in height." Meade Rhoads testified. that, prior to beginning the Garage project, lie and his contractor tnet with the County code compliance officer at the Property, and the code compliance officer .suggested a ttivo- story garage. The t,,vo-story Garage design was submitted in the Application, for the zoning administrator's approval. Quicke acknowledged that the [**332] Application showed a 14 by 32 feet, two -stop, garage, but testified that he slid not read the Application or look at the plan attached to the Application before signing the Certificate, in his CapaClty as the C ounty's zoning administrator, After John MAUS Page 3 of 7 294 Va. 43, *48; 803 S.E.2d 329, **332; 2017 Va. LEXIS 110, '**4 receiving the Certificate, the Rhoadses built. the Garage, according to the plans approved by the Certificate. The Rhoadses asserted that the BZA erredby failing to find that their rights, in the zoning a.dnhinistrator's initial determination, vested pursuant to Cade. _6 7.5.,2-..231.1,fn. The Board asserted that Cvdc 1 S. Z-?311(C'.i did not apply and that the BZA's decision should be affirmed. On May 18, 2016. the circuit [***51 court entered its final order in both cases and held that "Cock e 1 S_2_2 .11 (C'). applies, and the R hoads[es] have established their entitlement to relief under that provision," Accordingly; the circuit court reversed tlhe BZA decision, and entered judgment in favor of the Rhoadses in the Rhoadses' Appeal. It also denied the Board's requests for declaratory and injunctive relief, and entered judgment in favor of the Rhoadses in the Board Case as well. [*49] The Board appeals both cases.? A\ALYsis The Board argues that C:'ocle .15, 2-3311�Ci does not apply, because Quicice "lacked the authority to approve a plain violation of the Zoning Ordinance, and the Certificate the issued was therefore void ob initio." The Board also claims that Cock, �_15.?- 2.31i1CL does not apply in this case because the Certificate was not a "determination" within the meaning of the statute. Additionally, it asserts that the circuit court erred because Coda ' 1.5.2-2311(C'1 oj:ily applies to bar the subsequent actions of a zoning administrator or other administrative officer, and not those of any other body, such as the Bow'd or a court. The issue on appeal is whether the circuit court correctly interpreted and applied the terms of ti' f,�1..2-'31.1(C... This Court reviews -- the 'The two onsog, which were tried togOtiler bu.t not forrnnlly ct)nsnliclatec1 in the oircuit court, have been joined in this appeal, interpreta.t.ion of a statute de novo. 1Volte le v.—IVY, 7trh. Enters„ .1:.1:C;, 284 Ma, .r 0, Sp, 726 S.K2d -i39. 344 (30.12). When the language of [***6] a statute is unamblgu.ous, we are bound by the plain meaning of that language. Furthermore, we must give effect to the legislature's intention as expressed by The language used unless a literal interpretation of the language would result in a manifest absurdity. If a statu_.e is subject to more than one interpretation, we must. apply the interpretation that «will carry ouT the legislative intent behind the statute. Id. clt 9-,90, 726 ;SJ,_ 2c1 a1' 344. C:OeJe 4ti .15.22311 governs appeals to a board of zoning appeals. ,Codce § 15.2-L 1(C'1' specifically provides: In .no event shall a written order, requirement, decision or determination made by the zoning administrator or other administrative officer be subfecl to change, »zoclifr.cation orrever'so! by Orly zoning cithninistralor or other L74h'11i121.5'tl"C.ItlVe gfficer gfler 60 &),s hove elapsed fi'un•1 the cac)tee of the wri.lten order, requirernenl, ['501 decision or deterrniraation where the person aggrieved ha.s materially changed his position in good faith reliance oil tine acticrh of the zoning adlIlinistra.tor or other administrative officer unless it is proven that. such written order, requ.irenhent, decision or detertnlnation was obtained through malfeasance of the zoning administrator or other administrative officer or through fraud. The 60-day limitation [***7] period shall not apply in ally case where, with the concurrence of the attorney for the governing body, modification is required to correct clerical errors. (Emphasis added.) By its plain terms, tlhc prerequisites for Qch,, L7.9-1:+.I.71t i1y v^re: i �i a'a "`rJ�iF.tL'S.? "J}'�t1.9', requirement. decislt')'ih or determination 1hYcide I)y tine John MAUS IIZ 294 Va. 43, "50; 803 S.E.2d 329, **332; 2017 Va. LEXIS 110, ***7 Pne 4 of 7 zoning adrrrinistrazor;" (2) the passage of at leapt 60 days from the zoning adrnian.,trator's detern-tinatioll: 'Ind (3) a material change in position "in good faith reliance on the action of the zoning atdministmtor." [**333] It is agreed that more than 60 days elapsed between the zoning administrator's initial apprOval of the zoning and his successor's later assertion of a zoning violation; Qttesenberry did not advise the Rhoaidses that the Garage violated the Ordinance until more than 240 days after Quiche signed the Certificate, approving the Garage. It is also undisputed that the Rhoadses materially changed their position in good faith reliance on the zoning administrator's approval of the zoning; for their building plans, because they built the Garage at a cost of nearly .$27,000. The Board claims that the circuit court erred in applying C"ncirc S` :t_.2-2311(0 because the zoning _ _.....-....._.__..._._.... . a tdi-ninistrator granted a Certificate that -v%qas [***Sl in clear violation of the Zoning Ordinance, and that the Certificate was therefore void ab in.itio and could not be a "written order, requirement, decision or determination" under Cocic� � 1 S_2 v291;1„(fj, n support of its position, the County notes that this Court has previously held that a landowner had no rights in a building permit that was issued in violation of applicable zoning ordinances. See Blueksbur x v. Price, 22.1 1%rr_ 168, 170-71, 266 S-E.2d 899, 900-0.1. (1980. (holding that -a building permit issued, at variance with the zoning ordinance was "void. ah iniho" and "no vested rights were acquired [thereunder] by the perrnittee"); [*51] I ENV lLic,, i. I1wr 2.19 Vcr. 57. 63-64. ?4��S.E.2d 7611 794 19_Z& (conclud.ing that a building permit issued in violation of the zoning ordinance wars "void"); and S�rcrlo v. (ir , o ':?%eaa1 on �61g, _209 Va, 25.9. 261-62, 163 S........... 1....._.....__ (same). As noted by the Board, prior to 1995 administrative zoning decisions that violated the zoning laws were void and property owners bore the sole responsibility for the consequences of a government's zoning mistake. See, e.g., &gLd(�ff' 209 Va. at 261-62. 163 F.2.I crr 1 i7. However, in 1995, the General Assembly enacted the "vested rights" provision currently codified in (�c?dq- 231—IL j. 1995 Acts ch. 424. The plain language of C'o�le 15.2-231.1((") indicates that the statute is intended to eliminate the hardship property owners have suffered when they rely to their detriment upon erroneous or void zoning .decisions. We have characterized [***9] as remedial those statutes that provide protectiorus to those otherwise riot in a position to effectively defend themselves See, e.g.• Q1117rrc�r r. ra! C.. vrrs_�r•, , J' ec hiesl.h?c. s. --_ _ _ __ A(:':1f Constr. j.W_grrrt,242 1/0.102. 105-06 4115 S.1.2cf 852 8?4 7 .�z I�rrn4 11�12__2�Y73 (concluding that a statute regarding bond requirements for contractors who contract with public agencies was °remedial, because it was designed to protect subcontractors and materialmen who could not perfect mechanic's liens against public property); (;0Ve1•r�rrncarrt Errs. Ins. (_.`v`J rriiE�d Servs. Auto. As•s-'rr 28.1 Yu. 647. 657, 7U8 5;1;-?cl_ 877� �43._(2011 (explaining that "Code § 38.2-2204, the omnibus clause, is a remedial statute enacted to serve the public policy of broadening the coverage of au.tomobile liability insurance for the protection of the injured persons"). CQde. j 15_2- 2311(C) is a remedial statute. The remedial purpose of ((:'ride L,tj -23Ly(_.'1 pro-v ie relief and I3rotectioi.*i to property owners \uho detrimentally rely in good faith upon erroneous zoning deterininations and who would otherwise suffer loss because of their reliance upon the zoning administrator's error. A statute that is remedial in nature is "liberally construed so dha.t the purpose intended may be accomplished," and is to be "read so as to promote the ability of the enactment to remedy the mischief at which it is directed." Maim v. ,Gl7C0 ('ors. Co., .293 P0. 371 389, 798 S.E.2d 598, 608 (2U171 (citations and internal quotation rnatrks omitted). [*52] Considering the plain language and remedial nature of the [***10] statute, ('vde '_15.2-23.11(C. manifestly creates a legislatively -mandated. limited John MAUS )1 294 Va. 43, '52; 803 S.E.2d 329, '*333; 2017 Va. LEXIS 110; '**10 Pa(Je 5 of 7 exception to tihe judicially -created general principle that a building pernhit issued in violation of applicable Zoning ordinances is void. See I'vcrrr(Iq, Assn. ?t11i�'cr _. _..._._.:...:__.__ s .... _. u. v I'ot�_rrci(rrrt_.1''illrrt;:1__/�l�»��ec,�vr�r�r..s . ?69. 276 nA -'(S.4 ;S'.1:.2r/ 280,_ 83 n.4 (21I1 GJ (notin; that ta]brogatior, of file common law requires that the General Assembly plainly manifest ail intent to do so") (citation and interna.1 quotation marks omitted). As this Court has previously noted, "Code ._ 15.,2-23J:I(' provides] for the potential vesting of a right w use property in a planner [**334] that 'otherwise would not have been al lowed."' ;o�nnc _ '1'. Booml of Z�orr;'r> > L �pcc la::...._275...Yy 232,. , ?4'�,..6.?! S.E. "cl I:S > ..1 F(i (citation omitted). The circuit court did not err in rejecting the Board's claim that the Certificate was void ab ini.lio because the Certificate granted a right to use property in a mariner that otherwise would no, have been allowed under the Zoning, Ordinance. The Board claims that even if the Certificate was not void ab ;)?Uio, the signed Certificate was stili not a "written order, requirement, decision or determination" by the zoning administrator. We disagree. In issuing the Certificate, the zoning administrator necess�u made a determination that the building plans complied with the Zoning Ordinance in all respects. See Zoning Ordinance Section 3-7-1(A) (providing tilat a certificate of [***11] compliance will be issued "for those proposals which have obtained all necessary approvals and. permits and c,unply with this [Zoning] Ordinance") and Section 5-3 (defining the term "certificate of compliance' as "[c]ert.ification by the Land Use Administrator that the plans are in compliance with this [Zoning] Ordinance"). Although the Board argues to the contrary, it is irrelevant that the decision oi- determination evidernced sly the Certificate makes no reference to the height of the C:iarage or to thezoning administrator's intent to waive the require.nents of the Zoning Ordinance. such specificity is not required by Ccrc_ ai_5 2-231�. The issuance of the Certificate clearly constitutes a decision or determination by the zoning administrator that the building plans complied w*til the Zoning Ordinance. ["53] The conclusion that the Certificate constitutes a determination by the zoning administrator is consistent with our prior Cases involving (O. clel .5' /..5.2-2._311(C.i.. l 1 ia'_ & lVorfbI1c,. 285 Va,._340 354-56 rt ti L 2ti 85. 903?1a, we held that Code 15.2 did not apply to a "Cash Receipt" signed by a zoning administrator, because that document "was not a specific determiriat'ion by the zoning administrator or ai:y other City official that either of these businesses could use their respective premises in a manner not otherwise allowed [***12] under the zoning ordinances in effect at. that time." Similarly, in .!tames V. C:'it1 n/' 44, 69 ,S'.a' 2c1 _SGfi `'.i ave held that �i zoning adillinistratoi's mere 'interpretation" of a zoni.ig ordinance "lacked the finality of al, order, requirement, decision Or determination' under 6' 15.2-23J.1iC'i." such that no vesting occurred.. In contrast, the Certificate was a written de.ternlination by the zoning administrator that a particular building plan on a particular property complied with the applicable zoning ordinances. It affirrlla.tively approved the zoning for the Garage project at issue. The Certificate was a final deters-nination, is this Court has required. See Irtrrres, 7(i r;rt 5'S a _..._..._...._._....._.._..._.._...._.._._._...._..._..............._._..__._._...___._..._(_._....._.__ ( zoning interpretation lacks the finality of an "order. requirement, decision or determination" under C'OdE'._._..- ..... 1.3_2-2?.1 1(C_ j. The Certificate itself provided notice that the zoning administrator'-s decision was appealable, which demonstrates that ,he zoning aciministrat(:)r's invOlvement was final after he si<gned the Certificate. Thus, the Certificate a det.erihlination by the zoning adnlimstrator which satisfied that requirement under C:orlr�� I5 2 23.l..j t:1.• The Board also claims that ftj(ic I.Sl2A?31(Lv1. only binds FL zon"19 ad]hllllistrator, but 'need not al;d John MAUS liq 294 Va. 43, "53; 803 S.E.2d 329, "*334; 2017 Va. LEXIS 110, `12 NIP 6 of? Should not be considered. by any other body such as a. board of a court in determining If there is an {**Z3] enforceable violation of a zoning ordinance, Itr sttippo'i't of its position, the Board notes that this Court stated in Jcrrnes that 1.:;'ode tip' 15,2-?? f., Q "only limits the subsequent act.ions of a Izoning adininlstr�ItOr or other administrative officer,'" arrd "[t]he Planning Commission, however, is neither." ail, cri4. 3�694 S.I�c1 cat .575. The quoted language from J0.7ne.s should not be interpreted as allowing the BZA and the Board tc:> ignore the requirements of and to evade the application of C.'arle S .1.5.2-'�1L(� lr1 Making the [*54] determination of whether there is an enforceable violation of a zoning ordinance. In Joines, the appeal concerned tit decision made by a plaruziiig commission. The planning commission, not the zoning administrator, had authority over the issue of approving fhe subdivision and consolidation [**335] of properties which the landowner requested. We noted that "C Ode $ 1.5. 2- 23.11 Q_' [was] not applicable" to protect a property owner against an adverse decision by a planning commission regarding the subdivision and consolidation of several properties after the zoning administrator issued all "interpretation" that such -a consolidation was pennitted by the Zoning, Ordinance. 280 117CI. 43-•44. 0994 5..E. 2d al .i 74-75. Because there was only an interpretation; and no determination by a "zoning administrator or other administrative officer," we concluded that [***14] this prerequisite for the application of ("ode 231](.C). was not present in that case. There was no vesting of a zoning determination, because no zoning determination was made by the zoning administrator. Code " .15.2- 231) (C) only provides for vesting after a zoning determination. C:.'ade 15.2-2311(C) could not possibly apply to limit the subsequent actions of the planning commission. The issue of whether f ac%SS ,15.2- 2311(C_') must be considered by other entities involved in the enforcement of a. Zoning ordinance, after a zoning administrator snakes a decision or determination which is relied upon by a property owner, was not before the Court in J`1nues. By its terms, Code , .1.5.2•-2� 3_ and its vesting provisions must be considered arnd enforced by a BZA, a board of supervisors, or s court in Making a zoning determination or revie%ving its correctness, if the prerequisites for the rtppliCLItion of the statute are satisfled..`t [*55] A zoning administrator is a representative o his or her board of supervisors.' Bocxrr_.l of MIT-1.sols_ L_ Bocnrc( of Ivtzin ill zeaTs, ?C>f3. Yc. 4f0--51 604 S' 1.....�d i 1.._ _C?(Io41. "[A] principal is bound by representations of his agent, made either in the scope of his employment or in furtherance of the object for which he is employed." ; oti(.'1191LIf�C•,- Ins,._C.'r3_ _}1, Palz�rr�n, 22.fl 490, 1'Sj (internal quotation harks omitted). Thus, when a zoning administrator has acted within the scope of his (nnployment and [***15] made a "decision" or "determination" within the meaning of Code `S l $. 2-23.1.1((', he or she has also bound the board of supervisors. If Code, $ 1_?.:_2_ 2a 1..1...(<) did not bind the board of supervisors as the zoning administrator's principal, it would afford scant, it, anv, protection to the property owner, and would not serve to "remedy the mischief at which [tile statute] is directed," Mann, 293 Va. at 389. 798 at 608. The remedial purpose of the statute requires the statute to be interpreted so as to provide relief and protection to property owners I By way of exnntple, if n landowner appeals a zoning administrator's notice of violation to a bonrd of zoning n111MIA, the board of zoning appeals should consider whether the zoning administrator had the right to issue such a violation under C;url,, As eve noted in Goponaget, the property owner has the "burden of estnbiishine the vesting of a right to an otherwise impermissible use of property under C<gc/e ii j. ...?_?31_1(C_!.." 27.5 f.' _ gt,.14-4, (557S. !',2d ca.16.0. If the zoning administrator is barred from changing his or her prior determination by Cpcel�,.,_f_,_15_,'_f31,lrC)., the board of zoning appeals must consider that granite in determining whetter the zoning administrator erred in findin« there was an enforce able .inlation of the zoning ordinance by the landowner. `Zoning Ordinance Section 5-3 defines the "laical use administrator" as "[t]he representative of the kichamill County Board of Sttpeivisors who ling been appointed to serve as the went of the Governing Body in administering this Ordinance," John MAUS ,1 294 Va. 43, `55; 803 S E.2d 329, —335. 2017 Va. LEXIS 110. —15 Pare 7 of 7 wllo rely in rood fait]; upon erroneous zoning deterinimaiious. In this :nstance, the approval of the Certificate was an action w tl in the scope of the atutholit} delegated by the Board to the zoning administrator. The issuance of the Certificate constituted a determinattiorl within the meaninc, of Coch? 15. -�- i 1(C '. Aiso, more than 60 days elapsed after the zoning administrator issued his determination that the Garage co.mplie.d with the Zoning Ordinance, anci the Rhoaldses materially changed their position in reliance upon that determination. Thus, the prerequisites for the application of t_'ocle $ 1.5.2- 231,1(C,) are present in this case. The Rhoadses' rights in using their property in the tral:rler initiail_y approved by the zoning acin:inist.rator vested upon fulfillment [-**16] of the requirements of Code �� .1.5?-;2;3,11((;.J. Once their rights vested under (.;c7c7e 1��15._ ?3ll/C;i. they were not subject to alteration [**336] by the zoning administrator, the BZA or the Board. Therefore; the circuit court did not err in applying <COde 15.2-2311 / to uphold the Rhoadses' vested rights to use their property in the manner originally approved by the zoning acirninistrator. [*56] C0:4C'LUSION Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we will ffirnl the judgments of the C,11'cLiit Court of, Richniond County, l;ud of Docuwcni John LUAUS 11b 4% - , P-q rcss Advertising Affidavit ALBEMARLE CO PURCHASING 401 MCINTIRE RD ROOM 149 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22906 Date Category P.O. Box 9030 Charlottesville, Virginia 22906 (434) 978-7215 Description Account Number 3309435 Date October 24, 2019 Ad Size Total Cost 10102/2019 Legal Notices LEGAL AD The Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals will conduct a public hearing on October 1. 2019 at 2:00 PM in the Auditorium, 2nd Floor, County Office B 2 x 27 L 425,00 Publisher of the Daily Progress This is to certify that the attached LEGAL AD The Albemarle C was published by the Daily Progress in the city of Charlottesville, in the State of Virginia, on the following dates: 09/16, 09J23/2019 The First insertion being given ... 09/16/2019 Newspaper reference: 0000997530 Sworn to and subscribed before me this Notary Public 3heron R Casten NOTARY PUBLIC State of Virginia Commonwealth of Virginia My Commission expiregntary Registration Number 329549 Co THIS IS NOT A BILL. PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE. THANK YOU 119 The Daily Progress The News Virginian Orange County Review Greene County Record The Madison Eagle Culpeper Star Exponent Client: ALBEMARLE CO PURCHASING Phone: 4342965854 Order Confirmation Order# 0000997530 PaVor : ALBEMARLE CO PURCHASING Phone: 4342965854 4342965855 4342965855 Account: 3309435 Account: 3309435 Address: 401 MCINTIRE RD Address: 401 MCINTIRE RD CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22906 CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22906 Sales Reo Accnt Reo Ordered By Fax: 0000000000 aperrone Imadison Marsha Alley EMail: FINANCEADMIN@ALBEMARLE.ORG Total Amount $425.00 Payment Amount $0.00 Amount Due $425.00 Tear Sheets Proofs Affidavits Tax Amount: 0.00 0 0 1 Payment Meth: Invoice - Statement Ad Number Ad Type Ad Size Color 0000997530-01 CLS Legal Liner 2 X 27 li $0.00 Production Method Production Notes AdBooker (liner) Product and Zone Placement Position CVL Daily Progress C-Legal Ads # Inserts Legal Notices 2 Run Schedule Invoice Text: LEGAL AD The Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals Run Dates 9/16/2019, 9/23/2019 PO Number: AP2019-004 Product and Zone Placement Position CVL dailyprogress.com C-Le al Ads # Inserts 9 Legal Notices 17 Run Schedule Invoice Text: LEGAL AD The Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals Run Dates 9/16/2019, 9/1712019, 9/18/2019, 9/19/2019, 9/20/2019, 9/21/2019, 9/2212019, 9/23/2019, 9124/2019, 9/25/2019, 9/26/2019, 9/2712019, 9/28/2019. 9/2912019, 9/30/2019, 10/ 1 /2019, 10/ 2/20, 9 TagLine: LEGALADTHEALB EMARLECOUNTYBOARDOFZONINGAPPEALSWI LLCOND UCTAPUB L IC HEAR INGONOC TOBER12019AT200PMINTH EAU DITORIUM2NDFLOORCOUNTYOFFICEB 09/09/2019 8:54:04 am Pagel of 2 119 The Daily Progress The News Virginian Orange County Review Greene County Record The Madison Eagle Culpeper Star Exponent Ad Content Proof Note: Ad size does not reflect actual ad LEGAL AD Order Confirmation Order# 0000997530 The Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals will conduct a public hearing on October 1, 2019 at 2:00 PM In the Auditorium, 2nd Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA to consider the following: AP201900004 Button & Maus TMP so - 49 (Sign #22) APPELLANT: Evelyn Bufton and John R. Maus SUBJECT PROPERTY: (PARCEL ID: 05000.00-00-04900, Acreage: 2.40 acres) is owned by Evelyn Button and John R. "Jack" Maus and is located at 7380 Gordonsville Rd ZONING: Rural Areas (RA) ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Comp Plan Area designation of Rural Area 2. Comp Plan Land Use - Primary designation of Rural Area. APPEAL: The Appellants are appealing the denial of a Major Home Occupation Clearance (H02019-233) on the subject Property. Anyone desiring further information may contact the Department of Commun- ity Development, County Office Building, First Floor/North Wing, 403 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., or tele- phone 434-296-5832. Copies of the application information may be examined at such location. Reasonable accommodations will be provided to persons with disabilities, if requested. 09/09/2019 8:54:04 am Page 2 of 2 119 LEGAL AD TO: Dana Hubbard via Email - legals(a dailyprogress com (FAX: dhubbard = 978-7223) FROM: Marsha Alley - Albemarle County Community Development Dept., 296-5832 Please confirm receipt. Bill to: Albemarle County Community Development Dept. 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Billed Account Number: 3309435 Run Dates: 1st Run: September 16, 2019 2nd Run: September 23, 2019 (two (2) consecutive Mondays) LEGAL AD The Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals will conduct a public hearing on October 1, 2019 at 2:00 PM in the Auditorium, 2nd Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA to consider the following: AP201900004 Bufton & Maus TMP 50 - 49 (Sign #22) APPELLANT: Evelyn Bufton and John R. Maus SUBJECT PROPERTY: (PARCEL ID: 05000-00-00-04900, Acreage: 2.40 acres) is owned by Evelyn Bufton and John R. "Jack" Maus and is located at 7380 Gordonsville Rd ZONING: Rural Areas (RA) ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Comp Plan Area designation of Rural Area 2. Comp Plan Land Use — Primary designation of Rural Area. APPEAL: The Appellants are appealing the denial of a Major Home Occupation Clearance (HO2019-233) on the Subject Property. Anyone desiring further information may contact the Department of Community Development, County Office Building, First Floor/North Wing, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., or telephone 434-296-5832. Copies of the application information may be examined at such location. Reasonable accommodations will be provided to persons with disabilities, if requested. I zo AFFIDAVIT DATE: _ September 12 2019 I, Marsha Alley, CDA - Zoning, hereby certify that the attached notice(s) were sent on the above date to all persons listed on the attached list. (signature) State of Virginia City of Charlottesville The foregoing instrument was ACKNOWLEDGED before me by, Marsha Alley, CDA - Zoning, this 1 Z (Signature of Notary) day of 20 /4 (Notary Registration Number: �—]'�I to -) :1,_) My commission expires the ay of' I was commissioned notary as (Include ONLY if name change after your first notary commission or renewal) Project Name/TMP: AP201900004 Bufton & Maus TMP 50-49 /ZI J IfRGIN1P COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Phone (434) 296-5832 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Fax (434) 972-4125 September 12, 2019 Evelyn Burton and John R. Maus P.O. Box E Gordonsville, VA 22942 RE: AP201900004 Bufton & Maus TMP 50 — 49 {Sign #221 Evelyn Bufton and John R. Maus (owners/appellants) Dear Ms. Bufton & Mr. Maus: This letter is to inform you that the following request has been scheduled for public hearing. AP201900004 Bufton & Maus TMP 50 - 49 (Sign #22) APPELLANTS: Evelyn Bufton and John R. Maus SUBJECT PROPERTY: (PARCEL ID: 05000-00-00-04900, Acreage: 2.40 acres) is owned by Evelyn Bufton and John R. "Jack" Maus and is located at 7380 Gordonsville Road ZONING: Rural Areas (RA) ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Comp Plan Area designation of Rural Area 2. Comp Plan Land Use — Primary designation of Rural Area. APPEAL: The Appellants are appealing the denial of a Major Home Occupation Clearance (H02019-233) on the Subject Property. The Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals will hold a public hearing on Tuesday October 1, 2019 at 2.00 p.m., in Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This application is available for your review in the Albemarle County Community Development Department, First Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia and also online at hftp://www.albemarle.oM/a.genda.aM?department=bza&year=. Sincerely, Bart J. Svoboda Zoning Administrator /21z � OF AL �'IRGI14lP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972 4126 September 12, 2019 RE: AP201900004 Bufton & Maus TMP 50 — 49 fSign #22) Evelyn Bufton and John R. Maus (owners/appellants) To Whom It May Concern: This letter is to notify you as adjoining property owners to property owned by Evelyn Bufton and John R. Maus that an appeal application has been submitted. The application is as follows: AP201900004 Bufton & Maus TMP 50 - 49 (Sign #22) APPELLANTS: Evelyn Bufton and John R. Maus SUBJECT PROPERTY: (PARCEL ID: 05000-00-00-04900, Acreage: 2.40 acres) is owned by Evelyn Bufton and John R. "Jack" Maus and is located at 7380 Gordonsville Road ZONING: Rural Areas (RA) ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Comp Plan Area designation of Rural Area 2. Comp Plan Land Use — Primary designation of Rural Area. APPEAL: The Appellants are appealing the denial of a Major Home Occupation Clearance (H02019-233) on the Subject Property. The Board of Zoning Appeals will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, October 1 2019 at 2:00 p.m., in Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This application is available for your review in the Albemarle County Community Development Department, First Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia and also online at http://www.albemarle oro/agenda asp?department=bza&year . Sincerely, Bart J. Svoboda Zoning Administrator 23 (p N tT N N N N N _a) > > J r _J J J J LI)> W O .Qzzz�� N O 0 0 F�Fm�mf� 30002m 0 0 0 C7 U �- w ❑_> LLX J ❑ Er > z �0 O N Z Z i 0 z °D W amOwuo= d0Wxxw d0❑mmF- 3oC) Onc.id�r� J _W z U C) W z z — gC) W of zw L` W0 co J W � 0 mw c~nO2z 0 a ��O �U20F' � 0 U � 0 a8 W O o W LOS o m g w CD U O¢>>❑ L - Lli 0 0 0 tL z P z ❑0 0 3L.oJO0a o 0 ¢0¢0 �z O�=mU= ¢Lo o Q o o o r- o rn ti o vvv00 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 On 0 0 0 = 0 0 0 0 o 000000 c 0 0000 0 0 0 in Lrn uO Ln 41) doo0oo 12q RI l 2�5- z H w w d N z 0 E04 G4 04 10, M 2r7 ta0-sul3tu@Suaw0pp10 0095-Z46 (065) 096ZZ VA `0mgsau,SeM anup lsaln d 9£OZ p i ut13autu� uoTuTuUoCI pig M M C �� z� o ?y� 0 3 V] x 2 cn .1; ml E- 1 i L /fl Jy da. 1 I Y 1 k a, o 0 v 0 u v G Q, A 4- �-4 0 o 4-4 M r" u7 u7 U U U f� w ° 0 'n 4-4 w tr' x Ra aal ff3 cn a� ❑ v . 4 In U, 4 N r C) rid rd U 0 0 rd 0 rUC ro d G cy �, v v r v � rc u p) "" � ❑ 0 7�i G U � b 0 rd 0 4. tv �- o 0 w ° cn 0 Cc pa 0 �a4 rd r-r w0 r 0 rd � �_ v u rd 0 C)°� N�,v M0 py Ci o 0 ,-, En En ��, a" � rd b o to R tom+" U U o 0 � O rd U f+a N N [Uj � ❑ a C6,r-4 v �, CJ o cq a a �2, G oM L ' rd a b U 0 a� 0 U G rd ^ U � 0. rd �1 C) 64 rd C) w d7 0 N N E� C m N N C.) sl ¢ a a la 0 N � � a O m o �b A `d Cd p wQ-�.D a�i .^ C � 3 - 72 •� J ^_ « U Qco cQ E (D N eG � 41 O 0 0) � CG r .� .Q � h N ..17 � U• y N `v. in Q U k 4) F o o -it to 6 .� o p O 5 a U 3 o •C 9 m O U >, O w ti U l E ° v c �-gTeL Em' m Eao�Ega� �Emmm�� 8 m 1 o m o` b-811 1 a l 33�� CK oo3g��e� Ea �s o� o ; E�s'y'ov°'S E� RRs be a�mg�.s` o�Bg�`mg3 ills T a] e E u o-am v 00 aW O N N r N N M M F� M F�1 is O 3C m w w aJ9 W C N N a M o ID u d7 9A •O tip ¢, Q 3 p, C ,� GL c el to aEG aQov"co W .4 a � mcZE3l� o"o�mm as =ea1M c m x e fis 8 �. m $.6Q m� = E 8 G 2 3 ugmo��go a a T o o s= u S �.sEm:o�2 F in a C T- Sul I w h e Mtn a a iM, C _ O v m T O �o �c gmas E � =8=a Isyg m G ism E-er lizm �a~E� ci€ - �a S� uz 131 13Z k'\ )3--2-;7 ��f¢§ '3G« ke=f m«ƒ�; «■•�. °jl=E ��29m §«))} §!g)E ƒ u� I rq am § } § } 2 j j CD Z ��i \ k [ 0 2 )Z -� @$ n � k o a^ �5 2ƒ s � J E �� $J � Sk 2� Ul F. No 134 l �� ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 401 MCINTIRE ROAD — LANE AUDITORIUM TUESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2019 — 2:00 P.M. Board Members: Marcia Joseph Ed Robb David Bowerman John Shepherd Randy Rinehart, absent Staff Members: Bart Svoboda, Zoning Administrator Marsha Alley, BZA Clerk and Recorder County Attorney: Andy Herrick, Deputy County Attorney 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 2:01 p.m. by Chairman John Shepherd. 2. Establish a Quorum The BZA established a quorum, with four members present. Chainnan Shepherd reminded everyone that in order to overturn a determination by the zoning administrator, it would require a majority of the members of the board, which in this case would mean three. 3. Public Hearings: MR. SHEPHERD: So, with that, I would like to call the public hearing to order. Just — I feel like I'm talking to a large room with a small crowd here. Sometimes we go through the rules and procedures, but basically what we're going to do is, with a public hearing, we'll start with a staff report that's going to last for 15 minutes. We have a timing system that we do want to adhere to. You'll see the green light on when your time is wide open. The yellow comes on — Marsha, at the one -minute warning? So, when you see the yellow light come on, try to wrap it up, and when the red light comes on, bring it to a conclusion. This is more important when you have a large crowd and people are waiting to get through the process, but even so, this is what we want to do. Of course, after hearing from both the parties, we would hear from the public if there's anyone that wants to speak. Then, the — have a time for a wrap-up/rebuttal summation. We'll start with the staff and end with the appellants. Then, we'll discuss it, make a decision. Also, I'll briefly just say this is our second meeting with Jim Bowling, second time we've had an attorney representing us. So, appreciate your being part of this. It's helpful and good, and I appreciate it. Thank you. Just want to say, so far, so good. But it does create a slightly different dynamic for us that I think is very positive and good. So, with that, I guess we can just start, if — Bart, Kevin, are you guys ready to go? 1 3. R MR. SVOBODA: I'm Bart Svoboda, Zoning Administrator for Albemarle County. This is Appeal 201900004. I'm going to give you a brief history. I'll speak for a moment, and then Mr. Herrick will finish up. This property description is Tax Map 50, Parcel 49. It contains 2.4 acres. It's located in Eastern Albemarle County along State Route 631. MR. ROBB: Mr. Chairman, can you ask him to speak up? MR. SHEPHERD: Bart, could you speak up a little, or just get closer to the mic? MR. SVOBODA: Is that better? MR. SHEPHERD: Yep. MR. SVOBODA: Okay, sorry about that. MR. SHEPHERD: Thanks. MR. SVOBODA: Again, this is Tax Map 50, Parcel 49, 2.4 acres. It's located in the Eastern Albemarle County along State Route 631. There's one dwelling and one accessory structure located on the property. The address is 7380 and 7382 Gordonsville Road, respectively. The property fronts on State Route 631, which is an Entrance Corridor, and is zoned Rural Areas. Because this is a residential application, the Entrance Corridor does not come into play here. The drawing I will show you is a drawing that was submitted with the building permit. If you go back one slide, you can see the existing house on the drawing. The existing house is to the center, and the proposed, or now current, structure is located in the corner of the lot, on the northeast corner. This is a brief history or summary of how we got here. On September 29 of 2017, the applicant had contacted the county and asked questions regarding a home occupation. We responded with an email, which included the 25-foot side property line for this home occupation — for a home occupation permit and a building permit. So, in the email, it was explained the process. So, in that process, we did specify setbacks. We did indicate that there was a home occupation permit required and also a building permit. On October 18, the appellants applied for that building permit for an accessory structure. On December 7, the building permit for an accessory structure was issued, which authorized the construction. It did note that the rear and side setbacks were 6 feet, which is consistent with an accessory structure. There's a difference between an accessory structure and an accessory structure that's used for a home occupation. On June 4, 2019, the appellant applied for the home occupation clearance, which was after the permit was issued and the inspections were final. We went out to check to see if the accessory structure met the primary structure — the 25 feet — as mentioned in the 2017 email. It was identified that it does not meet those requirements, so we could not approve the home occupation permit. On July 30, that was communicated to the appellant in writing on official determination, which denied the appellant's application for a major home occupation; and August 12, the appellant filed the present appeal. The language you see in this next slide is the zoning ordinance, which is 5.2.a, Cl. And if you look at the highlighted section in the middle of the screen — so the red square is just a blowup and it indicates an accessory structure that does not conform to the applicable setback and yard requirements for the primary structure, so not 13q to use for a home occupation. And the chart below that is Section 10.4, which is the Rural Areas portion of the ordinance, which indicates that the side setback would need to be 25 feet. This particular drawing is our GIS map that has identified approximately where the structure is. Again, these maps are used primarily for tax purposes, and this measurement of 14 feet is what was measured out in the field by county staff. I will note that the property line has not been surveyed. The fence that's out there was identified as the approximate line by the property owner, so that's what we're using for our information. That's all that I have from the zoning perspective and that brief history, and I'll let Mr. Herrick take over from here. MR. HERRICK: Mr. Chair, members of the board, it's a pleasure to be here this afternoon. I'm Andy Herrick, on behalf of the County Zoning Administrator. The matter before the board this afternoon is an appeal of the denial of a home occupation clearance that was sought by the appellant. Again, as Mr. Svoboda has indicated, the applicants applied for and received a building permit for the accessory structure in 2017, and as the presentation indicated, the rules for accessory structures are that they may be within 6 feet of the property line. Staff advised applicants of the home occupation requirements back in 2017, when the building permit was first applied for, and Ms. Ragsdale's email to the applicant can be found at Attachment G to the staff report, again, in which she outlines what the requirements are, the fact that a home occupation clearance is needed. That was sent to the applicant at the time. However, the applicants applied for the home occupation clearance only after the construction of the building, after the building was completed in recent months here in 2019. And unlike accessory structures, home occupations must occur within primary setbacks, which are 25 feet. So as a result, the home occupation clearance was denied, and what's before you today, again, is the applicant's appeal. That's the only matter that's before the board today. And again, the options for the board are to either affirm, modify, or reverse the determination made by the Zoning Administrator, that this property did not qualify for a home occupation clearance. So as outlined in my memo — which you all should have received as a part of the package — there's a difference between structures and uses, and it's unfortunate that there was a misunderstanding on the applicant's part. I think that there was a misunderstanding that it was one application and that getting the building permit was sufficient in order to basically clear the way for all types of uses on the property. And unfortunately for the applicants, that's just not the case. There are separate requirements for building permits on the one hand, and for uses on the other. The building permit requirements are for the structure's conformance with the uniform state-wide building code, structural soundness — these sorts of things. And again, structures — accessory structures — sheds, small accessory buildings — can be located within 6 feet of a property line in the rural areas. And I would suggest that both applications were correctly processed — that the application for a building permit was correctly processed and that the accessory structure was approved, because it met all the building code requirements. It met the lesser setback requirements for accessory structures, but then also, the application for a home occupation clearance was also properly processed because that comes with a separate and higher bar that it must be located — or that any use of that accessory structure — must be within the primary setback, which is 25 feet. So again, it's a higher bar for the home occupation use, and again, unfortunately for the applicant, that building simply doesn't meet that higher bar for the intended use. 3 There are a few points that were made in the appellants' submittal that I'd like to address. First of all, there was no promissory estoppel in this case, as I outlined in my memo. A promissory estoppel involves some sort of misstatement or misleading to where one party sort of misleads another party. That other party relies on the misleading statement to their detriment. In this case, there was no misleading statement by the county. The county, again, correctly processed the building permit application, informed the applicant of the need to apply for a separate home occupation clearance, correctly processed the home occupation clearance. So again, aside from the unfortunate misunderstanding on the part of the applicant, the county, again, properly processed and properly communicated the requirements at every step of the process. And for that reason, the Rhoads case that I understand has been cited also doesn't apply in this case. The Rhoads case involves a clear mistake by county staff, which county staff — again, in the Rhoads case — gave more permission or gave greater approval than they could under their zoning ordinance and then tried to walk it back, basically. And the court said no, you can't do that — that once you've made that approval, even a mistaken approval, the county after a certain time can't revoke or pull back. And again, that's not what the facts are here. The county is.not seeking to withdraw or reverse the building permit. The county is still fine with the building permit and isn't seeking to revoke that building permit because, again, the accessory structure in that location is still appropriate. Each permit's been processed correctly. The other thing — as I indicated at the outset — only the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's determination is before the board today. There's not a variance application. The board can't, on its own initiative, award a variance. The BZA is limited to the application that is before it today, and the application that's before it today is an appeal of the determination by the Zoning Administrator for which the three options are, again, to affirm, modify, or reverse. Again, a variance is not an option, based on what's before the board today. So again, I would suggest that this was an unfortunate misunderstanding, but it was a misunderstanding on the applicants' part, and that's simply not grounds for a reversal of the correct determination of the Zoning Administrator. I think the applicants deserve some sympathy or empathy for the situation which they find themselves, but they don't deserve a zoning clearance. And again, we'd ask the board to uphold the finding of the Zoning Administrator. Thank you. MR. SHEPHERD: Thank you. Mr. Maus? MR. MALTS: Thank you, Mr. Shepherd, members of the board. My name is Jack Maus. I am one of the applicants. My law partner, my wife — Lyn Bufton — is seated here in the audience. Much of the history that we will be going over to start with is similar to what the county has given you. Again, we know Virginians love our history. The history was that on October 18, that Lyn submitted this applicant for a building permit. It was processed that day — I think it was paid — and then we waited. Waited for the county to do something. Almost two months later, we received from the county — without any question about whether or not we misunderstood, whether there was some kind of misrepresentation — we received a building pen -nit from the county that said that we could build this law office that we had asked for within 6 feet of the side setback. And of course, this was the wintertime, so we started clearing the property in the spring, summertime it was ready, and October of 2018, we began construction, and we finished it in May of this year. A final inspection was done, and although the County Attorney's office says, well, the purpose of a Certificate of Occupancy and the building permit is to ensure that the building is safely done, and this building passed 13� every one of the tests. The county refused to give us a clean Certificate of Occupancy because there may subject to only our personal use because it was pending zoning matters. They try to tell you, well, they're really different, but they've connected those two as far as what we're able to do with this property. What you see in front of you is a picture of the building that we constructed, pursuant to the building permit. I'd say right now, it's a 30 by 34 law office. Here is the picture of the back of the property. Mr. Svoboda mentioned 14 feet from the drainpipe there to Mr. Hallow's fence — that is approximately 14 feet, no question about it. A view of the same building from the road that you can see — there's an open field behind it. We're not going to be looking into anybody's windows or to any private areas. It's very rural. Now, when we initially filed the appeal — of course, you have a very limited time in which to do that. And case law — you know, we've cited to the board what we knew at the time, which as any good trial lawyer will tell you, your legal research continues up to the time you walk into the courtroom. And so, since that time, we've had some more opportunity to research [inaudible 2:19,16], and the County Attorney has mentioned to you the Rhoads case, which we're going to get to in a minute. But in 1994, the Virginia Supreme Court decided a case called Snow vs. Amherst County Board of Zoning Appeals. Now, in that case, what happened was the Snow got approval of a variant to setback variance. I think the current ordinance provides for 150 feet, they've got one for 100. They didn't act on it, and then what happened was the county changed the ordinance. Instead of being 150 feet, it went to 200. They applied and were told no. So, they appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals there in Amherst. The board denied it. The property owners sued to the Supreme Court of Virginia, and the Supreme Court of our state — or the Commonwealth — said that the property owner only has a vested right in a zoning decision under the following circumstances: 1) there must have been a significant government act, 2) the land owner must have diligently pursued the use authorized by the permit, and 3) the land owner must have incurred substantial expense in good faith. Now in that particular case in 1994, the Supreme Court said, well, we don't think a variance is a significant government act and the Snows really didn't pursue their project diligently, so they lost on appeal of the state Supreme Court. That was September 1994. Well, the next time the General Assembly met — 1995, January 25, several months later — Dick Saslaw introduced the Senate Bill 10.79 intended to fix the problem that was raised in the Snow case. That statute, that bill, would have amended 15.2-2311 by adding a Section C. That bill was sponsored by 17 of Virginia's 40 senators and passed the Virginia Senate by a vote of 39-0. It went over to the House and passed that body by a vote of 96-3 — overwhelming support in both houses. The governor signed it in March 20 of 1995. So, Virginia Code Section 15.2-2311(C) says that in no event shall a written order, requirement, decision, or other determination made by a Zoning Administrator be subject to change, modification reversal, by any Zoning Administrator or official after 60 days have elapsed from the date of the written order. Where the person agreed to materially change his position in good faith reliance on the actions of the Zoning Administrator or the administrating officer unless you can prove malfeasance — not just misfeasance — malfeasance of the Zoning Administrator or administrative officer, or through fraud. There's another sentence in that section, which really doesn't apply here. It says the 6-day limitation does not apply in any case with the concurrence of the attorney for the governing body. You have clerical or non -discretionary errors. Clearly, the granting of a permit saying a side setback line is a discretionary function. In recent case law, this is what the County Attorney's office is referring you to — Board of Supervisors of Richmond County vs. Rhoads. This is just two years ago, 2017. Latest Supreme Court of Virginia case `(f0 interprets this — the court said, "The plain language of the statute says it is intended to eliminate the hardship property owners suffered when they relied, to their detriment, on erroneous or void zoning decisions." The court said the statute was remedial in nature, and that's kind of a code word that says it's meant to be liberally construed so the purpose intended may be accomplished. So what did the court in Rhoads say? If you look at page 3 of the Rhoads decision, which I submitted through Marsha yesterday, that it be a written order requiring a decision or determination made by a Zoning Administrator. At least 60 days must have passed from then, and then a material change in good faith reliance on the act of the Zoning Administrator. So what do we have here? Building permit definitely constitutes a written decision or determination by the Zoning Administrator. More than 60 days have passed since that building permit was issued in December of 2017, and we indeed changed our positioning — good faith reliance — on where the county told us we could put this building. Now, staff report — they agree that they issued a building permit allowing it to be built where it is. They agree they we relied on that permit in locating it there. But what they disagree with is that the intended use of the structure was fully disclosed of the department, and they disagree that if we can't have people in there — we can't have clients in there, we can't have other professionals in there — that we are, in some way, not going to be harmed. So, here's what we think. If you look at the paperwork, when we submitted the application for the building permit, we never used the words, "storage building/accessory structure." That was something that the county added at some point, and we don't know when because again, we submitted the application in October 2017. We got the permit in December. We don't know how many hands, or whose hands, that went through in those two months. Those words were added by someone in Community Development between the time we submitted the application and the time the building permit was issued. The building permit application, if you look at it, clearly describes it as a new structure for home office, and it says it includes a bathroom and a little kitchen. Now, I understand the difference between a shed and a home office, but you're not going to be putting a bathroom and a kitchen in an accessory shed, alright? There was no misunderstanding on our part what we were asking the county for. When we filled out the application, the initial square footage was for a 900-square-foot building, 30 by 30, and we subsequently expanded a little bit to 34 by 30, but somewhere along the way — and again, we don't know where this happened within the Department of Community Development — but the square footage on the application was changed from 900 to 792. And then the part of the partial building application permit that's in your package — the one that Jennifer Smith entered on October 18 — is blank in the area "setbacks." It wasn't until we got that in December that the 6-foot side setback line appeared. So bottom line is, we never said — we never did — anything that misled the Department of Community Development. Our intended purpose was always to use this building as a law office and a place where we could meet with clients, be with other persons related to our practice, whether it's court reporters, whether it's other lawyers, other professionals. That's what it was always intended for. The floor plan we submitted with the application for the building permit included a conference room, a bathroom, and a kitchenette. Now, tell me why you would have a conference room if the intention was not to have people there. We made our intentions clear the entire time, and if we can't meet with clients or we can't meet with their parties for our practice then, yeah, we suffer a detriment. That'll be pretty obvious. Now, the package also mentions to you that Albemarle County — but of course, the day the final inspection was done, within an hour, the tax people were out saying, alright, your property is worth more now. And within a N. couple weeks, 911 came out and said, well you have the structure that people are going to be occupying, and so because we want rescue personnel to know where to go to, we have to sign your separate 911 address. Clearly, inconsistent with what the department is now saying is that the office was only intended, ever, to be used as a shed, which it seems strange now a copy of the floor plans were done in October of 2017, when the plans were submitted. In the lower righthand corner is, where my arrow is, the cursor's going, that says, "Conference/Reception." You've got two offices on the left side, bath, and a kitchen. This is the conference room as it is today. That's what it's always meant to be. It's got a conference table, it's got chairs. It's got a place for people to meet. This is my office. You can see it's got client chairs here. Trial practice involves meeting with clients, meeting with witnesses. It's an integral part of what we do. It's what we always told the county from the get -go we wanted to do. So in conclusion, what we're asking the board to do is to reverse the decision of the Zoning Administrator, grant us a zoning clearance for major home occupation. Okay, so that concludes my presentation. I still have a couple minutes left, so if you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. MR. SHEPHERD: Thank you. MR. MAUS: Alright. Thank you, sir. MR. SHEPHERD: Other questions, at this point? MR. MAUS: No questions? Good. MR. SHEPHERD: Not at this point, but there's there will be discussion, and we may have questions as we get into it. MR. MAUS; Okay. I'd be glad to answer any questions. MR. SHEPHERD: But for now, thank you. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak? Is there anyone from the public here? Okay. So...that, I guess, we are now — the matter is before us. For starters, does anyone have any questions for staff or the appellant? MS. JOSEPH: Yes. Mr. Svoboda... when someone is building a shed in the rural areas, when does the zoning clearance occur? MR. SVOBODA: It depends on the use, so there's difference between a shed and an accessory structure. Well, a shed IS an accessory structure. A pool house is an accessory structure. MS. JOSPEH: Right. MR. SVOBODA: A garage with a rec room above it is an accessory structure. So when we talk about accessory structures, we're not just talking about storage buildings. It can be any of those things. 7 rye MS. JOSEPH: But when is the clearance done? I guess I always assumed it was done as the footers were put in. MR. SVOBODA: The zoning inspection is done — MS. JOSEPH: The zoning inspection, not the clearance. MR. SVOBODA: Not the clearance. MS. JOSEPH: Okay. MR. SVOBODA: The preliminary zoning inspection is done when you locate the building, which is — MS. JOSEPH: Okay. And that was done. MR. SVOBODA: Yes. MS. JOSEPH: Okay. And the other thing that really confuses me — that years ago, an accessory structure couldn't have a kitchen in it because then it would be considered another kind of dwelling, and this is only two acres, and it's in the rural areas. So I'm kind of confused about that. MR. SVOBODA: So to be a dwelling unit, a structure has to have a place for cooking, a place for sleeping, and a place for sanitation. This particular structure has two of the three, but not all of the three — not a place for sleeping. MS. JOSEPH: Okay. MR. SVOBODA: So it would not qualify as a dwelling unit. MS. JOSEPH: Okay. MR. ROBB: Mr. Chairman, I'd like a question of our counsel. Would you describe and explain, in layman's terms, simply and completely, exactly what this board is being asked to rule on. MR. BOWLING: In layman's terns and in professional terms, this is a mess. And what you're being asked to do is to, by the applicant, is to give relief for this mess. MS. ALLEY: Excuse me, Mr. Bowling? Could you speak into your mic? MR. BOWLING: Yes. What you're being asked by the applicant to do is to give him relief in this particular case, and what he's hanging his hat on — at least as I heard it — he's not hanging his hat on the memorandum that he prepared for you, which I think was in your packet arguing about equitable relief, and I agree with the Deputy County Attorney's comments concerning equitable relief. I think he's correct on that. He's asking, as I hear it — he's asking you to give him relief under 15.2-2311(C) — the statutory language of which is before you. And then he's provided you with reference to a recent Virginia Supreme Court case saying that that statute is to be considered liberally and is designed for this precise situation to provide relief for an applicant under what he says is his particular circumstances. His point is that, at all times during this effort, he identified what he was to do as a home occupation, and it was clear on his face that he was going to build a home occupation. Staff, on the other hand — as I interpret staffs position, and I hope I'm doing this correctly — they can pipe up and correct me if I'm wrong — is that from the beginning in this, through Ms. Ragsdale's email, the applicant was informed that the applicable setback in this particular case was not 6 feet — it was 25 feet. That's in the record and in the packet that you received. During the course of this proceeding, a building permit was issued, which muddied the waters considerably and which — if you want to analyze it this way — is the root of the cause of the problem. By that, the application from the building permit, from the applicant's eyes, stated that, clearly, I'm going to be using this for a home occupation. Instead, the building permit was issued with a setback for 6 feet, which is for an accessory use only. There is the root of this problem. Staff says you cannot give relief under the requested statute, or under any sort of equitable theory that's been advanced by the applicant. Staff has also pointed out that this is not a variance situation that's before you. One, the applicant hasn't requested a variance; two, he hasn't applied for a variance. So you're only left with the application. The official's decision in this case was correct, and you should uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision. Now, I don't know if I've been clear, because this not one that's so easy to state clearly, but l think I've laid out the two positions for you — or at least, I hope I have. MR. ROBB: Mr. Chairman, not unusual, but I'm confused. I'm looking here at a building permit, page 1. A copy of the building permit for the particular structure in question, and it says, "Work description: New structure for home office." I can't understand what is hard to follow with that description. MR. BOWLING: That's clear, but somewhere else on that building pennit, on page — further back, I believe, and the other members can correct me, or staff can correct me — there's some notice that says — that refers to the application differently. Ain I correct on that? MR. SHEPHERD: 1 see that. It says, "Sub -application type: Storage building/accessory building." And then it's blank. MR. BOWLING: Right, and that's the mess part that I pointed out to you. MR. ROBB: Right, but down below, in bold letters: "Work description: New structure for home office." MR. BOWLING: Undeniably, that's what it says. MR. ROBB: Now, that causes me some heartburn. I understand — and that's why I asked for clarification exactly what we're being asked to deal with. I'm not sure that I still understand. I'm not sure what you could say that would make it more clear for me, so let's just move on with where we are. MR. SHEPHERD: If I could, I'd like to sort of state — state the question you have in a slightly different way, and the way I'm seeing this. I clearly understand the difference between the approval of a structure, which is done with a building permit, and the approval of a use, which is done with a clearance. That's very straightforward to me, and I understand it. But I used to work in the Zoning Department, so I just sort of take that as clear to me because I know the process. Hq However, when I look at the building permit, I'm seeing — the words that come off the page to me are, "New structure for a home office," and I see the building plans that were approved — you know, that were part of that — which had conference areas. I'm just repeating, but I think they're salient points. Conference room, reception areas. There's two offices. It shows a handicapped ramp, which just implies that the public is going to be there. So I inferred from that — and one thing that's difficult about this situation is that you're sort of up here trying to be mind readers, which we are not. But I inferred from that that, at least from the appellant's standpoint, that they were clear in what they were asking for. I get that, and I think — if you look at the page before you put your glasses on, you're seeing a home office. I know that there's a difference between a home office and a major home occupation, per Supplemental Reg 5.2a, or whatever the code section is. Technically, I understand that that is correct. But somewhere along the line, I think there's a — I wonder about the process for flagging that obvious problem with the building permit. There's a — the building permit was reviewed and approved, and that process took quite some time. There's a preliminary zoning approval of that. There's a final zoning approval of that. I don't understand how — I mean, I — from the county side, that it wasn't flagged somewhere to just say — when you see the way the permit was set up, that that shouldn't have been a red flag that would've said, hold everything, we have to get this clarified. I think there is some — I could argue this — I'm really, in my own mind, hung on the horns of this dilemma. For me, it's clear both ways. But I — I'm concerned about — I wonder about the process that let it get this far, with a permit — with those things that, to me, clearly indicated an office — a commercial -style office — as well as just a description of it in the larger font. And clearly, the applicants' words — it's a home office, where the — I think it's called a "subcategory." I mean, that's really — I guess that's a building code designation that is a class of building and it would establish what building code was controlling it. MS. JOSEPH: John, can I ask a question too? Because it is — it is connected with what you were just saying because there is a lot of confusion. One of the requirements for the building permit is a plat, right? Or a legal description of the property. Is that something that you received? Because that would — and I guess the other thing that you showed us was this sewage disposal site plan that shows 45 feet from the sideline. Did the Building Department, did Zoning, accept this as a part of the building permit that was required by having a plat submitted? MR. SVOBODA: That is the sketch that was in the file that located the structure on the parcel. MS. JOSEPH: Okay. MR. SVOBODA: It was the Health Department information. MS. JOSEPH: So that came from the Health Department. It wasn't part of the requirement that staff received as part of the building permit package. MR. SVOBODA: It is part of the required paperwork that we use to review the permit. MS. JOSEPH: Right, but it is called a "sewage disposal site plan." It's not the plat. So I guess what I'm trying to figure out — was that used when staff looked at this and said, okay, the setback is correct for this? MR. SVOBODA: The individual who reviewed the permit no longer works for the county. When we go back through these files, we go based on what is located in the file, and so it would be my understanding that, based on what we have in the file; that those documents were used to review and issue this permit. 10 ILp MS. JOSEPH: Okay, and that was the person that signed this — Judy? MR. SVOBODA: No. For zoning, the young lady's name was Emily. MS. JOSEPH: Okay. Okay. So that was were received and accepted? MR. SVOBODA: Yes. MS. JOSEPH: Okay, thank you. MR. ROBB: Mr. Chairman, as I started this discussion with focusing on the piece of evidence here, Building Permit Copy, I'm troubled by what it says related to "Sub -Application Type: Storage Building/Accessory Structure (New Off —" What is that? What does it say? It's not complete. And then we go down till we see, "Work Description." Clearly, bold print: "New structure for home office." We go to the next page. It doesn't — page — it doesn't have a number, but it says, "Building application..." so forth, identifying it. And then it goes down in printed — hand -printed by somebody. I'd have to presume it was hand -printed. I'm going to ask who hand -printed that. But it says, "New structure for home office." If this is a piece of evidence that we're supposed to evaluate, then how can we get an — we need an explanation for it, if we're going to be asked to support the — hold the finding of the Zoning Administrator. MR. MAUS: [Away from the mic] Mr. Chairman, I can explain that. I mean — my wife filled out the application. She would tell you - MR. SHEPHERD: You have to get ... step to the mic. MS. BUFTON: Hello. How are you? My name is Evelyn Bufton. I am the law partner of Mr. Maus and also his wife. MS. ALLEY: Can you also please pull that down and speak into it? MS. BUFTON: Sure, absolutely. Is that better? MR. ROBB: Yeah. MS. ALLEY: Thank you. MS. BUFTON: I am the one that came into the county to get the permit, and so on this permit, where you can see that handwriting on that. Pardon, on the application, yeah. I filled that out, and I filled it out at the desk at the County Planning Office. I had never heard a home occupation anything. I didn't even understand that term, and I had never heard that term until the zoning folks came out and told us that we needed — that corner, one corner of the office we built already was at 14 feet. The other corner at the back is over 25 feet. The reason that the property — I had it situated — and I did the, kind of the managed all the construction — and the reason that it was set out that way is so that it was parallel with the house so that it looked correct because the property lines kind of go like this and the house kind of goes like this. So the back side of the office is 14 feet on one corner and over 25 feet on the other corner. 11 But I'm the one that filled this information in. I put the 900 on there — that writing on there that says 792, that is not my writing. And the writing on the side, over on the righthand side, is not my writing. But the rest of it is. MR. SHEPHERD: Thank you. MS. BUFTON: If there are any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them. MR. SHEPHERD: Mr. Herrick, I know you've been trying to hop in there. MR. HERRICK: So, Mr. Chair, just to remind the members of the board, under the Board of Zoning Appeals rules and procedure, each side is entitled to five minutes for rebuttal, and so I'd like to take advantage of what the rules allow. I'd like to use that time to address many of the questions that have been raised during this time. First of all, during his remarks, Mr. Maus indicated that the county hadn't given him a clean Certificate of Occupancy, and I have the Ceriticate of Occupancy that I believe you all received as well. And I think what he refers to as not being a clean Certificate of Occupancy is that the county did issue the certificate, but it specified that it was for a detached personal home office, and there's a statement in there, "Special Conditions or Modifications for Personal Use Only." And I think that there's a critical distinction here — that there can be such a thing as a "Personal Home Office" without being a "Home Occupation." An example of what one might do in a personal home office would be to complete one's taxes, balance one's checkbook, do things not for compensation — perform one's own personal business, like a study, for instance. And in that case, again, there was nothing wrong with conducting — having a personal home office — not for profit, not commercial — a personal home office as an accessory structure. There's nothing wrong with that. So I would say that the Certificate of Occupancy was correctly issued. We also heard Mr. Maus invoke the Snow vs. Amherst Board of Zoning Appeals case and the resulting change in the statute that took place to 15.2-2311(C), and I'd like to read that for your benefit. It reads, "In no event shall a written order, requirement, decision, or determination made by the Zoning Administrator or other administrative officer be subject to change, modification, or reversal by any Zoning Administrator or other administrative office after 60 days have elapsed from the date of the written order, requirement, decision, or determination." And then it goes on from there, but I'd like to just focus on that as the relevant portion. For the first thing, the determination that seems to be discussed here is the building pen -nit which, in fact, is not a determination by the Zoning Administrator. It was issued by the Building Official. It's also been more than 60 days since that was issued. That is not before the Board of Zoning Appeals today. All that's before the Board of Zoning Appeals today is the home occupation clearance. The county isn't seeking to change, modify, or reverse the building permit. So 2311 C in the Rhoads case might applicable if the county were seeking, at this point, to somehow revoke the building permit because the building permit has been issued and has been out there for more than 60 days. And if the county had said, "Oops, we didn't mean to issue that building permit. Sorry, we'd like it back now," that would be a similar fact pattern to what existed in the Rhoads case, and that would not be allowed under 2311 C. But we're not seeking to change, modify, or reverse the building permit. We think the building permit is still valid and was correctly issued. We think the zoning clearance was correctly denied. So again, I think that the notion that relief can somehow be granted under 2311 C is wrong because again, we're not seeking to change, modify, or reverse anything. Thank you. MR. SHEPHERD: Thanks. MR. MAUS: Mr. Chairman, one thing — and I meant to say this earlier. During his presentation, Mr. Svoboda said several times — MR. SHEPHERD: Give me one moment. Make this a rebuttal? Give him 5 minutes? MR. MAUS: We can do that if you want to. MR. SHEPHERD: Give him 5 minutes? Is that the rule? MR. MAUS: That'd be fine. Mr. Svoboda several times in his presentation that this property is located on Route 631. That is incorrect. It is located on Route 231, which is the Gordonsville Road — the road that runs from Shadwell to Gordonsville. Now, those who are familiar with zoning matters, land use matters, may say, okay, we understand the difference between a building permit and the zoning clearance, the structure and the use. We're not those people. I primarily do criminal defense law, and some other — general law. My partner does domestic relations work. We don't know. What we do know — what we do know is that we applied for a permit to build our office, our law office, in Albemarle County, and we told them — we told the county what we wanted to use it for. And they gave us a permit that said, yes, you can put this 6 feet from the property line. We didn't go that close — we went 14 feet. When we staked that thing out — I was there when my wife and another person staked it out — they called the county and said, "Come out and tell us if we can put this building here." And a county official came out and said, "Go for it." And that is exactly what we did. Exactly what we did. Now, the County Attorney would have you believe that, well, the building permit was properly issued, but you can still deny them the right to use it. What good does that do if we cannot use this office as a place to meet clients? We might just — you might just as well revoke the building permit. We don't understand the nicety between the use and the structure. We built it, we built it according to code. It was inspected every step of the way. And when the county Building Official said, eh, no, that's not exactly right, you need to fix that, we did it. It cleared the final inspection, and to say that it is only suitable for habitation for our personal use is shameful. And it would be a shame for this board to say that the county — that's okay, you can create this confusion, you can have this, this process break down somewhere — but we're not going to hold the county accountable for it, we're going to hold the individuals — the landowners — accountable for it. That's what they're asking you to do, and that's wrong. We applied for the structure, we clearly said we want to put our office there, we give them the plans, showed them what it's going to be like, and they gave us a building permit almost two months after we applied. Now, I'll tell you, after the building was completed, Kevin came out and he called me up on the phone and said, "Jack, we need to know the size of your house. Square footage of your house." I said, "Kevin, why do you need to know that?" And he said, "Well, because the way I read the regs, your office can't be more than 25% of the size of your house." And I said, "No, that's not right, Kevin. Look at it. It's 25% if the office is in the house. 1,500 square foot otherwise." "You know, you're right." So it wasn't what Kevin said first that counted, it was what Kevin said second that counted, because he realized that he had start off and corrected assumptions. So did Ms. Ragsdale send me an email in September of 2017 to say, "Well we think it's 25 feet"? Yes, she did. But when we applied for the building permit, and the county comes back and says, "You can put that building 6 feet from the property line," it's what they said second that counts. That's what we relied on. There's been talk about misunderstanding and mistake. Well, maybe there was, but it was done by the people who are professionals in this who knew the difference. We did not. We relied in good faith on what the county told us we can do. We built the building exactly as we proposed it, and we believe that the only way that justice can be done is for the Board of Zoning Appeals to overturn Mr. Svoboda's decision and say, "Look, you've got to give these people a major home occupation clearance." Thank you. MR. SHEPHERD: Thank you. MR. ROBB: As Ms. Joseph points out, the plat — the fact that there is no plat plan noted on this, on — the document we have don't show a plat plan, period. Now, do you have a plat plan? Is there a plat plan that exists? MR. MAUS: I don't understand, Mr. Robb — I don't understand what the term "plat plan" means. MR. ROBB: The accurate measurements — the survey - of the property. Do you know for sure that it is more than, or less than, 25 feet from that property? That fence doesn't mean that that's the — MR. MAUS: It does not mean that, but the only way for us to find out is for us to incur the additional expense of hiring a surveyor to go out and search the land records. The only plat that we have of that property is an old plat that -was done back when General Patton's family contributed half of what the Hallows had. The Wilsons contributed half, and there was 2.5 acres on which was placed the old Edgeworth School, which was a public school operated by Albemarle County from the 1910s to the 1940s. There have been no more current plats since then. MR. ROBB: So it's entirely possible that that building than 25 feet from the property line9 MR. MAUS: As far as I know, they cannot prove it. can the county prove that that building is, in fact, less MR. ROBB: So it's all — this is all just, "Maybe." We're asked to make a decision related to what's important to you and is financially important to you, based on a "maybe"? MR. MAUS: Right. I think everybody is assuming — but we don't know for sure — that the fence represents a property line. And so what the county wants us to do, in addition to putting up that building there and paying for the appeal process here, is to hire a surveyor to go back and look at all the land records, figure that out and if it is correct, that they want us to buy property from our adjacent landowner. MR. ROBB: Can the county — that's my question — can the county identify the exact property line that you're measuring from? MR. SVOBODA: Is that a question for me? MR. ROBB: Yes. MR. SVOBODA: The property line is as indicated by the owner. We do not go out and do surveys. MR. ROBB: I'm not hearing. Repeat that part. MR. MAUS: He can't hear you. MR. SVOBODA: The property line is identified by the property owner under his assumption that that is the correct location for that property line, so we are going by the property owner's say-so. MR. ROBB: So, we are assuming, then, that that fence is the property line. MR. SVOBODA: Yes, that is according to the property owner. MR. ROBB: I think, next question — my next point is I'm still concerned, going back to the building permit where it says, "Storage building/accessory structure (New or - )" What? MR. MAUS: See, Mr. Robb, we don't know that because when Lyn submitted the application on October 18, there's no such subtype identified in the application. MR. ROBB: It could say — it could say, excuse me — it could — is it possible that it could say, "New or Office Space?" Or it could say, "New or Old Shed?" It could say lots of things. MR. MAUS: You're exactly right, Mr. Robb. There are a lot of possibilities. MR. ROBB. That's the official document that we're dealing with here, and I'm sorry, I — I think there's too many things that we don't know about, and we're dealing with. And over here. I'm really — I'm troubled by, you know, handwrittens — that we know, I guess it was a lady there — "New structure for home office." That's clear. MR. MAUS: Exactly. MR. ROBB: So regardless of what it says, you know, up in that section. Excuse me for my rambling, but I'm seriously very bothered by the determination that was made based on assumptions — things that we don't know — that matter to you. MR. MAUS: Right. MS. JOSEPH: The complication, as we're looking at building requirements just for the structure itself, and then the use. And that's where it gets really murky because the uses is requiring that the setback be the same as the residence itself, so it meets the 75-25-35. So that's where the complication gets in, and the communication is lacking is that there are groups of people just looking at the structure itself and thinking that it was a "man cave" or a "she -shed" or something. And then, there were other people who, when it came to looking at the home occupation, decided that it was a major and that it needed to meet the required setbacks. So that's where the communication sort of fell apart, I think. MR. SHEPHERD: I wonder, from the standpoint of the — I'm thinking of the legal case, and I'm also thinking of the Rhoads case. Is the building — is the building permit considered — I forget the legal term, but a significant determination — is that — it would be understood — MR. BOWLING: I think you have to — you look at words with their common meaning, and is a building permit a written order? Gives you permission to build something. Is it a requirement or decision? I think it is, one of those. And is it made by another administrative officer? I think the Building Official can be seen as an "other administrative officer." But the dilemma with interpreting this statute is to do that with any full accuracy. I'd need to be a judge. You'd need to have a nice bunch of decisions, and you don't have the luxury of that. The only luxury that we have available to use is some statutory language that the statute — or actually, decisional language from the Supreme Court that the statute is clearly remedial. What that means is that it's to be liberally construed to carry out its remedial purpose. And you, as the quasi-judicial body, the Board of Zoning Appeals, are to decide how to do that. MR. SHEPHERD: So, is there an implied sort of delegation of authority from the — or between the Zoning Administrator and the Building Official in the course of reviewing and approving permits? So, I mean, I know the preliminary zoning is just going out there and staking the building, but — MR. BOWLING: I don't know what ultimately a court of law will do. Will they see a link in this? I don't know. It's certainly possible you can argue that both ways. You could say yes and you could say no. But we don't have the luxury of saying, "Well let's just go up and take this to the Supreme Court of Virginia and find out." We need some guidance, we need some clearance. You're left with this murky mess, and that's what you're here for, and you need to make a decision. Certainly, if you think that this statute — if it's within what you think, as you interpret the Building Official doing as part of this process, was led to a mistake, then so be it. You can make that ruling. If the county disagrees with you, their remedy is to go forward and appeal the thing. And we're not going to get any better than that. We can sit here and talk about this for a long time. MS. JOSEPH: Well, is there any other remedy for this applicant? MR. BOWLING: Well, he's mentioned a couple. He's mentioned that he could have gone to his neighbor and said, "Well, can I get some extra square feet?" Okay. And we talked — I think the Deputy County Attorney talked at the beginning. He said, "Well, this is not a variance set before you." I don't know whether the variance would be applicable here or not. I'm not going to analyze that because it's not before you. I suspect there's arguments that go both ways, so I'm not really sure that kicking the can down the road is going to get you any further in this murky decision that you have to make. MR. ROBB: Well, again, let me go back to this building permit question where it says, "Sub -application: Storage Building/Accessory Building Structure (new — of)." Could that be, "(new office)?" MR. MAUS: Mr. Robb, it could be. I have no idea how the county, in its administrative process, how they assign subtypes to this. MR. BOWLING: And I suspect we could get the Building Official in here and we could grill him, but I'm not sure we'd get — MR. ROBB: Well, that's why I ask the question. MR. BOWLING: I don't know if you'd get any more clarity than what you have right now on the paper that's before you, given the amount of time that's passed. MR. ROBB: That's why I ask. Is this building permit a significant piece of evidence before this — MR. BOWLING: Yes. MR. ROBB: Okay. MR. MAUS: I think Mr. Svoboda is handing the Chairman a piece of paper that has an expanded description of what that is, what the phrase was meant to be. Again, that's something that the county assigned after the application was submitted, and we had no way of knowing that until the building permit was issued. MR. SHEPHERD: So, what Bart Svoboda has just handed me is the — is showing what the pulldown menu there says, and the full sentence is, "Storage Building/Accessory Structure (new or alteration)." That's what the permit is. That's the subcategory of the permit. MR. ROBB: So this is the original. MR. SVOBODA: Yes, so our permits are done on computer, so we don't have paper copies. MR. ROBB: Okay, fine, but let's say that that's what it says. Still says, "New structure for home office" in italics below it. Where does it say that on this particular document? No, it doesn't. This isn't the same document. MR. SVOBODA: It's probably a different page of the document. MR. ROBB: It isn't the same. It's not the same as the copy of the permit that I have. MR. SHEPHERD: I'm going to take a chance on speaking for the Building Official here just for a second, but I think you have a building permit, and there would be many pages associated with the building permit that is tracking the review of the permit through various approval processes and inspections. So, you're going to have lots of pages that will have this — the heading will be the same, but below it will be different. Is that a fair [Many speakers talking over each other] MR. ROBB: Mr. Chainnan, this is not a copy of the document. This is — if this the original, or the original first copy, then it's different than the one I have in my paperwork here related to titled, "Building Permit, page L" The rest of the pages I have don't have a number on them. I don't know what they are. MR. BOWERMAN: Mr. Chairman? MR. SHEPHERD: Yes, Mr. Bowerman? MR. BOWERMAN: I think you've all done a real good job up till now. I think what we need is a closure and I would suggest that if Mr. Bowling could come up with the words for a — a rejection of the Zoning Administrator's determination on this, and that we accept this as a significant — under liberal interpretation, that we accept this as a legitimate mess than can be corrected by this board. MR. BOWLING: So, what I hear you saying is that you want to correct this under Virginia Code 15.2-2311(C)? MR. BOWERMAN: Yes, based on what we've talked about here tonight, which is a liberal interpretation which I think — that's what this is allowing for, because clearly, you could read these minutes and you're going to see that there has been a lot of discussion about this, and there's no way to get to final answer unless you do the final answer, which is to go out and do the property line. It's just not material anymore. MR. SVOBODA: Yeah, that burden of proof is on the applicant, not on the county. That's within the code. Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Bowling. MR. BOWLING: I think you're right. MR. BOWERMAN: Well, that's fine, but still, we could use that as the determination as to why we want to do this, correct? Under a liberal interpretation. I mean, if it's significant expense here on the part of the applicant, based upon a genuine, cloudy method of getting here. MR. BOWLING: What I hear you saying, sir, is that you think that 15.2-2311(C) is applicable in this situation. MR. BOWERMAN: Yes. MR. BOWLIlN G: A mistake was made by the county in issuing this permit, and then making a decision based upon the Zoning Administrator's determination that's before you today after 60 days had passed since the permit had been issued? MR. BOWERMAN: Yes, because I believe that there was — there was a breakdown on the county's part in communicating to the applicant that there was a substantial difference between — in discussion of this and what had been prior approved, given a — MR. BOWLING: There was a substantial difference between the home occupation applied for by the applicant on the building permit and how the final permit ended up, which led to all this confusion. MR. BOWERMAN: I think that — I think the county could have been a lot more helpful. MR. BOWLING: Now of course, the applicant could have gotten a survey right from the beginning, and maybe we wouldn't be here today at all, but that's "Monday morning quarterback." MR. BOWERMAN: We are where we are. Anyway, that's what — if you could come up with the phraseology, that's what I would propose as a motion. MR. BOWLING: Well, I'm kind of making it up as I go along. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. MR. BOWERMAN: Well, you're trying to make it sustainable. MR. BOWLING: Well, I want your decision is to grant the applicant — the decision before you is the applicant is requesting relief from the decision of the Zoning Administrator finding that he could not use his existing structure as a home office because it was an accessory use, and the setbacks were not met. Is that correct? MR. BOWERMAN: That is my intention, yes. MR. BOWLING: Alright. And you want to sustain that application of the applicant, correct? MR. BOWERMAN: I do want to sustain the application. MR. BOWLING: So that's what you want to make as your motion? MR. BOWERMAN: Yes. MR. BOWLING: And then help me out here, too, before you go further. Even if you sustain the application, as I understand it, the applicant will still have to go back and get the home occupation approval and go through that process. MR. BOWERMAN: I don't know about that. You could help us with that. MR. BOWLING: That's what I don't know for certain, either. Maybe staff can help me out. I don't think you ever went through the process of that. Bart, am I making sense as to what I'm trying to say? MR. SVOBODA: Yeah, the application was applied for and denied. MR. BOWLING: And denied, but you never got to the determination whether you should put conditions on the home occupation, and so forth and so on. MR. SVOBODA: It's an administrative approval, so we wouldn't - MR. BOWLING: So you wouldn't do that. MR. SVOBODA: Yeah, we wouldn't condition it when it is black or white. Either it meets the 25 feet or it doesn't. MR. BOWLING: So it either meets it or it doesn't. Okay. So I just confused the issue. I apologize. MR. BOWERMAN: This is a place to get rid of the confusion. MR. BOWLING: So I think I've laid out the motion for you. Madam Secretary, is that clear enough for you to follow? MS. ALLEY: I won't be transcribing this. MR. BOWLING: Who is going to — who can read back what I've said? MS. ALLEY: We don't have anything written to restate what you've said. MR. BOWLING: Well then, you need a motion to grant the appeal of the applicant in this case, finding relief appropriate under Virginia Code 15.2-2311(C). MR. BOWERMAN: And that being the motion, then the exact wording of that can be clarified after it leaves here. I mean, the exact words that were actually used. Or is that what you are suggesting the words should be? MR. BOWLING: Well, that's what I would suggest the words to be. MR. BOWERMAN: Okay. That's fine. MR. BOWLING: Does the applicant see any problem with that? MR. MAUS: No sir, Mr. Bowling. 19 /5� MR. SHEPHERD: I want to — does that mean, if we approve that motion, which would be overturning the Zoning Administrator's determination, does that serve as an approval of the — can we approve a clearance, approve the use of the building for a major home occupation without having reviewed all the criteria for the home occupation? I'm a little concerned about that part of this. MR. BOWLING: That's why I asked the question I did to the Zoning Officer. MR. ROBB: Mr. Chairman, on that question — Certificate of Occupancy, the detached personal home office. So we would have to — the county would have to vacate that occupancy, I would think, that certificate. MR. SHEPHERD: No. MR. BOWLING: I'm not familiar enough with the county procedures. MR. ROBB: Obviously, if the county has issued an occupancy — Certificate of Occupancy, they would have to —Imean — MR. BOWLING: Assuming —well, let's ask the Zoning Administrator for some guidance here. MR. SVOBODA: So, the Certificate of Occupancies are issued by the Building Official. MR. BOWLING: No, in the first place — MR. SV OBODA: That has to deal with building code, so if you change the designation on the Certificate of Occupancy — don't know if this will, or if this won't. Meaning, if it goes from an accessory residential use to a commercial use, it may change the code requirements. I am not sure what that means to the applicant or to the Building Official. So the Building Official is charged with making sure that all applicable regulations are met, but he's not charged with doing those inspections. He relies on the folks that sign off, like the Health Department. And when the Health Department says it's okay and your septic is working, that's one of the applicable regulations. So, if the designator changes, it could change the permit. I do not know what will happen there. So again, the Certificate of Occupancy is issued by the Building Official. For the Building Official to revoke a Certificate of Occpuancy, then the Zoning Administrator or the Health Department would have to revoke their approval on the permit, and the pen -nit has been issued and approved and CO'ed. So, the permit's not the issue. The issue is whether or not we can grant a home occupation permit. We're not dealing with the building permit. We're dealing with the home occupation permit or, as you guys have referred to it, to the zoning clearance. They are two different things. They are not the same things. One deals with structure, the other deals with use. MR. MAUS: Mr. Shepherd, I may have about 30 seconds left in my rebuttal, but there have been some references to the email from Ms. Ragsdale back in September 2017. One of the things you want to look at there says, "If the structure for home occupation is not yet built, you would need to apply for a building permit. The home occupation could not be approved until after the structure gets its CO." So, what we did, we built the building, we applied for the clearance. I appreciate the consideration the board has given. We think that it's only fair that the board overturn the Zoning Administrator's decision, grant us the right to use this for something other than just a space that we can occupy for our personal use. And the Certificate of Occupancy, it does say "Detached personal home office," but it's only special conditions for personal use only. Under this CO, we can't have anybody in our office. They can modify it or amend it without having to withdraw it or cancel it. The county can do what it wishes to fix this problem, and we're asking the board to encourage them to do it. Thank you. MR. SHEPHERD: Thank you. I think we're all grappling with this. MR. ROBB: Mr. Chairman, can I make - we don't have a motion. MR. BOWERMAN: You have a motion before you, but it hasn't been seconded. MR. SHEPHERD: I think the motion should be boiled down and clarified before - MR. ROBB: Can I do that? MR. SHEPHERD: Yes. MR. ROBB: My motion would be - this is a substitute motion. I would move that this board not uphold the finding of the Zoning Administrator related to AP-201900004. MR. BOWERMAN: You want a reference to the case determination that I based this on originally? A liberal interpretation of this? Put that in part of your motion - the reference to the decision. I would second that. MR. BOWLING: So, you withdraw your motion? MR. BOWERMAN: Yes, I'll accept what Ed's put up. MR. BOWLING: If you add the language - MR. BOWERMAN: Yes, yes. I think that was the key in your discussion. Relating to us, I think that was key information that we should use if we're going to do what I suggested, as the rationale for doing it. MR. SHEPHERD: Is there further discussion? Further discussion from anyone? Or are we prepared to vote? Do we have a second? MR. BOWERMAN: I'll second the motion. MR. SHEPHERD: Okay. I would just like to ask the counsel. Jim, I - simple question. Do you think that overturning the Zoning Administrator's opinion would be within the parameters - within the scope - of 15.2- 2311(C), that that could - MR. BOWLING: I think you could read it that way. It's in the ballpark. I think you have a paucity of legal interpretation about what that language means. It seems to be a remedial statute designed for the kind of situation that you find yourself in here. I don't think there's any duplicity on the part of the landowner. Nobody's going to go out and set themselves up for this kind of experience - "So hey, I think we know we can't do this, we're just going to build it instead. And then when the setback comes up, and says we didn't meet the setback requirements, we're going to appeal to the 21 15& Zoning Board." I don't think that's what's going on here. The landowners tried to act in good faith, and I think the county's acted in good faith, too. It was just a — a culmination of errors that occurred throughout the process. MR. SHEPHERD: I want to say I'm leaning towards this. I had thought earlier that the right path for this was through the variance process. But I'm thinking now that, with all that has happened, that really is kicking the can down the road and would wind up having the same discussion again about how we got to this point, without getting into analyzing variances. So — MR. BOWLING: I think that's what I concluded, too. MR. SHEPHERD: There's a lot of criteria that have to be satisfied for the variance where — either with a variance, or this — either way, we're having to make a decision that is not as neat and bound up in a package as I would like it to be, either way. So I just want to have said that for the record. MR. BOWLING: And one thing you've got to realize, and I don't know whether this will help or not, is that the Board of Zoning Appeals serves a different function than the Zoning Official and the Building Official and the Board of Supervisors. I think that's important to keep in mind, too, and that doesn't mean that any decision you make visible is right or wrong, or any decision they make if they don't agree with you and decide to go forward to challenge it is right or wrong. MS. JOSEPH: Mr. Chair, I do want to say something. The rural areas are a really important part of Albemarle County, and if you look through the uses that are allowed, by right, it is — major home occupation is one of them, but it refers you back to meeting the setbacks. The idea of the rural areas is to promote agricultural use, and when we're allowing different kinds of commercial activities within the rural areas, I just think it's really, really important. All we're asking is that you conform to the setbacks. So, I've been having a really hard time with this. You're going to be allowed to have a commercial activity, with more traffic than is normal, within a residential area — maybe not so much less than you would on a working farm, but still, it's keeping that area rural, agricultural, and really kind of focused on those sorts of activities. So, I've been having a really hard time with this. MR. SHEPHERD: I think this matter — the hearing is closed and what's before us, I'd rather just — I think we should punch ahead here. I'm getting ready to the call the roll, and a — sorry to do this, but I just want to be very clear on what a "yes" or "no" vote means. The motion, as I understand it, is to overturn the Zoning Administrator's determination. Is that correct? So, a "yes" is overturning the determination and approving the home occupation. [A woman away from the mic is audible.] MR. BOWLING: That's what Mr. Shepherd said. MR. SHEPHERD: Is that correct? MR. BOWLING: I mean, what you said — that's what you want to do? MS. JOSEPH: That's what you just said. 22 �5� MR. SHEPHERD: I mean, if — I thought that's the motion that is before us. The vote, the motion was stated to overturn the Zoning Administrator's determination? Or is the motion to uphold the Zoning Administrator's determination? MR. ROBB: My motion was to not hold the Zoning Administrator's determination. MR. SHEPHERD: Okay. So the motion is to overturn the determination. MR. ROBB: Right. MR. BOWLING: And a yes vote... MR. SHEPHERD: Overturn the determination. MR. BOWLING: Right. MR. ROBB: In a positive way. MR. SHEPHERD: Ready to vote? Marsha, please call the roll. MS. ALLEY: Mr. Robb? MR. ROBB: Yes. MS. ALLEY: Mr. Bowerman? MR. BOWERMAN: Yes. MS. ALLEY: Ms. Joseph? MS. JOSEPH: No. MS. ALLEY: Mr. Shepherd? MR. SHEPHERD: Yes. So that is our decision. I'm going to think about this one a long time. Thank you for the consideration that folks have given to this. I hope this doesn't happen again, for everyone's sake here in the room. 4. Approval of Minutes A. June 4, 2019 Mr. Robb said that regarding the minutes, it says, "At this time, the BZA did not adjourn a special meeting, but moved directly into the regular meeting." He asked if this was, in any way, a problem. Mr. Shepherd replied no, pointing out that there was a statement they voted on that said that they only discussed matters that were proper to be held in a closed meeting. Mr. Robb asked if the statement could be deleted from the minutes. 23 1gs Mr. Bowling said he was not following. Mr. Robb again read the statement and asked if there was a reason why this couldn't be deleted. Mr. Bowling said it seemed clear that the BZA went from a specially -called meeting into a regular session. He suggested that this was perhaps a better way to describe it. Ms. Alley asked if the correction could be restated. Mr. Shepherd asked Mr. Robb how he would like the statement to read. Mr. Robb answered that he would like the sentence to be eliminated from the minutes. Ms. Joseph asked if that meeting needed to be adjourned, remarking that she had thought this had been done. Mr. Bowling said the BZA came out of the executive session and that he also thought they adjourned that meeting. Mr. Robb said he thought they adjourned as well, but that the minutes did not say so. Mr. Shepherd asked if the word "not" could be eliminated so that the sentence would read, "At this time, the BZA did adjourn the special meeting and moved directly into the regular meeting." Mr. Bowling asked about who transcribes the minutes. Ms. Alley said they use a transcription service and that the reporting is then sent to Beth Golden, who sends her them the Word document. Mr. Shepherd asked, with the elimination of "not," if there was a motion to approve the minutes. MOTION: Mr. Bowerman moved to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Robb seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (4-0). 5.Old Business Mr. Shepherd said there had been talk before about BZA training and certification. He said that Mike Chandler was still perhaps holding classes as part of VAZO. He said there was also talk about some word from the County Attorney's Office about appointing the BZA to good parts of the Land Use Law handbook. He asked if further consideration had been made on this. Mr. Svoboda replied that Mr. Chandler was not teaching anymore, to his knowledge. He said that there had been discussion about going away to training, but that this idea was not popular with the BZA. He said some in- house training could be held with the counsel present involving a work session to review the Land Use Law Handbook. He said staff was more than willing to do this in conjunction with himself, the County Attorney, and the board's counsel. Mr. Shepherd expressed that individually, the board members all brought with them their own experience and talents. He said that the experience of undergoing training together would be a positive thing for the board and would help them with their analysis, as well as with strengthening their processes. He said he was in favor of 24 r�� the training and liked the idea of reducing the scope of the training to allow it to happen in town. He noted his appreciation for Mr. Bowling, explaining that his presence provides the board with some training on an ongoing basis. Mr. Bowling said that the County Attorney had done a good job over the years on monumental work on zoning law in Virginia, and that this information was all on the County Attorney's website and that it is updated regularly. He expressed the information was extremely helpful and would be to the BZA as well. Mr. Shepherd said that Greg Kamptner did a good job on this as well, adding that the information was referred to and used throughout the Commonwealth. He said that he and Mr. Svoboda could discuss this further, as well as anyone else who wanted to be included, so that they could come up with more of a definite plan for the next meeting. 6. New Business There was no new business. 7. Adjournment At 3:37 p.m., Mr. Robb moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (4-0). (Recorded by Marsha Alley and transcribed by Beth Golden) Respectfully Submitted, David Bowerman, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals 25 ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 401 MCINTIRE ROAD — LANE AUDITORIUM TUESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2019 — 2:00 P.M. II1M.1126YO'31.0 a91u112418111 y Board Members: Marcia Joseph Ed Robb David Bowerman John Shepherd Randy Rinehart, absent Staff Members: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator Bart Svoboda, Deputy Zoning Administrator Marsha Alley, BZA Clerk and Recorder County Attorney: Andy Herrick, Assistant County Attorney 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 2:01 p.m. by Chairman John Shepherd. 2. Establish a Quorum The BZA established a quorum, with four members present. Chairman Shepherd reminded everyone that in order to overturn a determination by the zoning administrator, it would require a majority of the members of the board, which in this case would mean three. 3. Public Hearings: MR. SHEPHERD: So, with that, I would like to call the public hearing to order. Just — I feel like I'm talking to a large room with a small crowd here. Sometimes we go through the rules and procedures, but basically what we're going to do is, with a public hearing, we'll start with a staff report that's going to last for 15 minutes. We have a timing system that we do want to adhere to. You'll see the green light on when your time is wide open. The yellow comes on — Marsha — at the one minute warning? So when you see the yellow light come on, try to wrap it up, and when the red light comes on, bring it to a conclusion. This is more important when you have a large crowd and people are waiting to get through the process, but even so, this is what we want to do. Of course, after hearing from both the parties, we would hear from the public if there's anyone that wants to speak. Then, the — have a time for a wrap-up/rebuttal summation. We'll start with the staff and end with the appellants. Then, we'll discuss it, make a decision. Also, I'll briefly just say this is our second meeting with Jim Bowling, second time we've had an attorney representing us. So appreciate your being part of this. It's helpful and good, and I appreciate it. Thank you. Just want to say, so far, so good. But it does create a slightly different dynamic for us that I think is very positive and good. So with that, I guess we can just start, if — Bart, Kevin, are you guys ready to go? MR. SVOBODA: I'm Bart Svoboda, Zoning Administrator for Albemarle County. This is Appeal 201900004. I'm going to give you a brief history — I'll speak for a moment, and then Mr. Herrick will finish up. This property description is Tax Map 50, Parcel 49. It contains 2.4 acres. It's located in Eastern Albemarle County along State Route 631. MR. ROBB: Mr. Chairman, can you ask him to speak up? MR. SHEPHERD: Bart, could you speak up a little, or just get closer to the mic? MR. SVOBODA: Is that better? MR. SHEPHERD: Yep. MR. SVOBODA: Okay, sorry about that. MR. SHEPHERD: Thanks. MR. SVOBODA: Again, this is Tax Map 50, Parcel 49, 2.4 acres. It's located in the Eastern Albemarle County along State Route 631. There's one dwelling and one accessory structure located on the property. The address is 7380 and 7382 Gordonsville Road, respectively. The property fronts on State Route 631, which is an Entrance Corridor, and is zoned Rural Areas. Because this is a residential application, the Entrance Corridor does not come into play here. The drawing I will show you is a drawing that was submitted with the building permit. If you go back one slide, you can see the existing house on the drawing. The existing house is to the center, and the proposed, or now current, structure is located in the corner of the lot, on the northeast corner. This is a brief history or summary of how we got here. On September 29 of 2017, the applicant had contacted the county and asked questions regarding a home occupation. We responded with an email, which included the 25-foot side property line for this home occupation — for a home occupation permit and a building permit. So, in the email, it was explained the process. So, in that process, we did specify setbacks. We did indicate that there was a home occupation permit required and also a building permit. On October 18, the appellants applied for that building permit for an accessory structure. On December 7, the building permit for an accessory structure was issued, which authorized the construction. It did note that the rear and side setbacks were 6 feet, which is consistent with an accessory structure. There's a difference between an accessory structure and an accessory structure that's used for a home occupation. On June 4, 2019, the appellant applied for the home occupation clearance, which was after the permit was issued and the inspections were final. We went out to check to see if the accessory structure met the primary structure — the 25 feet — as mentioned in the 2017 email. It was identified that it does not meet those requirements, so we could not approve the home occupation permit. On July 30, that was communicated to the appellant in writing on official determination, which denied the appellant's application for a major home occupation; and August 12, the appellant filed the present appeal. The language you see in this next slide is the zoning ordinance, which is 5.2.a, C1. And if you look at the highlighted section in the middle of the screen — so the red square is just a blowup and it indicates an accessory structure that does not conform to the applicable setback and yard requirements for the primary structure, so not to use for a home occupation. And the chart below that is Section 10.4, which is the Rural Areas portion of the ordinance, which indicates that the side setback would need to be 25 feet. /62 This particular drawing is our GIS map that has identified approximately where the structure is. Again, these maps are used primarily for tax purposes, and this measurement of 14 feet is what was measured out in the field by county staff. I will note that the property line has not been surveyed. The fence that's out there was identified as the approximate line by the property owner, so that's what we're using for our information. That's all that I have from the zoning perspective and that brief history, and I'll let Mr. Herrick take over from here. MR. HERRICK: Mr. Chair, members of the board, it's a pleasure to be here this afternoon. I'm Andy Herrick, on behalf of the County Zoning Administrator. The matter before the board this afternoon is an appeal of the denial of a home occupation clearance that was sought by the appellant. Again, as Mr. Svoboda has indicated, the applicants applied for and received a building permit for the accessory structure in 2017, and as the presentation indicated, the rules for accessory structures are that they may be within 6 feet of the property line. Staff advised applicants of the home occupation requirements back in 2017, when the building permit was first applied for, and Ms. Ragsdale's email to the applicant can be found at Attachment G to the staff report, again, in which she outlines what the requirements are, the fact that a home occupation clearance is needed. That was sent to the applicant at the time. However, the applicants applied for the home occupation clearance only after the construction of the building, after the building was completed in recent months here in 2019. And unlike accessory structures, home occupations must occur within primary setbacks, which are 25 feet. So as a result, the home occupation clearance was denied, and what's before you today, again, is the applicant's appeal. That's the only matter that's before the board today. And again, the options for the board are to either affirm, modify, or reverse the determination made by the Zoning Administrator, that this property did not qualify for a home occupation clearance. So as outlined in my memo — which you all should have received as a part of the package — there's a difference between structures and uses, and it's unfortunate that there was a misunderstanding on the applicant's part. I think that there was a misunderstanding that it was one application and that getting the building permit was sufficient in order to basically clear the way for all types of uses on the property. And unfortunately for the applicants, that's just not the case. There are separate requirements for building permits on the one hand, and for uses on the other. The building permit requirements are for the structure's conformance with the uniform state-wide building code, structural soundness — these sorts of things. And again, structures — accessory structures — sheds, small accessory buildings — can be located within 6 feet of a property line in the rural areas. And I would suggest that both applications were correctly processed — that the application for a building permit was correctly processed and that the accessory structure was approved, because it met all the building code requirements. It met the lesser setback requirements for accessory structures, but then also, the application for a home occupation clearance was also properly processed because that comes with a separate and higher bar that it must be located — or that any use of that accessory structure — must be within the primary setback, which is 25 feet. So again, it's a higher bar for the home occupation use, and again, unfortunately for the applicant, that building simply doesn't meet that higher bar for the intended use. There are a few points that were made in the appellants' submittal that I'd like to address. First of all, there was no promissory estoppel in this case, as I outlined in my memo. A promissory estoppel involves some sort of misstatement or misleading to where one party sort of misleads another party. That other party relies on the misleading statement to their detriment. In this case, there was no misleading statement by the county. The 1�3 county, again, correctly processed the building permit application, informed the applicant of the need to apply for a separate home occupation clearance, correctly processed the home occupation clearance. So again, aside from the unfortunate misunderstanding on the part of the applicant, the county, again, properly processed and properly communicated the requirements at every step of the process. And for that reason, the Rhoads case that I understand has been cited also doesn't apply in this case. The Rhoads case involves a clear mistake by county staff, which county staff — again, in the Rhoads case — gave more permission or gave greater approval than they could under their zoning ordinance and then tried to walk it back, basically. And the court said no, you can't do that — that once you've made that approval, even a mistaken approval, the county after a certain time can't revoke or pull back. And again, that's not what the facts are here. The county is not seeking to withdraw or reverse the building permit. The county is still fine with the building permit and isn't seeking to revoke that building permit because, again, the accessory structure in that location is still appropriate. Each permit's been processed correctly. The other thing — as I indicated at the outset — only the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's determination is before the board today. There's not a variance application. The board can't, on its own initiative, award a variance. The BZA is limited to the application that is before it today, and the application that's before it today is an appeal of the determination by the Zoning Administrator for which the three options are, again, to affirm, modify, or reverse. Again, a variance is not an option, based on what's before the board today. So again, I would suggest that this was an unfortunate misunderstanding, but it was a misunderstanding on the applicants' part, and that's simply not grounds for a reversal of the correct determination of the Zoning Administrator. I think the applicants deserve some sympathy or empathy for the situation which they find themselves, but they don't deserve a zoning clearance. And again, we'd ask the board to uphold the finding of the Zoning Administrator. Thank you. MR. SHEPHERD: Thank you. Mr. Maus? MR. MAUS: Thank you, Mr. Shepherd, members of the board. My name is Jack Maus. I am one of the applicants. My law partner, my wife — Lyn Bufton — is seated here in the audience. Much of the history that we will be going over to start with is similar to what the county has given you. Again, we know Virginians love our history. The history was that on October 18, that Lyn submitted this applicant for a building permit. It was processed that day — I think it was paid — and then we waited. Waited for the county to do something. Almost two months later, we received from the county — without any question about whether or not we misunderstood, whether there was some kind of misrepresentation — we received a building permit from the county that said that we could build this law office that we had asked for within 6 feet of the side setback. And of course, this was the wintertime, so we started clearing the property in the spring, summertime it was ready, and October of 2018, we began construction, and we finished it in May of this year. A final inspection was done, and although the County Attorney's office says, well, the purpose of a Certificate of Occupancy and the building permit is to ensure that the building is safely done, and this building passed every one of the tests. The county refused to give us a clean Certificate of Occupancy because there may subject to only our personal use because it was pending zoning matters. They try to tell you, well, they're really different, but they've connected those two as far as what we're able to do with this property. What you see in front of you is a picture of the building that we constructed, pursuant to the building permit. I'd say right now, it's a 30 by 34 law office. Here is the picture of the back of the property. Mr. Svoboda mentioned 14 feet from the drainpipe there to Mr. Hallow's fence — that is approximately 14 feet, no question about it. A view of the same building from the road that you can see — there's an open field behind it. We're not going to be looking into anybody's windows or to any private areas. It's very rural. Now, when we initially filed the appeal — of course, you have a very limited time in which to do that. And case law — you know, we've cited to the board what we knew at the time, which as any good trial lawyer will tell you, your legal research continues up to the time you walk into the courtroom. And so, since that time, we've had some more opportunity to research [inaudible 2:19:16], and the County Attorney has mentioned to you the Rhoads case, which we're going to get to in a minute. But in 1994, the Virginia Supreme Court decided a case called Snow vs. Amherst County Board of Zoning Appeals. Now, in that case, what happened was the Snow got approval of a variant to setback variance. I think the current ordinance provides for 150 feet, they've got one for 100. They didn't act on it, and then what happened was the county changed the ordinance. Instead of being 150 feet, it went to 200. They applied and were told no. So, they appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals there in Amherst. The board denied it. The property owners sued to the Supreme Court of Virginia, and the Supreme Court of our state — or the Commonwealth — said that the property owner only has a vested right in a zoning decision under the following circumstances: 1) there must have been a significant government act, 2) the land owner must have diligently pursued the use authorized by the permit, and 3) the land owner must have incurred substantial expense in good faith. Now in that particular case in 1994, the Supreme Court said, well, we don't think a variance is a significant government act and the Snows really didn't pursue their project diligently, so they lost on appeal of the state Supreme Court. That was September 1994. Well, the next time the General Assembly met —1995, January 25, several months later — Dick Saslaw introduced the Senate Bill 10.79 intended to fix the problem that was raised in the Snow case. That statute, that bill, would have amended 15.2-2311 by adding a Section C. That bill was sponsored by 17 of Virginia's 40 senators and passed the Virginia Senate by a vote of 39-0. It went over to the House and passed that body by a vote of 96-3 — overwhelming support in both houses. The governor signed it in March 20 of 1995. So, Virginia Code Section 15.2-2311(C) says that in no event shall a written order, requirement, decision, or other determination made by a Zoning Administrator be subject to change, modification reversal, by any Zoning Administrator or official after 60 days have elapsed from the date of the written order. Where the person agreed to materially change his position in good faith reliance on the actions of the Zoning Administrator or the administrating officer unless you can prove malfeasance — not just misfeasance — malfeasance of the Zoning Administrator or administrative officer, or through fraud. There's another sentence in that section, which really doesn't apply here. It says the 6-day limitation does not apply in any case with the concurrence of the attorney for the governing body. You have clerical or non -discretionary errors. Clearly, the granting of a permit saying a side setback line is a discretionary function. In recent case law, this is what the County Attorney's office is referring you to — Board of Supervisors of Richmond County vs. Rhoads. This is just two years ago, 2017. Latest Supreme Court of Virginia case interprets this — the court said, "The plain language of the statute says it is intended to eliminate the hardship property owners suffered when they relied, to their detriment, on erroneous or void zoning decisions." The court said the statute was remedial in nature, and that's kind of a code word that says it's meant to be liberally construed so the purpose intended may be accomplished. 1 C05 So what did the court in Rhoads say? If you look at page 3 of the Rhoads decision, which I submitted through Marsha yesterday, that it be a written order requiring a decision or determination made by a Zoning Administrator. At least 60 days must have passed from then, and then a material change in good faith reliance on the act of the Zoning Administrator. So what do we have here? Building permit definitely constitutes a written decision or determination by the Zoning Administrator. More than 60 days have passed since that building permit was issued in December of 2017, and we indeed changed our positioning — good faith reliance — on where the county told us we could put this building. Now, staff report — they agree that they issued a building permit allowing it to be built where it is. They agree they we relied on that permit in locating it there. But what they disagree with is that the intended use of the structure was fully disclosed of the department, and they disagree that if we can't have people in there — we can't have clients in there, we can't have other professionals in there — that we are, in some way, not going to be harmed. So, here's what we think. If you look at the paperwork, when we submitted the application for the building permit, we never used the words, "storage building/accessory structure." That was something that the county added at some point, and we don't know when because again, we submitted the application in October 2017. We got the permit in December. We don't know how many hands, or whose hands, that went through in those two months. Those words were added by someone in Community Development between the time we submitted the application and the time the building permit was issued. The building permit application, if you look at it, clearly describes it as a new structure for home office, and it says it includes a bathroom and a little kitchen. Now, I understand the difference between a shed and a home office, but you're not going to be putting a bathroom and a kitchen in an accessory shed, alright? There was no misunderstanding on our part what we were asking the county for. When we filled out the application, the initial square footage was for a 900-square-foot building, 30 by 30, and we subsequently expanded a little bit to 34 by 30, but somewhere along the way — and again, we don't know where this happened within the Department of Community Development — but the square footage on the application was changed from 900 to 792. And then the part of the partial building application permit that's in your package — the one that Jennifer Smith entered on October 18 — is blank in the area "setbacks." It wasn't until we got that in December that the 6-foot side setback line appeared. So bottom line is, we never said — we never did — anything that misled the Department of Community Development. Our intended purpose was always to use this building as a law office and a place where we could meet with clients, be with other persons related to our practice, whether it's court reporters, whether it's other lawyers, other professionals. That's what it was always intended for. The floor plan we submitted with the application for the building permit included a conference room, a bathroom, and a kitchenette. Now, tell me why you would have a conference room if the intention was not to have people there. We made our intentions clear the entire time, and if we can't meet with clients or we can't meet with their parties for our practice then, yeah, we suffer a detriment. That'll be pretty obvious. Now, the package also mentions to you that Albemarle County — but of course, the day the final inspection was done, within an hour, the tax people were out saying, alright, your property is worth more now. And within a couple weeks, 911 came out and said, well you have the structure that people are going to be occupying, and so because we want rescue personnel to know where to go to, we have to sign your separate 911 address. Clearly, inconsistent with what the department is now saying is that the office was only intended, ever, to be used as a shed, which it seems strange now a copy of the floor plans were done in October of 2017, when the plans were submitted. In the lower righthand corner is, where my arrow is, the cursor's going, that says, "Conference/Reception." You've got two offices on the left side, bath, and a kitchen. This is the conference room as it is today. That's what it's always meant to be. It's got a conference table, it's got chairs. It's got a place for people to meet. This is my office. You can see it's got client chairs here. Trial practice involves meeting with clients, meeting with witnesses. It's an integral part of what we do. It's what we always told the county from the get -go we wanted to do. So in conclusion, what we're asking the board to do is to reverse the decision of the Zoning Administrator, grant us a zoning clearance for major home occupation. Okay, so that concludes my presentation. I still have a couple minutes left, so if you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. MR. SHEPHERD: Thank you. MR. MAUS: Alright. Thank you, sir. MR. SHEPHERD: Other questions, at this point? MR. MAUS: No questions? Good. MR. SHEPHERD: Not at this point, but there's — there will be discussion, and we may have questions as we get into it. MR. MAUS: Okay. I'd be glad to answer any questions. MR. SHEPHERD: But for now, thank you. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak? Is there anyone from the public here? Okay. So ... that, I guess, we are now — the matter is before us. For starters, does anyone have any questions for staff or the appellant? MS. JOSEPH: Yes. Mr. Svoboda... when someone is building a shed in the rural areas, when does the zoning clearance occur? MR. SVOBODA: It depends on the use, so there's difference between a shed and an accessory structure. Well, a shed IS an accessory structure. A pool house is an accessory structure. MS. JOSPEH: Right. MR. SVOBODA: A garage with a rec room above it is an accessory structure. So when we talk about accessory structures, we're not just talking about storage buildings. It can be any of those things. MS. JOSEPH: But when is the clearance done? I guess I always assumed it was done as the footers were put in. MR. SVOBODA: The zoning inspection is done -- MS. JOSEPH: The zoning inspection, not the clearance. MR. SVOBODA: Not the clearance. MS. JOSEPH: Okay. MR. SVOBODA: The preliminary zoning inspection is done when you locate the building, which is --- MS. JOSEPH: Okay. And that was done. MR. SVOBODA: Yes. MS. JOSEPH: Okay. And the other thing that really confuses me — that years ago, an accessory structure couldn't have a kitchen in it because then it would be considered another kind of dwelling, and this is only two acres, and it's in the rural areas. So I'm kind of confused about that. MR. SVOBODA: So to be a dwelling unit, a structure has to have a place for cooking, a place for sleeping, and a place for sanitation. This particular structure has two of the three, but not all of the three — not a place for sleeping. MS. JOSEPH: Okay. MR. SVOBODA: So it would not qualify as a dwelling unit. MS. JOSEPH: Okay. MR. ROBB: Mr. Chairman, I'd like a question of our counsel. Would you describe and explain, in layman's terms, simply and completely, exactly what this board is being asked to rule on. MR. BOWLING: In layman's terms and in professional terms, this is a mess. And what you're being asked to do is to, by the applicant, is to give relief for this mess. MS. ALLEY: Excuse me, Mr. Bowling? Could you speak into your mic? MR. BOWLING: Yes. What you're being asked by the applicant to do is to give him relief in this particular case, and what he's hanging his hat on — at least as I heard it — he's not hanging his hat on the memorandum that he prepared for you, which I think was in your packet arguing about equitable relief, and I agree with the Deputy County Attorney's comments concerning equitable relief. I think he's correct on that. He's asking, as I hear it — he's asking you to give him relief under 15.2-2311(C) — the statutory language of which is before you. And then he's provided you with reference to a recent Virginia Supreme Court case saying that that statute is to be considered liberally and is designed for this precise situation to provide relief for an applicant under what he says is his particular circumstances. His point is that, at all times during this effort, he identified what he was to do as a home occupation, and it was clear on his face that he was going to build a home occupation. Staff, on the other hand — as I interpret staff s position, and I hope I'm doing this correctly — they can pipe up and correct me if I'm wrong — is that from the beginning in this, through Ms. Ragsdale's email, the applicant was informed that the applicable setback in this particular case was not 6 feet — it was 25 feet. That's in the record and in the packet that you received. During the course of this proceeding, a building permit was issued, which muddied the waters considerably and which — if you want to analyze it this way — is the root of the cause of the problem. By that, the application from the building permit, from the applicant's eyes, stated that, clearly, I'm going to be using this for a home Io occupation. Instead, the building permit was issued with a setback for 6 feet, which is for an accessory use only. There is the root of this problem. Staff says you cannot give relief under the requested statute, or under any sort of equitable theory that's been advanced by the applicant. Staff has also pointed out that this is not a variance situation that's before you. One, the applicant hasn't requested a variance; two, he hasn't applied for a variance. So you're only left with the application. The official's decision in this case was correct, and you should uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision. Now, I don't know if I've been clear, because this not one that's so easy to state clearly, but I think I've laid out the two positions for you — or at least, I hope I have. MR. ROBB: Mr. Chairman, not unusual, but I'm confused. I'm looking here at a building permit, page 1. A copy of the building permit for the particular structure in question, and it says, "Work description: New structure for home office." I can't understand what is hard to follow with that description. MR. BOWLING: That's clear, but somewhere else on that building permit, on page — further back, I believe, and the other members can correct me, or staff can correct me — there's some notice that says — that refers to the application differently. Am I correct on that? MR. SHEPHERD: I see that. It says, "Sub -application type: Storage building/accessory building." And then it's blank. MR. BOWLING: Right, and that's the mess part that I pointed out to you. MR. ROBB: Right, but down below, in bold letters: "Work description: New structure for home office." MR. BOWLING: Undeniably, that's what it says. MR. ROBB: Now, that causes me some heartburn. I understand — and that's why I asked for clarification exactly what we're being asked to deal with. I'm not sure that I still understand. I'm not sure what you could say that would make it more clear for me, so let's just move on with where we are. MR. SHEPHERD: If I could, I'd like to sort of state — state the question you have in a slightly different way, and the way I'm seeing this. I clearly understand the difference between the approval of a structure, which is done with a building permit, and the approval of a use, which is done with a clearance. That's very straightforward to me, and I understand it. But I used to work in the Zoning Department, so I just sort of take that as clear to me because I know the process. However, when I look at the building permit, I'm seeing — the words that come off the page to me are, "New structure for a home office," and I see the building plans that were approved — you know, that were part of that — which had conference areas. I'm just repeating, but I think they're salient points. Conference room, reception areas. There's two offices. It shows a handicapped ramp, which just implies that the public is going to be there. So I inferred from that — and one thing that's difficult about this situation is that you're sort of up here trying to be mind readers, which we are not. But I inferred from that that, at least from the appellant's standpoint, that they were clear in what they were asking for. I get that, and I think — if you look at the page before you put your glasses on, you're seeing a home office. I know that there's a difference between a home office and a major home occupation, per Supplemental Reg 5.2a, or whatever the code section is. Technically, I understand that that is correct. But somewhere along the 1(A line, I think there's a — I wonder about the process for flagging that obvious problem with the building permit. There's a — the building permit was reviewed and approved, and that process took quite some time. There's a preliminary zoning approval of that. There's a final zoning approval of that. I don't understand how — I mean, I — from the county side, that it wasn't flagged somewhere to just say — when you see the way the permit was set up, that that shouldn't have been a red flag that would've said, hold everything, we have to get this clarified. I think there is some — I could argue this — I'm really, in my own mind, hung on the horns of this dilemma. For me, it's clear both ways. But I — I'm concerned about — I wonder about the process that let it get this far, with a permit — with those things that, to me, clearly indicated an office — a commercial -style office — as well as just a description of it in the larger font. And clearly, the applicants' words — it's a home office, where the — I think it's called a "subcategory." I mean, that's really — I guess that's a building code designation that is a class of building and it would establish what building code was controlling it. MS. JOSEPH: John, can I ask a question too? Because it is — it is connected with what you were just saying because there is a lot of confusion. One of the requirements for the building permit is a plat, right? Or a legal description of the property. Is that something that you received? Because that would — and I guess the other thing that you showed us was this sewage disposal site plan that shows 45 feet from the sideline. Did the Building Department, did Zoning, accept this as a part of the building permit that was required by having a plat submitted? MR. SVOBODA: That is the sketch that was in the file that located the structure on the parcel. MS. JOSEPH: Okay. MR. SVOBODA: It was the Health Department information. MS. JOSEPH: So that came from the Health Department. It wasn't part of the requirement that staff received as part of the building permit package. MR. SVOBODA: It is part of the required paperwork that we use to review the permit. MS. JOSEPH: Right, but it is called a "sewage disposal site plan." It's not the plat. So I guess what I'm trying to figure out — was that used when staff looked at this and said, okay, the setback is correct for this? MR. SVOBODA: The individual who reviewed the permit no longer works for the county. When we go back through these files, we go based on what is located in the file, and so it would be my understanding that, based on what we have in the file, that those documents were used to review and issue this permit. MS. JOSEPH: Okay, and that was the person that signed this — Judy? MR. SVOBODA: No. For zoning, the young lady's name was Emily. MS. JOSEPH: Okay. Okay. So that was were received and accepted? MR. SVOBODA: Yes. MS. JOSEPH: Okay, thank you. MR. ROBB: Mr. Chairman, as I started this discussion with focusing on the piece of evidence here, Building Permit Copy, I'm troubled by what it says related to "Sub -Application Type: Storage Building/Accessory 10 Structure (New Off —" What is that? What does it say? It's not complete. And then we go down till we see, "Work Description." Clearly, bold print: "New structure for home office." We go to the next page. It doesn't — page — it doesn't have a number, but it says, "Building application..." so forth, identifying it. And then it goes down in printed — hand -printed by somebody. I'd have to presume it was hand -printed. I'm going to ask who hand -printed that. But it says, "New structure for home office." If this is a piece of evidence that we're supposed to evaluate, then how can we get an — we need an explanation for it, if we're going to be asked to support the — hold the finding of the Zoning Administrator. MR. MAUS: [Away from the uric] Mr. Chairman, I can explain that. I mean — my wife filled out the application. She would tell you - MR. SHEPHERD: You have to get... step to the mic. MS. BUFTON: Hello. How are you? My name is Evelyn Bufton. I am the law partner of Mr. Maus and also his wife. MS. ALLEY: Can you also please pull that down and speak into it? MS. BUFTON: Sure, absolutely. Is that better? MR. ROBB: Yeah. MS. ALLEY: Thank you. MS. BUFTON: I am the one that came into the county to get the permit, and so on this permit, where you can see that handwriting on that. Pardon, on the application, yeah. I filled that out, and I filled it out at the desk at the County Planning Office. I had never heard a home occupation anything. I didn't even understand that term, and I had never heard that term until the zoning folks came out and told us that we needed — that corner, one corner of the office we built already was at 14 feet. The other corner at the back is over 25 feet. The reason that the property — I had it situated — and I did the, kind of the managed all the construction — and the reason that it was set out that way is so that it was parallel with the house so that it looked correct because the property lines kind of go like this and the house kind of goes like this. So the back side of the office is 14 feet on one corner and over 25 feet on the other corner. But I'm the one that filled this information in. I put the 900 on there — that writing on there that says 792, that is not my writing. And the writing on the side, over on the righthand side, is not my writing. But the rest of it is. MR. SHEPHERD: Thank you. MS. BUFTON: If there are any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them. MR. SHEPHERD: Mr. Herrick, I know you've been trying to hop in there. MR. HERRICK: So, Mr. Chair, just to remind the members of the board, under the Board of Zoning Appeals rules and procedure, each side is entitled to five minutes for rebuttal, and so I'd like to take advantage of what the rules allow. I'd like to use that time to address many of the questions that have been raised during this time. First of all, during his remarks, Mr. Maus indicated that the county hadn't given him a clean Certificate of Occupancy, and I have the Ceriticate of Occupancy that I believe you all received as well. And I think what he refers to as not being a clean Certificate of Occupancy is that the county did issue the certificate, but it specified that it was for a detached personal home office, and there's a statement in there, "Special Conditions or Modifications for Personal Use Only." And I think that there's a critical distinction here — that there can be such a thing as a "Personal Home Office" without being a "'Home Occupation." An example of what one might do in a personal home office would be to complete one's taxes, balance one's checkbook, do things not for compensation — perform one's own personal business, like a study, for instance. And in that case, again, there was nothing wrong with conducting — having a personal home office — not for profit, not commercial — a personal home office as an accessory structure. There's nothing wrong with that. So I would say that the Certificate of Occupancy was correctly issued. We also heard Mr. Maus invoke the Snow vs. Amherst Board of Zoning Appeals case and the resulting change in the statute that took place to 15.2-2311(C), and I'd like to read that for your benefit. It reads, "In no event shall a written order, requirement, decision, or determination made by the Zoning Administrator or other administrative officer be subject to change, modification, or reversal by any Zoning Administrator or other administrative office after 60 days have elapsed from the date of the written order, requirement, decision, or determination." And then it goes on from there, but I'd like to just focus on that as the relevant portion. For the first thing, the determination that seems to be discussed here is the building permit which, in fact, is not a determination by the Zoning Administrator. It was issued by the Building Official. It's also been more than 60 days since that was issued. That is not before the Board of Zoning Appeals today. All that's before the Board of Zoning Appeals today is the home occupation clearance. The county isn't seeking to change, modify, or reverse the building permit. So 2311 C in the Rhoads case might applicable if the county were seeking, at this point, to somehow revoke the building permit because the building permit has been issued and has been out there for more than 60 days. And if the county had said, "Oops, we didn't mean to issue that building permit. Sorry, we'd like it back now," that would be a similar fact pattern to what existed in the Rhoads case, and that would not be allowed under 2311 C. But we're not seeking to change, modify, or reverse the building permit. We think the building permit is still valid and was correctly issued. We think the zoning clearance was correctly denied. So again, I think that the notion that relief can somehow be granted under 2311 C is wrong because again, we're not seeking to change, modify, or reverse anything. Thank you. MR. SHEPHERD: Thanks. MR. MAUS: Mr. Chairman, one thing — and I meant to say this earlier. During his presentation, Mr. Svoboda said several times — MR. SHEPHERD: Give me one moment. Make this a rebuttal? Give him 5 minutes? MR. MAUS: We can do that if you want to. MR. SHEPHERD: Give him 5 minutes? Is that the rule? MR. MAUS: That'd be fine. Mr. Svoboda several times in his presentation that this property is located on Route 631. That is incorrect. It is located on Route 231, which is the Gordonsville Road — the road that runs from Shadwell to Gordonsville. Now, those who are familiar with zoning matters, land use matters, may say, okay, we understand the difference between a building permit and the zoning clearance, the structure and the use. We're not those people. I primarily do criminal defense law, and some other — general law. My partner does domestic relations work. We don't know. What we do know — what we do know is that we applied for a permit to build our office, our law office, in Albemarle County, and we told them — we told the county what we wanted to use it for. And they gave us a permit that said, yes, you can put this 6 feet from the property line. We didn't go that close — we went 14 feet. When we staked that thing out — I was there when my wife and another person staked it out — they called the county and said, "Come out and tell us if we can put this building here." And a county official came out and said, "Go for it." And that is exactly what we did. Exactly what we did. Now, the County Attorney would have you believe that, well, the building permit was properly issued, but you can still deny them the right to use it. What good does that do if we cannot use this office as a place to meet clients? We might just — you might just as well revoke the building permit. We don't understand the nicety between the use and the structure. We built it, we built it according to code. It was inspected every step of the way. And when the county Building Official said, eh, no, that's not exactly right, you need to fix that, we did it. It cleared the final inspection, and to say that it is only suitable for habitation for our personal use is shameful. And it would be a shame for this board to say that the county — that's okay, you can create this confusion, you can have this, this process break down somewhere — but we're not going to hold the county accountable for it, we're going to hold the individuals — the landowners — accountable for it. That's what they're asking you to do, and that's wrong. We applied for the structure, we clearly said we want to put our office there, we give them the plans, showed them what it's going to be like, and they gave us a building permit almost two months after we applied. Now, I'll tell you, after the building was completed, Kevin came out and he called me up on the phone and said, "Jack, we need to know the size of your house. Square footage of your house." I said, "Kevin, why do you need to know that?" And he said, "Well, because the way I read the regs, your office can't be more than 25% of the size of your house." And I said, "No, that's not right, Kevin. Look at it. It's 25% if the office is in the house. 1,500 square foot otherwise." "You know, you're right." So it wasn't what Kevin said first that counted, it was what Kevin said second that counted, because he realized that he had start off and corrected assumptions. So did Ms. Ragsdale send me an email in September of 2017 to say, "Well we think it's 25 feet"? Yes, she did. But when we applied for the building permit, and the county comes back and says, "You can put that building 6 feet from the property line," it's what they said second that counts. That's what we relied on. There's been talk about misunderstanding and mistake. Well, maybe there was, but it was done by the people who are professionals in this who knew the difference. We did not. We relied in good faith on what the county told us we can do. We built the building exactly as we proposed it, and we believe that the only way that justice can be done is for the Board of Zoning Appeals to overturn Mr. Svoboda's decision and say, "Look, you've got to give these people a major home occupation clearance." Thank you. MR. SHEPHERD: Thank you. MR. ROBB: As Ms. Joseph points out, the plat — the fact that there is no plat plan noted on this, on — the document we have don't show a plat plan, period. Now, do you have a plat plan? Is there a plat plan that exists? MR. MAUS: I don't understand, Mr. Robb — I don't understand what the term "plat plan" means. 13 MR. ROBB: The accurate measurements — the survey — of the property. Do you know for sure that it is more than, or less than, 25 feet from that property? That fence doesn't mean that that's the — MR. MAUS: It does not mean that, but the only way for us to find out is for us to incur the additional expense of hiring a surveyor to go out and search the land records. The only plat that we have of that property is an old plat that was done back when General Patton's family contributed half of what the Hallows had. The Wilsons contributed half, and there was 2.5 acres on which was placed the old Edgeworth School, which was a public school operated by Albemarle County from the 1910s to the 1940s. There have been no more current plats since then. MR. ROBB: So it's entirely possible that that building — can the county prove that that building is, in fact, less than 25 feet from the property line? MR. MAUS: As far as I know, they cannot prove it. MR. ROBB: So it's all — this is all just, "Maybe." We're asked to make a decision related to what's important to you and is financially important to you, based on a "maybe"? MR. MAUS: Right. I think everybody is assuming — but we don't know for sure — that the fence represents a property line. And so what the county wants us to do, in addition to putting up that building there and paying for the appeal process here, is to hire a surveyor to go back and look at all the land records, figure that out and if it is correct, that they want us to buy property from our adjacent landowner. MR. ROBB: Can the county — that's my question — can the county identify the exact property line that you're measuring from? MR. SVOBODA: Is that a question for me? MR. ROBB: Yes. MR. SVOBODA: The property line is as indicated by the owner. We do not go out and do surveys. MR. ROBB: I'm not hearing. Repeat that part. MR. MAU S: He can't hear you. MR. SVOBODA: The property line is identified by the property owner under his assumption that that is the correct location for that property line, so we are going by the property owner's say-so. MR. ROBB: So, we are assuming, then, that that fence is the property line. MR. SVOBODA: Yes, that is according to the property owner. MR. ROBB: I think, next question — my next point is I'm still concerned, going back to the building permit where it says, "Storage building/accessory structure (New or - )" What? MR. MAUS: See, Mr. Robb, we don't know that because when Lyn submitted the application on October 18, there's no such subtype identified in the application. MR. ROBB: It could say — it could say, excuse me — it could — is it possible that it could say, "New or Office Space?" Or it could say, "New or Old Shed?" It could say lots of things. MR. MAUS: You're exactly right, Mr. Robb. There are a lot of possibilities. MR. ROBB: That's the official document that we're dealing with here, and I'm sorry, I — I think there's too many things that we don't know about, and we're dealing with. And over here, I'm really — I'm troubled by, you know, handwrittens — that we know, I guess it was a lady there — "New structure for home office. That's clear. MR. MAUS: Exactly. MR. ROBB: So regardless of what it says, you know, up in that section. Excuse me for my rambling, but I'm seriously very bothered by the determination that was made based on assumptions — things that we don't know — that matter to you. MR. MAUS: Right. MS. JOSEPH: The complication, as we're looking at building requirements just for the structure itself, and then the use. And that's where it gets really murky because the uses is requiring that the setback be the same as the residence itself, so it meets the 75-25-35. So that's where the complication gets in, and the communication is lacking is that there are groups of people just looking at the structure itself and thinking that it was a "man cave" or a "she -shed" or something. And then, there were other people who, when it came to looking at the home occupation, decided that it was a major and that it needed to meet the required setbacks. So that's where the communication sort of fell apart, I think. MR. SHEPHERD: I wonder, from the standpoint of the — I'm thinking of the legal case, and I'm also thinking of the Rhoads case. Is the building — is the building permit considered — I forget the legal term, but a significant determination — is that — it would be understood — MR. BOWLING: I think you have to — you look at words with their common meaning, and is a building permit a written order? Gives you permission to build something. Is it a requirement or decision? I think it is, one of those. And is it made by another administrative officer? I think the Building Official can be seen as an "other administrative officer." But the dilemma with interpreting this statute is to do that with any full accuracy. I'd need to be a judge. You'd need to have a nice bunch of decisions, and you don't have the luxury of that. The only luxury that we have available to use is some statutory language that the statute — or actually, decisional language from the Supreme Court that the statute is clearly remedial. What that means is that it's to be liberally construed to carry out its remedial purpose. And you, as the quasi-judicial body, the Board of Zoning Appeals, are to decide how to do that. MR. SHEPHERD: So, is there an implied sort of delegation of authority from the — or between the Zoning Administrator and the Building Official in the course of reviewing and approving pen -nits? So, I mean, I know the preliminary zoning is just going out there and staking the building, but — MR. BOWLING: I don't know what ultimately a court of law will do. Will they see a link in this? I don't know. It's certainly possible you can argue that both ways. You could say yes and you could say no. But we don't have the luxury of saying, "Well let's just go up and take this to the Supreme Court of Virginia and find out." We need some guidance, we need some clearance. 15 1 '7� You're left with this murky mess, and that's what you're here for, and you need to make a decision. Certainly, if you think that this statute — if it's within what you think, as you interpret the Building Official doing as part of this process, was led to a mistake, then so be it. You can make that ruling. If the county disagrees with you, their remedy is to go forward and appeal the thing. And we're not going to get any better than that. We can sit here and talk about this for a long time. MS. JOSEPH: Well, is there any other remedy for this applicant? MR. BOWLING: Well, he's mentioned a couple. He's mentioned that he could have gone to his neighbor and said, "Udell, can I get some extra square feet?" Okay. And we talked — I think the Deputy County Attorney talked at the beginning. He said, "Well, this is not a variance set before you." I don't know whether the variance would be applicable here or not. I'm not going to analyze that because it's not before you. I suspect there's arguments that go both ways, so I'm not really sure that kicking the can down the road is going to get you any further in this murky decision that you have to make. MR. ROBB: Well, again, let me go back to this building permit question where it says, "Sub -application: Storage Building/Accessory Building Structure (new — of)." Could that be, "(new office)?" MR. MAUS: Mr. Robb, it could be. I have no idea how the county, in its administrative process, how they assign subtypes to this. MR. BOWLING: And I suspect we could get the Building Official in here and we could grill him, but I'm not sure we'd get — MR. ROBB: Well, that's why I ask the question. MR. BOWLING: I don't know if you'd get any more clarity than what you have right now on the paper that's before you, given the amount of time that's passed. MR. ROBB: That's why I ask. Is this building permit a significant piece of evidence before this — MR. BOWLING: Yes. MR. ROBB: Okay. MR. MAUS: I think Mr. Svoboda is handing the Chairman a piece of paper that has an expanded description of what that is, what the phrase was meant to be. Again, that's something that the county assigned after the application was submitted, and we had no way of knowing that until the building permit was issued. MR. SHEPHERD: So, what Bart Svoboda has just handed me is the — is showing what the pulldown menu there says, and the full sentence is, "Storage Building/Accessory Structure (new or alteration)." That's what the permit is. That's the subcategory of the permit. MR. ROBB: So this is the original. MR. SVOBODA: Yes, so our permits are done on computer, so we don't have paper copies. MR. ROBB: Okay, fine, but let's say that that's what it says. Still says, "New structure for home office" in italics below it. Where does it say that on this particular document? No, it doesn't. This isn't the same document. MR. SVOBODA: It's probably a different page of the document. MR. ROBB: It isn't the same. It's not the same as the copy of the permit that I have. MR. SHEPHERD: I'm going to take a chance on speaking for the Building Official here just for a second, but I think you have a building permit, and there would be many pages associated with the building permit that is tracking the review of the permit through various approval processes and inspections. So, you're going to have lots of pages that will have this — the heading will be the same, but below it will be different. Is that a fair — [Many speakers talking over each other] MR. ROBB: Mr. Chairman, this is not a copy of the document. This is — if this the original, or the original first copy, then it's different than the one I have in my paperwork here related to titled, "Building Permit, page 1." The rest of the pages I have don't have a number on them. I don't know what they are. MR. BOWERMAN: Mr. Chairman? MR. SHEPHERD: Yes, Mr. Bowerman? MR. BOWERMAN: I think you've all done a real good job up till now. I think what we need is a closure and I would suggest that if Mr. Bowling could come up with the words for a— a rejection of the Zoning Administrator's determination on this, and that we accept this as a significant — under liberal interpretation, that we accept this as a legitimate mess than can be corrected by this board. MR. BOWLING: So, what I hear you saying is that you want to correct this under Virginia Code 15.2-2311(C)? MR. BOWERMAN: Yes, based on what we've talked about here tonight, which is a liberal interpretation which I think — that's what this is allowing for, because clearly, you could read these minutes and you're going to see that there has been a lot of discussion about this, and there's no way to get to final answer unless you do the final answer, which is to go out and do the property line. It's just not material anymore. MR. SVOBODA: Yeah, that burden of proof is on the applicant, not on the county. That's within the code. Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Bowling. MR. BOWLING: I think you're right. MR. BOWERMAN: Well, that's fine, but still, we could use that as the determination as to why we want to do this, correct? Under a liberal interpretation. i mean, if it's significant expense here on the part of the applicant, based upon a genuine, cloudy method of getting here. MR. BOWLING: What I hear you saying, sir, is that you think that 15.2-2311(C) is applicable in this situation. MR. BOWERMAN: Yes. MR. BOWLING: A mistake was made by the county in issuing this permit, and then making a decision based upon the Zoning Administrator's determination that's before you today after 60 days had passed since the permit had been issued? MR. BOWER -MAN: Yes, because I believe that there was — there was a breakdown on the county's part in communicating to the applicant that there was a substantial difference between — in discussion of this and what had been prior approved, given a — MR. BOWLING: There was a substantial difference between the home occupation applied for by the applicant on the building permit and how the final permit ended up, which led to all this confusion. MR. BOWERMAN: I think that — I think the county could have been a lot more helpful. MR. BOWLING: Now of course, the applicant could have gotten a survey right from the beginning, and maybe we wouldn't be here today at all, but that's "Monday morning quarterback." MR. BOWERMAN: We are where we are. Anyway, that's what — if you could come up with the phraseology, that's what I would propose as a motion. MR. BOWLING: Well, I'm kind of making it up as I go along. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. MR. BOWERMAN: Well, you're trying to make it sustainable. MR. BOWLING: Well, I want your decision is to grant the applicant— the decision before you is the applicant is requesting relief from the decision of the Zoning Administrator finding that he could not use his existing structure as a home office because it was an accessory use, and the setbacks were not met. Is that correct? MR. BOWERMAN: That is my intention, yes. MR. BOWLING: Alright. And you want to sustain that application of the applicant, correct? MR. BOWERMAN: I do want to sustain the application. MR. BOWLING: So that's what you want to make as your motion? MR. BOWERMAN: Yes. MR. BOWLING: And then help me out here, too, before you go further. Even if you sustain the application, as I understand it, the applicant will still have to go back and get the home occupation approval and go through that process. MR. BOWERMAN: I don't know about that. You could help us with that. MR. BOWLING: That's what I don't know for certain, either. Maybe staff can help me out. I don't think you ever went through the process of that. Bart, am I making sense as to what I'm trying to say? MR. SVOBODA: Yeah, the application was applied for and denied. MR. BOWLING: And denied, but you never got to the determination whether you should put conditions on the home occupation, and so forth and so on. MR. SVOBODA: It's an administrative approval, so we wouldn't — MR. BOWLING: So you wouldn't do that. MR. SVOBODA: Yeah, we wouldn't condition it when it is black or white. Either it meets the 25 feet or it doesn't. MR. BOWLING: So it either meets it or it doesn't. Okay. So I just confused the issue. I apologize. MR. BOWERMAN: This is a place to get rid of the confusion. MR. BOWLING: So I think I've laid out the motion for you. Madam Secretary, is that clear enough for you to follow? MS. ALLEY: I won't be transcribing this. MR. BOWLING: Who is going to — who can read back what I've said? MS. ALLEY: We don't have anything written to restate what you've said. MR. BOWLING: Well then, you need a motion to grant the appeal of the applicant in this case, finding relief appropriate under Virginia Code 15.2-2311(C). MR. BOWERMAN: And that being the motion, then the exact wording of that can be clarified after it leaves here. I mean, the exact words that were actually used. Or is that what you are suggesting the words should be? MR. BOWLING: Well, that's what I would suggest the words to be. MR. BOWERMAN: Okay. That's fine. MR. BOWLING: Does the applicant see any problem with that? MR. MAUS: No sir, Mr. Bowling. MR. SHEPHERD: I want to — does that mean, if we approve that motion, which would be overturning the Zoning Administrator's determination, does that serve as an approval of the — can we approve a clearance, approve the use of the building for a major home occupation without having reviewed all the criteria for the home occupation? I'm a little concerned about that part of this. MR. BOWLING: That's why I asked the question I did to the Zoning Officer. MR. ROBB: Mr. Chairman, on that question — Certificate of Occupancy, the detached personal home office. So we would have to — the county would have to vacate that occupancy, I would think, that certificate. MR. SHEPHERD: No. MR. BOWLING: I'm not familiar enough with the county procedures. MR. ROBB: Obviously, if the county has issued an occupancy — Certificate of Occupancy, they would have to — I mean — MR. BOWLING: Assuming — well, let's ask the Zoning Administrator for some guidance here. 19 MR. SVOBODA: So, the Certificate of Occupancies are issued by the Building Official. MR. BOWLING: No, in the first place — MR. SVOBODA: That has to deal with building code, so if you change the designation on the Certificate of Occupancy — don't know if this will, or if this won't. Meaning, if it goes from an accessory residential use to a commercial use, it may change the code requirements. I am not sure what that means to the applicant or to the Building Official. So the Building Official is charged with making sure that all applicable regulations are met, but he's not charged with doing those inspections. He relies on the folks that sign off, like the Health Department. And when the Health Department says it's okay and your septic is working, that's one of the applicable regulations. So, if the designator changes, it could change the permit. I do not know what will happen there. So again, the Certificate of Occupancy is issued by the Building Official. For the Building Official to revoke a Certificate of Occpuancy, then the Zoning Administrator or the Health Department would have to revoke their approval on the permit, and the permit has been issued and approved and CO'ed. So, the permit's not the issue. The issue is whether or not we can grant a home occupation permit. We're not dealing with the building permit. We're dealing with the home occupation permit or, as you guys have referred to it, to the zoning clearance. They are two different things. They are not the same things. One deals with structure, the other deals with use. MR. MAUS: Mr. Shepherd, I may have about 30 seconds left in my rebuttal, but there have been some references to the email from Ms. Ragsdale back in September 2017. One of the things you want to look at there says, "If the structure for home occupation is not yet built, you would need to apply for a building permit. The home occupation could not be approved until after the structure gets its CO." So, what we did, we built the building, we applied for the clearance. I appreciate the consideration the board has given. We think that it's only fair that the board overturn the Zoning Administrator's decision, grant us the right to use this for something other than just a space that we can occupy for our personal use. And the Certificate of Occupancy, it does say "Detached personal home office," but it's only special conditions for personal use only. Under this CO, we can't have anybody in our office. They can modify it or amend it without having to withdraw it or cancel it. The county can do what it wishes to fix this problem, and we're asking the board to encourage them to do it. Thank you. MR. SHEPHERD: Thank you. I think we're all grappling with this. MR. ROBB: Mr. Chairman, can I make — we don't have a motion. MR. BOWERMAN: You have a motion before you, but it hasn't been seconded. MR. SHEPHERD: I think the motion should be boiled down and clarified before --- MR. ROBB: Can I do that? MR. SHEPHERD: Yes. MR. ROBB: My motion would be — this is a substitute motion. I would move that this board not uphold the finding of the Zoning Administrator related to AP-201900004. 20 M MR. BOWERMAN: You want a reference to the case determination that I based this on originally? A liberal interpretation of this? Put that in part of your motion — the reference to the decision. I would second that. MR. BOWLING: So, you withdraw your motion? MR. BOWERMAN: Yes, I'll accept what Ed's put up. MR. BOWLING: If you add the language — MR. BOWERMAN: Yes, yes. I think that was the key in your discussion. Relating to us, I think that was key information that we should use if we're going to do what I suggested, as the rationale for doing it. MR. SHEPHERD: Is there further discussion? Further discussion from anyone? Or are we prepared to vote? Do we have a second? MR. BOWERMAN: I'll second the motion. MR. SHEPHERD: Okay. I would just like to ask the counsel. Jim, I — simple question. Do you think that overturning the Zoning Administrator's opinion would be within the parameters — within the scope — of 15.2- 23 11 (C), that that could — MR. BOWLING: I think you could read it that way. It's in the ballpark. I think you have a paucity of legal interpretation about what that language means. It seems to be a remedial statute designed for the kind of situation that you find yourself in here. I don't think there's any duplicity on the part of the landowner. Nobody's going to go out and set themselves up for this kind of experience — "So hey, I think we know we can't do this, we're just going to build it instead. And then when the setback comes up, and says we didn't meet the setback requirements, we're going to appeal to the Zoning Board." I don't think that's what's going on here. The landowners tried to act in good faith, and I think the county's acted in good faith, too. It was just a — a culmination of errors that occurred throughout the process. MR. SHEPHERD: I want to say I'm leaning towards this. I had thought earlier that the right path for this was through the variance process. But I'm thinking now that, with all that has happened, that really is kicking the can down the road and would wind up having the same discussion again about how we got to this point, without getting into analyzing variances. So — MR. BOWLING: I think that's what I concluded, too. MR. SHEPHERD: There's a lot of criteria that have to be satisfied for the variance where — either with a variance, or this — either way, we're having to make a decision that is not as neat and bound up in a package as I would like it to be, either way. So I just want to have said that for the record. MR. BOWLING: And one thing you've got to realize, and I don't know whether this will help or not, is that the Board of Zoning Appeals serves a different function than the Zoning Official and the Building Official and the Board of Supervisors. I think that's important to keep in mind, too, and that doesn't mean that any decision you make visible is right or wrong, or any decision they make if they don't agree with you and decide to go forward to challenge it is right or wrong. MS. JOSEPH: Mr. Chair, I do want to say something. The rural areas are a really important part of Albemarle County, and if you look through the uses that are allowed, by right, it is — major home occupation is one of 21 /Sl/ them, but it refers you back to meeting the setbacks. The idea of the rural areas is to promote agricultural use, and when we're allowing different kinds of commercial activities within the rural areas, I just think it's really, really important. All we're asking is that you conform to the setbacks. So, I've been having a really hard time with this. You're going to be allowed to have a commercial activity, with more traffic than is normal, within a residential area — maybe not so much less than you would on a working farm.. but still, it's keeping that area rural, agricultural, and really kind of focused on those sorts of activities. So, I've been having a really hard time with this. MR. SHEPHERD: I think this matter — the hearing is closed and what's before us, I'd rather just — I think we should punch ahead here. I'm getting ready to the call the roll, and a — sorry to do this, but I just want to be very clear on what a "yes" or "no" vote means. The motion, as I understand it, is to overturn the Zoning Administrator's determination. Is that correct? So, a "yes" is overturning the determination and approving the home occupation. [A woman away from the mic is audible.] MR. BOWLING: That's what Mr. Shepherd said. MR. SHEPHERD: Is that correct? MR. BOWLING: I mean, what you said — that's what you want to do? MS. JOSEPH: That's what you just said. MR. SHEPHERD: I mean, if — I thought that's the motion that is before us. The vote, the motion was stated to overturn the Zoning Administrator's determination? Or is the motion to uphold the Zoning Administrator's determination? MR. ROBB: My motion was to not hold the Zoning Administrator's determination. MR. SHEPHERD: Okay. So the motion is to overturn the determination. MR. ROBB: Right. MR. BOWLING: And a yes vote... MR. SHEPHERD: Overturn the determination. MR. BOWLING: Right. MR. ROBB: In a positive way. MR. SHEPHERD: Ready to vote? Marsha, please call the roll. MS. ALLEY: Mr. Robb? MR. ROBB: Yes. MS. ALLEY: Mr. Bowerman? MR. BOWERMAN: Yes. MS. ALLEY: Ms. Joseph? MS. JOSEPH: No. MS. ALLEY: Mr. Shepherd? MR. SHEPHERD: Yes. So that is our decision. I'm going to think about this one a long time. Thank you for the consideration that folks have given to this. I hope this doesn't happen again, for everyone's sake here in the room. 4. Approval of Minutes A. June 4, 2019 Mr. Robb said that regarding the minutes, it says, "At this time, the BZA did not adjourn a special meeting, but moved directly into the regular meeting." He asked if this was, in any way, a problem. Mr. Shepherd replied no, pointing out that there was a statement they voted on that said that they only discussed matters that were proper to be held in a closed meeting. Mr. Robb asked if the statement could be deleted from the minutes. Mr. Bowling said he was not following. Mr. Robb again read the statement and asked if there was a reason why this couldn't be deleted. Mr. Bowling said it seemed clear that the BZA went from a specially -called meeting into a regular session. He suggested that this was perhaps a better way to describe it. Ms. Alley asked if the correction could be restated. Mr. Shepherd asked Mr. Robb how he would like the statement to read. Mr. Robb answered that he would like the sentence to be eliminated from the minutes. Ms. Joseph asked if that meeting needed to be adjourned, remarking that she had thought this had been done. Mr. Bowling said the BZA came out of the executive session and that he also thought they adjourned that meeting. Mr. Robb said he thought they adjourned as well, but that the minutes did not say so. Mr. Shepherd asked if the word "not" could be eliminated so that the sentence would read, "At this time, the BZA did adjourn the special meeting and moved directly into the regular meeting." Mr. Bowling asked about who transcribes the minutes. 23 /83 Ms. Alley said they use a transcription service and that the reporting is then sent to Beth Golden, who sends her them the Word document. Mr. Shepherd asked, with the elimination of "not," if there was a motion to approve the minutes. MOTION: Mr. Bowerman moved to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Robb seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (4-0). 5.Old Business Mr. Shepherd said there had been talk before about BZA training and certification. He said that Mike Chandler was still perhaps holding classes as part of VAZO. He said there was also talk about some word from the County Attorney's Office about appointing the BZA to good parts of the Land Use Law handbook. He asked if further consideration had been made on this. Mr. Svoboda replied that Mr. Chandler was not teaching anymore, to his knowledge. He said that there had been discussion about going away to training, but that this idea was not popular with the BZA. He said some in- house training could be held with the counsel present involving a work session to review the Land Use Law Handbook. He said staff was more than willing to do this in conjunction with himself, the County Attorney, and the board's counsel. Mr. Shepherd expressed that individually, the board members all brought with them their own experience and talents. He said that the experience of undergoing training together would be a positive thing for the board and would help them with their analysis, as well as with strengthening their processes. He said he was in favor of the training and liked the idea of reducing the scope of the training to allow it to happen in town. He noted his appreciation for Mr. Bowling, explaining that his presence provides the board with some training on an ongoing basis. Mr. Bowling said that the County Attorney had done a good job over the years on monumental work on zoning law in Virginia, and that this information was all on the County Attorney's website and that it is updated regularly. He expressed the information was extremely helpful and would be to the BZA as well. Mr. Shepherd said that Greg Kamptner did a good job on this as well, adding that the information was referred to and used throughout the Commonwealth. He said that he and Mr. Svoboda could discuss this further, as well as anyone else who wanted to be included, so that they could come up with more of a definite plan for the next meeting. 6. New Business There was no new business. 7. Adjournment At 3:37 p.m., Mr. Robb moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (4-0). (Recorded by Marsha Alley and transcribed by Beth Golden) Respectfully Submitted, Randolph R. Rinehart, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals 25 � ��