rected,” he concluded. Mr. Konick acknowledged that the board

rected,” he concluded.

Mr. Konick acknowledged that the board was faced with a “touchy situation” in deciding what the remedy should be when a subdivision plat is “unlawfully or erroneously approved due to human error or for whatever reason.” He asked the supervisors to determine what their decisiort would be if the plat was being submitted for original approval rather than revalidation.

The Lozanos have shown no legal hardship, only that they can’t sell their property as the two lots they thought they had purchased, the attorney pointed out. “That may be a financial burden to them but that is not a hardship.”

Although a former zoning administrator stamped the original plat approved, the Lozanos should have been aware that it violated county ordinances, Mr. Konick maintained. “Ignorance of the law is no excuse,” he said.

He cited a recent case in which Blacksburg’s zoning administrator issued a building permit for a car wash. After the building was finished, neighboring landowners contested the granting of an occupancy permit, arguing that setback regulations had been violated and seeking to have the building torn down. The local court upheld the car wash owners, but upon review, the Virginia Supreme Court reversed the decision. The high court held that the car wash iwners “were not entitled to rely on an invalid approval,” Mr. Konick reported. “The court said they should have known. They can read the ordinance, too.”

Even if the board is inclined to grant the Lozanos’ request for an exception to the subdivision process, it must follow’ the precedent it established in a Flint Hill case and first vacate the original subdivision, Mr. Konick continued.

And if the original erroneous approval is disregarded, no reason exists to waive the ordinance’s requirements, he argued. If the su