Charles Hershfield v Town of Colonial Beach, et al

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Benton, Willis and Lemons
Argued at Richmond, Virginia
CHARLES HERSHFIELD MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. 	Record No. 0628-98-2 	JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR.
JANUARY 19, 1999
TOWN OF COLONIAL BEACH
AND
STATE BUILDING CODE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WESTMORELAND COUNTY
Joseph E. Spruill, Jr., Judge
(Charles Hershfield, pro se). 	Appellant
submitting on briefs.
John E. Tyler, Jr., Town Attorney, for
appellee Town of Colonial Beach.
John B. Purcell, Jr., Assistant Attorney
General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General;
Richard B. Zorn, Senior Assistant Attorney
General, on brief), for appellee State
Building Code Technical Review Board.
Charles Hershfield contends that the trial court erred in
refusing to accept jurisdiction over his appeal from the decision
of the State Building Code Technical Review Board. 	We disagree
and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
On April 6, 1996, the Town of Colonial Beach notified
Hershfield that his house violated several building code
requirements. 	Hershfield appealed those determinations to the
Colonial Beach Board of Building Code Appeals, and then to the
State Building Code Technical Review Board ("the Board"). 	The
*Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010,
this opinion is not designated for publication.

- 2 -
Board reversed some of the determinations and upheld others. 	The
Board's order was sent to Hershfield on May 23, 1997, by
certified mail to his last known address.
On July 26, 1997, Hershfield filed a notice of appeal to the
trial court. 	The Town of Colonial Beach and the Board filed
special pleas challenging the trial court's jurisdiction. 	The
trial court sustained those pleas, holding that it lacked
jurisdiction because Hershfield's notice of appeal was filed
untimely.1
Rule 2A:2 states, in relevant part:
Any party appealing from a . . . case
decision shall file, within 30 days after
adoption of the regulation or after service
of the final order in the case decision, with
the agency secretary a notice of appeal
signed by him or his counsel. 	In the event
that service of a case decision upon a party
is accomplished by mail, 3 days shall be
added to the 30-day period. 	Service under
this Rule shall be consistent with [Code]
§ 9-6.14:14 and, if made by mail, shall be
sufficient if sent by registered or certified
mail to the party's last address known to the
agency.
Hershfield contends that the thirty days within which he was
required to file his notice of appeal began to run when he
received the final order from the Board. 	He argues that he
received the order on June 26, 1997, and had thirty days from
that date, or until July 26, 1997, in which to file his notice of
1Hershfield also assigns error to the trial court's denial
of his motion to quash the town's letter of violations for due
process concerns. 	We do not reach that issue because the trial
court lacked jurisdiction over the matter.

- 3 -
appeal. 	Nothing in the language of Rule 2A:2 supports
Hershfield's argument. 	The rule provided him thirty days plus
three days from the mailing of the order to him. 	Thus, the
deadline for filing his notice of appeal was June 25, 1997,
thirty-three days after the service of the final order by
mailing. 	The trial court correctly declined jurisdiction,
because Hershfield's notice of appeal was not filed timely.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.