Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2309 (2026)

Powers and duties of boards of zoning appeals

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Boards of zoning appeals shall have the following powers and duties:

1. To hear and decide appeals from any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative officer in the administration or enforcement of this article or of any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto. The decision on such appeal shall be based on the board's judgment of whether the administrative officer was correct. 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. Altering the order of evidence is a reversible error only if the appellant lodges an objection citing this section and the board subsequently refuses to reorder the hearing. The board shall consider any applicable ordinances, laws, and regulations in making its decision. For purposes of this section, determination means any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative officer. Any appeal of a determination to the board shall be in compliance with this section, notwithstanding any other provision of law, general or special.

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, general or special, to grant upon appeal or original application in specific cases a variance as defined in § 15.2-2201, provided that the burden of proof shall be on the applicant for a variance to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his application meets the standard for a variance as defined in § 15.2-2201 and the criteria set out in this section.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, general or special, a variance shall be granted if the evidence shows that the strict application of the terms of the ordinance would unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property or that the granting of the variance would alleviate a hardship due to a physical condition relating to the property or improvements thereon at the time of the effective date of the ordinance, or alleviate a hardship by granting a reasonable modification to a property or improvements thereon requested by, or on behalf of, a person with a disability, and (i) the property interest for which the variance is being requested was acquired in good faith and any hardship was not created by the applicant for the variance; (ii) the granting of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and nearby properties in the proximity of that geographical area; (iii) the condition or situation of the property concerned is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance; (iv) the granting of the variance does not result in a use that is not otherwise permitted on such property or a change in the zoning classification of the property; and (v) the relief or remedy sought by the variance application is not available through a special exception process that is authorized in the ordinance pursuant to subdivision 6 of § 15.2-2309 or the process for modification of a zoning ordinance pursuant to subdivision A 4 of § 15.2-2286 at the time of the filing of the variance application. Any variance granted to provide a reasonable modification to a property or improvements thereon requested by, or on behalf of, a person with a disability may expire when the person benefited by it is no longer in need of the modification to such property or improvements provided by the variance, subject to the provisions of state and federal fair housing laws, or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.), as applicable. If a request for a reasonable modification is made to a locality and is appropriate under the provisions of state and federal fair housing laws, or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.), as applicable, such request shall be granted by the locality unless a variance from the board of zoning appeals under this section is required in order for such request to be granted.

No variance shall be considered except after notice and hearing as required by § 15.2-2204. However, when giving any required notice to the owners, their agents or the occupants of abutting property and property immediately across the street or road from the property affected, the board may give such notice by first-class mail rather than by registered or certified mail.

In granting a variance, the board may impose such conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed structure or use as it may deem necessary in the public interest and may require a guarantee or bond to ensure that the conditions imposed are being and will continue to be complied with. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, general or special, the property upon which a property owner has been granted a variance shall be treated as conforming for all purposes under state law and local ordinance; however, the structure permitted by the variance may not be expanded unless the expansion is within an area of the site or part of the structure for which no variance is required under the ordinance. Where the expansion is proposed within an area of the site or part of the structure for which a variance is required, the approval of an additional variance shall be required.

3. To hear and decide appeals from the decision of the zoning administrator after notice and hearing as provided by § 15.2-2204. However, when giving any required notice to the owners, their agents or the occupants of abutting property and property immediately across the street or road from the property affected, the board may give such notice by first-class mail rather than by registered or certified mail.

4. To hear and decide applications for interpretation of the district map where there is any uncertainty as to the location of a district boundary. After notice to the owners of the property affected by the question, and after public hearing with notice as required by § 15.2-2204, the board may interpret the map in such way as to carry out the intent and purpose of the ordinance for the particular section or district in question. However, when giving any required notice to the owners, their agents or the occupants of abutting property and property immediately across the street or road from the property affected, the board may give such notice by first-class mail rather than by registered or certified mail. The board shall not have the power to change substantially the locations of district boundaries as established by ordinance.

5. No provision of this section shall be construed as granting any board the power to rezone property or to base board decisions on the merits of the purpose and intent of local ordinances duly adopted by the governing body.

6. To hear and decide applications for special exceptions as may be authorized in the ordinance. The board may impose such conditions relating to the use for which a permit is granted as it may deem necessary in the public interest, including limiting the duration of a permit, and may require a guarantee or bond to ensure that the conditions imposed are being and will continue to be complied with.

No special exception may be granted except after notice and hearing as provided by § 15.2-2204. However, when giving any required notice to the owners, their agents or the occupants of abutting property and property immediately across the street or road from the property affected, the board may give such notice by first-class mail rather than by registered or certified mail.

7. To revoke a special exception previously granted by the board of zoning appeals if the board determines that there has not been compliance with the terms or conditions of the permit. No special exception may be revoked except after notice and hearing as provided by § 15.2-2204. However, when giving any required notice to the owners, their agents or the occupants of abutting property and property immediately across the street or road from the property affected, the board may give such notice by first-class mail rather than by registered or certified mail. If a governing body reserves unto itself the right to issue special exceptions pursuant to § 15.2-2286, and, if the governing body determines that there has not been compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit, then it may also revoke special exceptions in the manner provided by this subdivision.

8. The board by resolution may fix a schedule of regular meetings, and may also fix the day or days to which any meeting shall be continued if the chairman, or vice-chairman if the chairman is unable to act, finds and declares that weather or other conditions are such that it is hazardous for members to attend the meeting. Such finding shall be communicated to the members and the press as promptly as possible. All hearings and other matters previously advertised for such meeting in accordance with § 15.2-2312 shall be conducted at the continued meeting and no further advertisement is required.

Code 1950, §§ 15-831, 15-850, 15-968.9; 1950, p. 176; 1962, c. 407, § 15.1-495; 1964, c. 535; 1972, c. 695; 1975, cc. 521, 641; 1987, c. 8; 1991, c. 513; 1996, c. 555; 1997, c.; 2000, c. 1050; 2002, c. 546; 2003, c. 403; 2006, c. 264; 2008, c. 318; 2009, c. 206; 2015, c. 597; 2018, c. 757; 2025, c. 512.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 38 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: Bd. OF SUP'RS v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 604 S.E.2d 7 (Va. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bd. OF SUP'RS v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 604 S.E.2d 7 (Va. 2004). · cites it 10× “The Board of Supervisors contends that the BZA lacked the authority to grant the challenged variance because Hickerson failed to demonstrate that he had incurred a hardship required by Code § 15.2-2309. Responding, Hickerson and the BZA contend that Hickerson incurred a hardship.”

Sinclair v. New Cingular Wireless Pcs, LLC, 727 S.E.2d 40 (Va. 2012). · cites it 20× “2-2312, a variance may only be approved by the board of zoning appeals and only upon a finding that criteria set forth in Code § 15.2-2309(2) have been met. [3] Under Code § 15.”

Goyonaga v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 657 S.E.2d 153 (Va. 2008). · cites it 6× “This amendment to Code § 15.2-2309 became effective July 1, 2006 after the BZA's decision had been rendered and while the petition for certiorari was pending before the circuit court.”

Chilton-Belloni v. Angle Ex Rel. City of Staunton, 806 S.E.2d 129 (Va. 2017). · cites it 8× “Code § 15.2-2309 (2007). Agreeing with the City, the circuit court reversed the decision granting the variance by a final order entered June 17, 2009.”

Adams Outdoor Advert., Inc. v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 544 S.E.2d 315 (Va. 2001). · cites it 6× “As noted previously, Va. Code § 15.2-2309 prescribes the powers and duties of boards of zoning appeals.”

McGhee v. Zoning Appeals Bd., 57 Va. Cir. 47 (2001). · cites it 9× “That the hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity; and c.”

James v. City of Falls Church, 694 S.E.2d 568 (Va. 2010). · cites it 2× “Furthermore, Code §§ 15.2-2309(1) and -2311(A) refer to "administrative officer[s] in the administration or enforcement of this article," i.”

Cochran v. Fairfax Cnty. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 594 S.E.2d 571 (Va. 2004). · cites it 5× “2-2201 from the terms of the ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest, when, owing to special conditions a literal enforcement of the provisions will result in unnecessary hardship; .”

Williams v. North Carolina Dep't of Env't & Nat. Resources, 548 S.E.2d 793 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001). “” Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2309 . The Belvior court noted that authorities throughout the country define “unnecessary, unreasonable, and unwarranted hardship” as the “denial of beneficial or reasonable use or the denial of all viable economic use, the unconstitutional taking…”

Cherrystone Inlet v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 628 S.E.2d 324 (Va. 2006). · cites it 4× “On appeal, Cherrystone argues that it was entitled to variances upon any of three alternative theories based on the language of Code § 15.2-2309(2): "[B]y reason of the exceptional .”

Higgs v. Kirkbride, 522 S.E.2d 861 (Va. 1999). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, we simply note that the power of the BZA to review the decisions of a zoning administrator is provided for under Code § 15.2-2309(3). “In exercising its powers the board may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify, an order, requirement, decision or…”

Toone v. Zoning Appeals Bd., 54 Va. Cir. 33 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2000). · cites it 3× “…were and are the parties in both the 1983 criminal and present civil proceedings. Former Va. Code § 15.1-495 (now Va. Code § 15.2-2309).”

Show all 38 citing cases →

— Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2309(1) — 4 cases

James v. City of Falls Church, 694 S.E.2d 568 (Va. 2010). “Furthermore, Code §§ 15.2-2309(1) and -2311(A) refer to "administrative officer[s] in the administration or enforcement of this article," i.”

Rita M. Leach-Lewis, etc. v. Bd. of Supervisors of Fairfax Cnty., Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2023).

Pima Gro Sys., Inc. v. Zoning Appeals Bd., 47 Va. Cir. 356 (King George Cir. Ct. 1998).

Fairfax Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors v. Zoning Appeals Bd., 72 Va. Cir. 342 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2006).

— Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2309(2) — 15 cases

Sinclair v. New Cingular Wireless Pcs, LLC, 727 S.E.2d 40 (Va. 2012). “2-2312, a variance may only be approved by the board of zoning appeals and only upon a finding that criteria set forth in Code § 15.2-2309(2) have been met. [3] Under Code § 15.”

Bd. OF SUP'RS v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 604 S.E.2d 7 (Va. 2004). “The Board of Supervisors contends that the BZA lacked the authority to grant the challenged variance because Hickerson failed to demonstrate that he had incurred a hardship required by Code § 15.2-2309. Responding, Hickerson and the BZA contend that Hickerson incurred a hardship.”

Adams Outdoor Advert., Inc. v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 544 S.E.2d 315 (Va. 2001). “As noted previously, Va. Code § 15.2-2309 prescribes the powers and duties of boards of zoning appeals.”

Cochran v. Fairfax Cnty. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 594 S.E.2d 571 (Va. 2004). “2-2201 from the terms of the ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest, when, owing to special conditions a literal enforcement of the provisions will result in unnecessary hardship; .”

Cherrystone Inlet v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 628 S.E.2d 324 (Va. 2006). “On appeal, Cherrystone argues that it was entitled to variances upon any of three alternative theories based on the language of Code § 15.2-2309(2): "[B]y reason of the exceptional .”

— Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2309(2)(i) — 1 case

The Bd. of Supervisors for the Cnty. of Louisa, Virginia v. Vallerie Holdings of Virginia, LLC (Va. Ct. App. 2024).

— Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2309(3) — 2 cases

Higgs v. Kirkbride, 522 S.E.2d 861 (Va. 1999). “Accordingly, we simply note that the power of the BZA to review the decisions of a zoning administrator is provided for under Code § 15.2-2309(3). “In exercising its powers the board may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify, an order, requirement, decision or…”

Fairfax Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors v. Zoning Appeals Bd., 72 Va. Cir. 342 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2006).

— Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2309(4) — 1 case

Fairfax Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors v. Zoning Appeals Bd., 72 Va. Cir. 342 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2006).

— Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2309(5) — 2 cases

Amurrio v. Zoning Appeals Bd. of City of Falls Church, 59 Va. Cir. 170 (2002).

Koehne v. Zoning Appeals Bd., 62 Va. Cir. 80 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2003).

— Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2309(6) — 4 cases

In re July 31, 2013, Decision of Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 88 Va. Cir. 235 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2014).

John D. Cumberland v. Bd. of Supervisors of Middlesex Cnty. (Va. Ct. App. 2023).

Koehne v. Zoning Appeals Bd., 62 Va. Cir. 80 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2003).

Fairfax Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors v. Zoning Appeals Bd., 72 Va. Cir. 342 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2006).

— Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2309(7) — 1 case

Commonwealth Transp. Comm'r v. NA Dulles Real Est. Inv., L.L.C., 78 Va. Cir. 365 (Loudoun Cir. Ct. 2009).

— Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2309(i) — 1 case

The Bd. of Supervisors for the Cnty. of Louisa, Virginia v. Vallerie Holdings of Virginia, LLC (Va. Ct. App. 2024).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.