09-10-07 Item 7D, Clear Channel - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

---S.E.2d---- _. S.E.2d ----, 2007 WL 1651100 (Va.) (Cite as: -- S.E.2d --) more than lfive percent]" and was not, therefore, " 'structural' 85 defined by the International Buildiag Code, (IDC f ) 3403.2, whicb Iwas) incorporated into the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code," ~ He also opined that the message board was "smaller in sign area (than] the original sign and Its weight is negligible." *2 The BZA voted to uphold the zoning administrator's determinatioD, One BZA member commented, "IT]o alter or modify a sign to support thirty-five hundred pounds... requires a significant amount of structural change. In this case, it's lal violation of Section 215." Adams and McLeskey (collectively, the petitioners), subsequently filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the circuit court, asserting that the installation of the electronic message board to one side of the billboard was not a structural alteration or an enlargement, and that, because Adams had subsequently taken the message board off the billboard, tbe City bad no right to demand removal of the entire billboard without paying it "just compensation" under Code S 33.1-379(E), The petitioners requested the cirtuit court to reverse the BZA's decision and enter a final order directing that Adams did not have to remove the billboard. At tbe hearing before the circuit court, the petitioners introduced testimony from a structural engineer, who testified that the force load of the electronic message board was less than five percent. The engineer therefore opined that the message board was not a structural alteration within the meaning of IBC g 3402.2. He further explained that, based on bis visual inspel:tion of the message board, it was sitting on protruding "horizontal angles" and the board was "strapped back with nylon cinch straps." According to the engineer, "[tlbe straps were strapped to the steel angles and channels and support beams," The zoning administrator testified on bebalf of the 8M with regard to her determination that the addition of the electronic message board bad botb "structurally altered" and "enlarged'" the billboard. The zoning administrator explained that the message board bad "enlarged" tbe billboard because it "added to the size, the depth, (and) the volume of the structure," ContinUing, the zoning administrator testified that the insbillation of the message board "structurally Page 3 altered" the billboard due to the steel beams that had been bolted in place. Finally, relying on the provisions of CZO f f 215(a) aad 216(a), the zoning administrator stated that Adams must bring the billboard into compliance with the ew, meaning that Adams must remove it since billboards are no longer allowed in the City. In a letter opinion, which the circuit court incorporated into its final order, the court interpreted the terms "structurally altered" and "enlarged" according to their plain meanings since the ezo does not define either term. The court also considered the CZO's definition of the terms llstructure" and "Isjigns, surface area." Uil The circ:uit court concluded that tbe installation of the electronic message board "structurally altered" tbe billboard. The court further concluded tbat, althougb the message board Ildid not add to the height or length of the billboard's surface, it increased the width on one side." lIII3 Tbe circuit court next addressed the argument tbat removal of the billboard was not required since Adams had remedied any structural alteration or enlargement by returning the billboard to its original condition. Relying on this Court's decision in Adams Outdoor Advertisinp. Ine. v. Board of Zon;np ADDeo/s. 261 Va. 407.544 S,E.2d 315 (200n, tbe court concluded that II(t]he ordinance only appears to suggest removal of a billboard as a remedy for abandoned nonconforming billboards." Thus, tbe circuit court concluded "that the 8ZA did not err" by requiring Adams to remove the billboard. In its final order, the circuit court held that the BZA did not apply erroneous principles of law and that the 8ZA's interpretation of the relevant zoning ordinance provisions was Dot plainly wrong or in violation of the purpose and intent of the ezo. The court therefore upheld the BZA' s determination and directed Adams to remove the billboard. This appeal ensued. ANALYSIS 1.!.llllJJl On appeal to the circuit court, the BZA's decision was entitled to a presumption of correctness. Code S 15.2-2314 (2003) (amended by 2006 Acts ch. 446).'"' Although Code 6 15.2- 2314 provides that the appealing party may rebut the presumption "by proving by a preponderance {l 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt, Works,