A. An appeal to the board may be taken by any person aggrieved or by any officer, department, board or bureau of the locality affected by any decision of the zoning administrator or from any order, requirement, decision or determination made by any other administrative officer in the administration or enforcement of this article, any ordinance adopted pursuant to this article, or any modification of zoning requirements pursuant to § 15.2-2286. Notwithstanding any charter provision to the contrary, any written notice of a zoning violation or a written order of the zoning administrator dated on or after July 1, 1993, shall include a statement informing the recipient that he may have a right to appeal the notice of a zoning violation or a written order within 30 days in accordance with this section, and that the decision shall be final and unappealable if not appealed within 30 days. The zoning violation or written order shall include the applicable appeal fee and a reference to where additional information may be obtained regarding the filing of an appeal. The appeal period shall not commence until the statement is given and the zoning administrator's written order is sent by registered or certified mail with proof of delivery to, or posted at, the last known address or usual place of abode of the property owner or its registered agent, if any. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that the property owner's last known address is that shown on the current real estate tax assessment records, or the address of a registered agent that is shown in the records of the Clerk of the State Corporation Commission. The appeal shall be taken within 30 days after the decision appealed from by filing with the zoning administrator, and with the board, a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof. The zoning administrator shall forthwith transmit to the board all the papers constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken. The fee for filing an appeal shall not exceed the costs of advertising the appeal for public hearing and reasonable costs. A decision by the board on an appeal taken pursuant to this section shall be binding upon the owner of the property that is the subject of such appeal only if the owner of such property has been provided notice of the zoning violation or written order of the zoning administrator in accordance with this section. The owner's actual notice of such notice of zoning violation or written order or active participation in the appeal hearing shall waive the owner's right to challenge the validity of the board's decision due to failure of the owner to receive the notice of zoning violation or written order. For jurisdictions that impose civil penalties for violations of the zoning ordinance, any such civil penalty shall not be assessed by a court having jurisdiction during the pendency of the 30-day appeal period.
B. An appeal shall stay all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from unless the zoning administrator certifies to the board that by reason of facts stated in the certificate a stay would in his opinion cause imminent peril to life or property, in which case proceedings shall not be stayed otherwise than by a restraining order granted by the board or by a court of record, on application and on notice to the zoning administrator and for good cause shown.
C. 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 officer after 60 days have elapsed from the date of the written order, requirement, decision or determination where the person aggrieved has materially changed his position in good faith reliance on the action of the zoning administrator or other administrative officer unless it is proven that such written order, requirement, decision or determination was obtained through malfeasance of the zoning administrator or other administrative officer or through fraud. The 60-day limitation period shall not apply in any case where, with the concurrence of the attorney for the governing body, modification is required to correct clerical errors.
D. In any appeal taken pursuant to this section, if the board's attempt to reach a decision results in a tie vote, the matter may be carried over until the next scheduled meeting at the request of the person filing the appeal.
1975, c. 521, § 15.1-496.1; 1983, c. 12; 1993, c. 780; 1995, c. 424; 1997, c.; 2005, cc. 625, 677; 2008, c. 378; 2010, c. 241; 2011, c. 457; 2012, cc. 400, 550, 606; 2017, c. 665; 2019, c. 387; 2025, c. 512.
Notes of Decisions
Bd. of Supervisors of Richmond Cnty. v. Rhoads, 803 S.E.2d 329 (Va. 2017).
· cites it 90× “2-2311(C) specifically provides: 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 officer…”
James v. City of Falls Church, 694 S.E.2d 568 (Va. 2010).
· cites it 21× “2-2311(C), Columbia Baptist, nevertheless, maintains that the Planning Commission has no authority to interpret zoning ordinances because that responsibility lies exclusively with the zoning administrator by virtue of Code § 15.”
Sup'rs of Stafford Cnty. v. Crucible, Inc., 677 S.E.2d 283 (Va. 2009).
· cites it 8× “Crucible also argues that because the Board did not challenge on appeal the circuit court's finding that the zoning verification was a "determination" of the zoning administrator, Code § 15.2-2311(C) [2] establishes an *288 alternative basis for vesting in addition to Code § 15.”
Carolinas Cement Co. v. Zoning Appeals Bd., 52 Va. Cir. 6 (Warren Cir. Ct. 2000).
· cites it 16× “However, from a technical legal standpoint, the EDA lot is a different property; consequently, the Landowners are different parties, so this a new case and not a reconsideration of the earlier case involving the river lot.”
Sinclair v. New Cingular Wireless Pcs, LLC, 727 S.E.2d 40 (Va. 2012).
· cites it 6× “Under Code § 15.2-2311(A), any person aggrieved by an adverse decision of the zoning administrator concerning the grant or denial of a zoning modification may *44 appeal to the board of zoning appeals.”
Lilly v. Caroline Cnty., 526 S.E.2d 743 (Va. 2000).
· cites it 4× “Code § 15.2-2311. If this mandatory appeal is not timely filed, the administrative remedy has not been exhausted and the zoning administrator’s decision becomes a “thing decided” not subject to court challenge.”
Boasso Am. Corp. v. Zoning Adm'r of Chesapeake, 796 S.E.2d 545 (Va. 2017).
· cites it 2× “See Code § 15.2-2311. Because the Board of Zoning Appeals was equally divided, the split vote resulted in affirmance of the Zoning Administrator's decision.”
Neal v. Fairfax Cnty. Police Dep't, 812 S.E.2d 444 (Va. 2018).
· cites it 2× “The Data Act expressly declares its remedial purpose is to "preserve the rights guaranteed a citizen in a free society" by "establish[ing] procedures to govern information systems containing records on individuals." Code § 2.”
McGhee v. Zoning Appeals Bd., 57 Va. Cir. 47 (2001).
· cites it 7× “An appeal to the board [of Zoning Appeals] may be taken by any person aggrieved or by any officer, department, board or bureau of the locality affected by any decision of die zoning administrator or from any order, requirement, decision or determination made by any other…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2311(A) — 18 cases
Sinclair v. New Cingular Wireless Pcs, LLC, 727 S.E.2d 40 (Va. 2012).
“Under Code § 15.2-2311(A), any person aggrieved by an adverse decision of the zoning administrator concerning the grant or denial of a zoning modification may *44 appeal to the board of zoning appeals.”
Carolinas Cement Co. v. Zoning Appeals Bd., 52 Va. Cir. 6 (Warren Cir. Ct. 2000).
“However, from a technical legal standpoint, the EDA lot is a different property; consequently, the Landowners are different parties, so this a new case and not a reconsideration of the earlier case involving the river lot.”
Lilly v. Caroline Cnty., 526 S.E.2d 743 (Va. 2000).
“Code § 15.2-2311. If this mandatory appeal is not timely filed, the administrative remedy has not been exhausted and the zoning administrator’s decision becomes a “thing decided” not subject to court challenge.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2311(B) — 3 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2311(C) — 12 cases
Bd. of Supervisors of Richmond Cnty. v. Rhoads, 803 S.E.2d 329 (Va. 2017).
“2-2311(C) specifically provides: 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 officer…”
James v. City of Falls Church, 694 S.E.2d 568 (Va. 2010).
“2-2311(C), Columbia Baptist, nevertheless, maintains that the Planning Commission has no authority to interpret zoning ordinances because that responsibility lies exclusively with the zoning administrator by virtue of Code § 15.”
Sup'rs of Stafford Cnty. v. Crucible, Inc., 677 S.E.2d 283 (Va. 2009).
“Crucible also argues that because the Board did not challenge on appeal the circuit court's finding that the zoning verification was a "determination" of the zoning administrator, Code § 15.2-2311(C) [2] establishes an *288 alternative basis for vesting in addition to Code § 15.”
Neal v. Fairfax Cnty. Police Dep't, 812 S.E.2d 444 (Va. 2018).
“The Data Act expressly declares its remedial purpose is to "preserve the rights guaranteed a citizen in a free society" by "establish[ing] procedures to govern information systems containing records on individuals." Code § 2.”
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.