|
<br />IJ~rryF'illa - W~~tf~w_O:o.curii~nij.2~49....3L~~~o~.2:c~
<br />
<br />.:..:: _:: ,:__::':.,,-:.::.=:~:,~,.: ,:: ::::_., ..:.P~g~.2J
<br />
<br />-- S.E.2d ....
<br />.-- S.E.2d om, 2007 WL 1651100 (Va.)
<br />(Cite as: -- S.E.2d --)
<br />
<br />intent and purpose.
<br />
<br />I2l Zoning aad Planning 414 €=>231
<br />
<br />ill Zoning and Planning
<br />414V Construction, Operation and Effect
<br />414VCAl In General
<br />ill!sUl. k. Construction of Regulations
<br />in General. Most Cited Cases
<br />A court affords great weight to the interpretation
<br />given a zoning ordinance by the officials charged
<br />witb its administration.
<br />
<br />ill Zoning and Planning 414 €=>331
<br />
<br />W Zoning and Planning
<br />iH.Y! Nonconforming Uses
<br />414k329 Enlargement or Extension DrUSe
<br />414k331 It. Increase in Amount or
<br />Intensity DrUSe. Most Cited Cases
<br />Installation of an electronic message board onto
<br />existing nonconforming billboard enlarged the
<br />billboard in violation of city's zoning ordinance;
<br />although the electronic message board did not
<br />increase the billboard's height, length, or
<br />advertising surface area, it did increase the
<br />billboard's depth.
<br />
<br />John G. Dicks (Shawn A. CODeland; FutureLaw;
<br />Carrell Rice & RigSby, on briefs), for appellants.
<br />B. Kay Wilson, Associate City Attorney (Leslie L.
<br />Lillev, City Attorney; Andrew B. Pittman,
<br />Associate City Attorney, on brief), for appellee.
<br />
<br />Present: All the Justices.
<br />OPINION BY Juslice CYNTHIA D. KINSER.
<br />*1 In this appeal, the dispositive issue is whether
<br />the installation of an electronic message board
<br />"enlarged" a lawful, nonconforming billboard in
<br />violation of a city's zoning ordinance. Because we
<br />conclude that the message board did enlarge the
<br />billboard, we will affirm the judgment of the
<br />circuit court upholding the decision of a board of
<br />zoning appeals.
<br />
<br />FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
<br />
<br />In 1988, tbe City of Yirginia Beaeb (Ibe City)
<br />adopted an ordinance prOhibiting the erection of
<br />billboards within the City limits. In relevant part,
<br />the ordinance provides:
<br />No new billboards shall be erected within the city
<br />
<br />Page 2
<br />
<br />limits, effeetin immediately. All existing
<br />billboards sball be governed by the provisions of
<br />section 2]5 of tbis ordinance. No billboard
<br />heretofore erected shall be located, in wbole or in
<br />part, upon improved property.
<br />
<br />City of Virginia Beach Comprehensive Zoning
<br />Ordinanee (CZO) Ii 216(a). Witb respeel 10
<br />existing billboards, CZO fi 215(a) provides, in
<br />pertinent part:Notwithstanding the provisions of
<br />sedion 105(f) of this ordinance, no nonconforming
<br />sign shall be structurally altered, enlarged, moved
<br />or replaced, whether voluntarily or by reason of
<br />involuntary damage to or destruction of such sign,
<br />unless such sign is brought into compliance with
<br />the provisions of this ordinance.
<br />
<br />Adams Outdoor Advertising, L,P, (Adams), owns
<br />a billboard erected in the City on real estate
<br />owned by F. Wayne McLeskey, Jr, Since tbe
<br />billboard was in existence when CZO fi 2]6(a)
<br />became effective, it was a lawful, nonconforming
<br />billboard. See Code 6 15.2-2307; CZO Ii 105. In
<br />March 2004, the City zoning administrator
<br />informed Adams that it bad "structurally altered
<br />and enlarged" the subjed billboard in violation of
<br />CZO Ii 215(a) by installing a large, blaek,
<br />electronic message board on the billboard, The
<br />zoning administrator directed Adams to remove
<br />tbe billboard within 30 days.
<br />
<br />In accordance witb Code fi 15.1-2311, Adams
<br />appealed the zoning administrator's determination
<br />to the City board of zoning appeals (BZA). At the
<br />8ZA hearing, the zoning administrator testified
<br />that she concluded Adams bad "structurally
<br />altered" and "enlarged" the billboard because
<br />Adams eut boles in its face and added bracing in
<br />order to install the message board, and because
<br />the message board increased both tbe weight and
<br />mass of the billboard. Adams acknowledged tbat it
<br />bad obtained a permit to upgrade the electrical
<br />service to the billboard to accommodate the
<br />message board. It also admitted that tbe message
<br />board weighed 3,500 pounds, Adams argued,
<br />however, tbat the Installation of the message
<br />board was not a structural alteration or an
<br />enlargement of the subject billboard.
<br />
<br />To support its position, Adams introduced a letter
<br />from a strudural engineer, opiDing that the
<br />addition of the electronic message board did "not
<br />increase tbe force in any structural element by
<br />
<br />C 2007 ThomsonlWesl. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Gov!. Works.
<br />
|