78738115.2-2311Virginia Decodedhttps://vacode.org2016Counties, Cities And TownsPowers Of Local GovernmentPlanning, Subdivision Of Land And ZoningZoningAppeals to board1975, c. 521, § 15.1-496.1; 1983, c. 12; 1993, c. 780; 1995, c. 424; 1997, c. 587; 2005, cc. 625, 677; 2008, c. 378; 2010, c. 241; 2011, c. 457; 2012, cc. 400, 550, 606.James v. City of Falls Church090444694 S.E.2d 5682010-06-10https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1058181/james-v-city-of-falls-church/ . . . purview of [Code] § 15.2-2311"). . . . <abbr title="Supreme Court of Virginia">SCV</abbr>Goyonaga v. Board of Zoning Appeals070229657 S.E.2d 1532008-02-29https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1058527/goyonaga-v-board-of-zoning-appeals/ . . . their position that under Code §§ 15.2-2307 and 15.2-2311 they had acquired a vested right to . . . <abbr title="Supreme Court of Virginia">SCV</abbr>Sup'rs of Stafford County v. Crucible, Inc.081743677 S.E.2d 2832009-06-04https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1058339/suprs-of-stafford-county-v-crucible-inc/ . . . determination" of the zoning administrator, Code § 15.2-2311(C)[2] establishes an *288 alternative . . . <abbr title="Supreme Court of Virginia">SCV</abbr>Norfolk 102, LLC v. City of Norfolk1206342013-02-28https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1057765/norfolk-102-llc-v-city-of-norfolk/ . . . official issued a determination . . . <abbr title="Supreme Court of Virginia">SCV</abbr>Lilly v. Caroline County9907462000-03-03https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1059650/lilly-v-caroline-county/ . . . appeal to the board of zoning appeals. Code § 15.2- . . . <abbr title="Supreme Court of Virginia">SCV</abbr>Arogas v. Frederick Bd. of Zoning Appeals091502698 S.E.2d 9082010-09-16https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1058159/arogas-v-frederick-bd-of-zoning-appeals/ . . . exercised its statutory rights of appeal. See Code §§ 15.2-2311, -2314. Pursuant to Code § . . . <abbr title="Supreme Court of Virginia">SCV</abbr>Sinclair v. NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC101831727 S.E.2d 402012-01-13https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1057939/sinclair-v-new-cingular-wireless-pcs-llc/ . . . circumvented his right to judicial review. Under Code § 15.2-2311(A), any person aggrieved by an . . . <abbr title="Supreme Court of Virginia">SCV</abbr>Board of Supervisors v. McQueen1302792014-01-10https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2648794/board-of-supervisors-v-mcqueen/ . . . longer subject to change or reversal under Code § 15.2- . . . <abbr title="Supreme Court of Virginia">SCV</abbr>Central Radio Company Inc. v. City of Norfolk13-19962015-01-13https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2968974/central-radio-company-inc-v-city-of-norfolk/ . . . the board of zoning . . . Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitCentral Radio Company Inc. v. City of Norfolk13-19962015-01-13https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2769574/central-radio-company-inc-v-city-of-norfolk/ . . . the board of zoning . . . Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuithttp://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/15.2-2311/15.2-2286Permitted provisions in zoning ordinances; amendments; applicant to pay delinquent taxes; penalties/15.2-2286//15.2-2311/15.2/II/22/7/15.2-231115.2-220415.2-2307An 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.sectionBB1In 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.sectionCC1