In re December 8, 2010, Carried Over to December 13, 2010, Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Arlington County re Items V-2716-10-3 & V-10458-APP-1
Aftеr hearing oral argument on October 18,2011, and carefully reviewing the pleadings, hearing transcripts, case law, and facts of this case, the Court sets forth its ruling below.
Factual Background
These two consolidated cases concern a single property located at 1120 North Jackson Street in Arlington County, Virginia. The property is zoned C-3 “General Commercial Districts” and is designated on the County’s General Land Use Plan as “Medium Residential.” The property is currently owned by Mr. Neal Nichols, who acquired it in May 2008.
The previous owner of the property obtained a variance on November 1, 1965, that reduced the required setback to thirty feet instеad of forty feet, to permit no side yards instead of ten feet side yards, and to permit three parking spaces instead of eleven, in order to construct a building on the property. The variance was granted on the condition that the building be
On July 9,2010, Mr. Nichols submitted a letter to the Zoning Administrator requesting a determination of whether “taxi cab detailing on the property that would consist of: installing and repairing taxi two-way radios and taxi meters and installing logos on the cabs” would be a permitted C-3 use pursuant to the Arlington County Zoning Ordinance. Stаff Report to BZA at 34-36. In the letter, Mr. Nichols recognized that the existing variance on the property limited the building’s use to the sale and repair of batteries and noted that the existing variance would need to be “amended” for the proposed detailing use. Staff Report to BZA at 35. On July 13, 2010, Mr. Nichols applied for an amendment to the existing variance to remove the condition limiting use to the sale and repair of batteries. CL 11-41 Record Item #18, Application for Use Permits and Variances.
On July 29,2010, the Zoning Administrator, Melinda Artman, responded with a determination letter stating that “the proposed use of the property is permitted, subject to the approval of a use permit by the Arlington County Board.” CL11-93 Item# 1, Application for Appeal ofZoningAdministrator’s Determination. The Zoning Administrator concluded that the proposed use fit into the definition of “vehicle services establishment,” a use permitted in the C-3 zoning district subject to the approval of a use permit by the Arlington County Board. Id. The Zoning Administrator reminded Mr. Nichols that the existing variance included relief from the required number of parking spaces and such relief from the parking requirement would expire should the existing variance be replaced by a new one.
On August 25, 2010, Mr. Nichols appealed the Zoning Administrator’s determination to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) pursuant to
Although the BZA Hearing Transcript indicates a vote of “yes” by Ms. Espenoza in regards to the second issue, in the audio recording of the hearing, Ms. Espenoza actually stated, “[a]s the question is propounded, I would say no, because the amendment to the existing variance, in my mind, is not the same as the new variance, which clearly would render the old variance ineffective.” Therefore, the vote was 2 to 3, reversing the Zoning Administrator’s decision, and the subsequent sentence in the written
The BZA next considered Mr. Nichols’s request for a variance amendment and made the following findings: (1) the strict application of the Ordinance would not produce undue hardship relating to the Property; (2) the condition of the lot is shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district, and in the same vicinity; and (3) the proposed use will be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties and the character of the zoning district will be changed by the granting of a variance. CL11-41 Item # 29, BZA Meeting Minutes. Consequently, the BZA adopted a motion to deny the variance, and Mr. Nichols’s request for a variаnce was denied. Id.
Pursuant to
Additional Evidence
Decision of the BZA on Appeal from the Zoning Administrator
In an appeal of a BZA determination, “the findings and conclusions of the board of zoning appeals on questions of fact shall be presumed to be correct. . . . The court shall hеar any arguments on questions of law de novo.”
First, the BZA erred in reversing the Zoning Administrator’s conclusion that Mr. Nichols’s proposed use of taxi cab detаiling requires a permit. The Zoning Administrator properly determined that the proposed use fit into the definition of “vehicle services establishment,” a use permitted in the C-3 zoning district subject to the approval of a use permit by the Arlington County Board. The proposed use fits under category six of the definition of “vеhicle service establishment” that includes any premises where “aftermarket installation and sale of items such as vehicle audio or security systems, but not body work.” Arlington County Zoning Ordinance, § 1. Mr. Nichols’s proposed use fits within this category because taxi detailing, including the installation and repair of taxi cab radios, meters, and logos, relate to after-market installation of vehicle equipment. Moreover, the preamble language in the zoning ordinance is inclusive and allows for any of the defined categories or “other similar activities.” Id.
The proposed use is not a permitted by-right use as set forth in the Arlington Cоunty Zoning Ordinance, § 26, which lists hy-right uses for C-2 (and C-3 by extension) that include “other uses which, in the judgment of the Zoning Administrator, are of the same general character as those listed in this subsection and will not be detrimental to the district in which it is located.” Arlington County Zoning Ordinance, § 26.31. Mr. Nichols’s proposed use does not fall within this special еxception category because it does not have the general character of any of the activities mentioned nor did the Zoning Administrator determine such. To the contrary, she determined that the proposed use does not fall within this special exception and concluded that, insteаd, it must fall under the “vehicle services establishment” and be approved via permit by the Arlington County Board. Further, the detrimental effects the proposed use may have to the district were thoroughly discussed during the BZA Hearing by board members and concerned neighbors, noting that the increased traffic and noise would hаrm the neighborhood and cause the character of the district to change. BZA Hearing transcript at 39:21-40:8,43:8-13, 56:7-13.
Second, the BZA erred by reversing the Zoning Administrator’s determination that any change to the 1965 variance would cause the existing variance to expire. As a preliminary matter, this issue was first raised by the Zoning Administrator in her determination letter sent to Mr. Nichols on July 29,2010, and was then brought on appeal by Mr. Nichols to the BZA. Therefore, the BZA properly ruled on this issue, and it is properly before this Court. BZA Hearing transcript at 97-98.
The requested “amendment” to the variance would cause the existing variance, including a reduction in pаrking spaces, to lapse. There is no legal distinction between a variance amendment and a new variance. The Court will refer to Mr. Nichols’s “variance amendment” as his request for
Moreover, when the BZA determines whether or not to grant a variance, it must consider all relevant factors required by statute, and it cannot assume that the factors considered in 1965 when the BZA granted a vаriance that reduced the number of parking spaces have remained intact. The BZA cannot simply pull out a thread of a variance granted in 1965 and marry it to a new proposed use in 2010.
Decision of BZA on Appeal from Mr. Nichols
In an appeal of a BZA decision granting or denying a variance request, “the decision of the board of zoning appeals shall be presumed to be correct.”
Pursuant to
The BZA’s denial of Mr. Nichols’s variance request was proper because he failed all three requirements for the approvаl of a variance. First, Mr. Nichols failed to show that the strict application of the ordinance would
Here, the alleged hardship only rеlates to the proposed use of taxi cab detailing and seems to be a matter of inconvenience, not undue hardship, that interferes with all reasonable beneficial uses of the property. Mr. Nichols argues that he cannot use the building as he wants without altering it, thereby removing the setbacks so thаt the existing variance would be moot, and doing so would create a significant financial loss. However, financial loss alone does not create undue hardship. See Aesy v. Zoning Appeals Bd. of the City of Salem, 66 Va. Cir. 382 (2005) (finding that no hardship existed because petitioner could remove a bam that violated the zoning ordinance, even if doing so would сause petitioner to incur significant financial loss.)
Second, even if Mr. Nichols demonstrated an undue hardship relating to the property, this hardship was not generally shared by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity. Mr. Nichols did not successfully demonstrate why his property would suffer a unique hardship if a variance was not granted. Indeed, as a BZA member highlighted during the hearing, many businesses in Arlington County occupy properties that are no longer viable. Hearing transcript at 128:11-20.
Third, the BZA properly decided that the approval of a variance would be a substantial detriment to adjacent properties and would change the character of the zoning district. The Staff Report submitted to the BZA indicates that, because the General Land Use Plan for this property is Medium Residential, the proposed use is inconsistent with the General Land Use Plan and may have a negative impact on surrounding residential properties. CL11-41 Item # 24, Staff Report to BZA. This concern was voiced by thirteen local neighbors who attended the BZA hearing. They noted that the proposed vehicle repair establishment would be of substantial detriment to adjacent residential properties and would change the character оf the zoning district, causing more traffic and noise. Hearing transcript at 39:21-40:8,43:8-13, 56:7-13.
In sum, Mr. Nichols’s variance request was denied because he failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove that the strict application of the zoning ordinance would result in undue hardship relating to the property, and that thе undue hardship was unique to the property and that the granting of the variance would not be a substantial detriment to neighboring properties. Therefore, the BZA correctly denied Mr. Nichols’s request for a variance.
The Court finds that the BZA erred in reversing the Zoning Administrator’s determination that the proposed use оf the property located at 1120 North Jackson Street is permitted subject to the approval of a use permit by the Arlington County Board, and the 1965 variance would expire if the property owner, Mr. Nichols, was granted an “amendment” to that variance. Second, the Court finds that the BZA did not err in denying Mr. Nichols’s request for a variance because he failed the three-prong test set forth in