With respect to the Defendant City's initial ground for demurrer, from the fact that
the Plaintiff is identified as an "adjacent property owner" in paragraph three of Plaintiff's
complaint, it is fairly inferred, under the rule put forth by the Defendant City in citing
Carlton Bridge Owners Association c. Kevser, 2007 Va. Cir. LEXIS 163 (City of
Charlottesville 2007), that he is included as a "neighbor" (Def. City Brief 5). It is also
fairly and justly inferred that as an adjacent property owner, he is a City resident and a
member of the public entitled to publication and advertisement notice under Virginia
Code 15.2-2204(A), which notice was never provided (nor could notice have been
provided given the City's own concession that the purported re-zoning of the Daughter
Parcels was a result of a "technical mistake"). As a matter of law, under 15.2-2204(A)
the public at large are entitled to notice.
With respect to the Defendant City's second ground for demurrer, the Plaintiff did
not appeal the BZA's determination pursuant to Virginia Code 15.2-2314 simply for the
reason that the BZA determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the matter as the
issue at hand was not a was a "decision of the zoning administrator" pursuant to Virginia
Code 15.2-231l(A).
With respect to the Defendant City's final ground for demurrer, the Plaintiff does
not agree with the Defendant City's conclusion that Virginia Code 15.2-2208 does not
provide for a private right of action. The Supreme Court has not determined whether
15.2-2208 does provide a private right of action, and it is noteworthy that the Defendant