CAPE CHARLES, Va. — The Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) approved two contentious appeals in October, challenging decisions made by the town’s Zoning Administrator (ZA) and sparking concern by the Town over potential long-term impacts on local zoning enforcement and the degradation of the current power structure.
In a memorandum to the Town Council, Town Manager Hozey noted that The Town has three options when BZA appeal decisions create new precedents:
- Appeal the BZA decisions to the Circuit Court
- Change the Zoning Ordinances to clarify the Council’s intent regarding these matters
- Do nothing and allow the precedents to stand
After consultation with the Town’s attorney, Hozey recommends option #2 regarding both decisions.
The first case involved unapproved work at a residence located at 204 Bay Avenue. According to town officials, the property owner conducted modifications without obtaining the necessary zoning clearance. The BZA ultimately sided with the homeowner, basing its decision on whether the modifications required Historic District Review Board (HDRB) oversight—a decision typically left to the ZA. Town officials argued the real issue was procedural: the homeowner failed to seek a formal zoning review before starting construction, a key requirement under local regulations.
According to Hozey’s memorandum, the “Town Council has vested the authority to determine what constitutes minor work in the Zoning Administrator, not the applicant. By approving the appeal, the BZA inadvertently transferred that authority to individual homeowners, setting a problematic precedent.”
The ruling has forced the town to suspend all enforcement actions related to unpermitted work in the historic district.
Officials are now weighing their options, which include appealing the BZA’s decision to the Circuit Court, amending the zoning ordinances to clarify the process, or letting the precedent stand. The town’s attorney has advised pursuing legislative clarification.
The second case concerned the issue of vehicles on vacant lots, particularly in the 500 block of Madison Avenue. The BZA overturned a ZA determination prohibiting a citizen, who owns and pays taxes on his property, from using said property to keep vehicles, in this case, a licensed, registered, and insured recreational vehicle (a bus), off of an already crowded street. The Town based its interpretation of the ordinance’s definition of parking lots.
The BZA’s slapdown creates a serious problem for town officials who argue this decision contradicts previous enforcement efforts, which have successfully removed vehicles from vacant lots. The memorandum referenced six previous cases where vehicle removals were enforced without appeal. This BZA ruling stops all future similar enforcement actions.
The memorandum states, “The BZA’s interpretation could undermine consistent enforcement and compromise the visual appeal of the historic district…Since the Zoning Administrator assumed her role, there have been 6 other similar cases of parking on vacant lots which were eventually cured as a result of a violation, resulting in the removal of the offending vehicles.”
The Town has continued to move the ball–the above statement reveals that the case was never about parking lots, but about the visual appeal of the historic district. Does visual appeal now trump personal property rights?
So, any attempt to keep personal vehicles on property that you own needs to be cured.
The use of the word cure is interesting; as if these vacant lots and the people that use them are a sickness that requires an M95 mask and a forced vaccination. At least they refrained from using the term garbage.
As the Mirror noted in an October 27th article, “To be sure, a new ordinance spelling out (in excruciating detail) what can and cannot happen on a vacant lot is in the Town’s immediate future.”
As parking issues continue to be a hot topic in Cape Charles, the Town Manager is now calling for direction from the Town Council. Hozey maintains that if the historic district’s charm is a priority, clearer language in the ordinances may be necessary.
The Town Council is expected to discuss these matters in an upcoming work session on November 7th.
Lingering questions: how much power and authority should be vested in the Planning and Zoning Department? Were previous violations, such as the removal of six vehicles from private lots, arbitrary and capricious? Is crafting language in the town’s ordinances to appease the whims and desires of government offices appropriate?
Its called returning the power back to the citizens instead of governmental overreach.
“Just one more thing” so in the Cape Charles Historic District people are offended by other people parking their own vehicles on their own undeveloped property and would rather have them park on the public street even if that means parking on the street in front of the offended person’s house. So do the offended people not get offended by that prospect as well? Tell me how that preserves the charm of the historic district? I just can’t wrap my mind around that.
In Cape Charles, they do back-in angle parking on Front Street. Parallel parking on Back Street and Front-in angle parking on the new Side Street in the Historic District as well. Crazy Town.
Some good news is that it does rather seem as if Cape Charles has become an attractive town for up and coming lawers and developers to thrive.
Don’t forget the consultants!
Speaking about offensive parking in the Cape Charles Historic District. I get offended by the reeking third world porta-potties that are permanently “parked” on the corner of Bay and Mason Avenues every time I visit the “charming” historic town. Yes, they are literally occupying parking spaces in the road right on the Main Street near the beach. They stink to high heavens and are down right nasty. I for one find the unsanitary situation extremely offensive in comparison to the concern over benign parking on private undeveloped lots in your town. Don’t get caught short in Cape Charles and be careful where you park your vehicle my friend. Certainly the Town Council should be concerned not only with the visual appeal of the district but also be concerned with the invisible stench of human waste on your beachfront. So, Cape Charles, until you can do different, until you can do better, please clean your porta-potties more frequently and the tourist world will undoubtedly continue to beat a path in droves to your historically malodorous municipality.
I urge everyone to review Mr Hozey’s memorandum to the Town Council. (Wayne kindly linked to it in the article).
The arrogance of Mr. Hozey and Ms. Nunez is truly staggering. In the memorandum, Mr. Hozey, when discussing the approval of my zoning appeal by the BZA, states, “The BZA simply got this one wrong”.
The appeal hearing was the forum to decide who was wrong, and after making my case, Ms. Nunez had plenty of opportunity to make her case to the BZA. But, quite simply, she had no case, despite her desperate attempts to twist the facts about our previous communications. Her overreach was called out and she was forced to leave the meeting with her tail between her legs.
And what consequences did Ms. Nunez face for her failures? A $40,000 pay raise and the new responsibilities of Director of IT! Yes, dear residents, your new IT director is the very same person who exposed my credit card details on the Town website for the whole world to access.
Ask yourself why Mr. Hozey has chosen not to pursue this further in Circuit Court. Because he has no case. If you do Mr. Hozey, bring it! In the meantime, go back to your supposed domicile in Alaska, where you allegedly pay your taxes and register your vehicle. Your tenure as town manager has been disgraceful.
HOORAY!