merits of the matter, determined that it had no jurisdiction to determine the matter as the
Zoning Determination made by the Zoning Administrator was not a "decision" pursuant
to Virginia Code 15.2-2311. Counsel for BZA also stated that any determination
regarding the zoning of the parcels at issue would have to be made by the Charlottesville
Circuit Court.
The Plaintiff, agreeing with the reasoning of the BZA and BZA counsel regarding
its lack jurisdiction to determine the controversy, did not contest the BZA's finding that it
did not have jurisdiction pursuant to the Petition, but instead filed this suit seeking this
Court's determination of the zoning of the Daughter Parcels.
11. ANALYSIS
The solitary issue in this case is whether the City Council's action in adopting the
2003 Ordinance resulted in the removal of IPP zoning from the Daughter Parcels.
Contrary to the assertions of the Defendants in their briefs, Plaintiff claims do not
rest on solely the theory that the lack of notice pursuant to Virginia Code 15.2-2204 and
15.2-2285 render the statute void ab iniiio. The lack of notice required by these statutory
provisions, along with other factors, is evidence that City Council did not remove the IPP
zoning from the Property in 2003. These other factors include the fact that the City's
own tax maps, up until January of 2007, showed the entire Property as one parcel,
namely 56-40.4. Upon information and belief the maps indicated the same in 2003 when