The case ADAMS OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, L.P. ET AL. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Virginia Beach revolves around the legality of installing an electronic message board on an existing billboard, which had been classified as a lawful nonconforming use prior to the enactment of a city ordinance in 1988 prohibiting new billboards. The ordinance specifically restricts structural alterations, enlargements, or relocations of nonconforming signs unless they comply with current zoning regulations.
In March 2004, the city zoning administrator determined that the installation of the electronic message board constituted a structural alteration and enlargement of the billboard, which violated the zoning ordinance. The administrator directed the removal of the billboard, prompting Adams to appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). During the BZA hearing, the zoning administrator presented evidence that the installation involved cutting holes and adding bracing, increasing the billboard's weight and mass. Although Adams presented a structural engineer's opinion claiming minimal structural impact from the message board, the BZA upheld the administrator's determination, emphasizing the significant structural changes required to support the added weight.
Subsequently, Adams and property owner McLeskey filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the circuit court, contending that the electronic message board did not constitute a structural alteration or enlargement and arguing that removal of the entire billboard without compensation was unjust, especially since the message board had already been removed. The circuit court ultimately affirmed the BZA's decision, concluding that the installation of the message board did indeed enlarge the billboard in violation of the zoning ordinance.
Petitioners sought to reverse the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) decision requiring the removal of Adams' billboard, arguing it did not constitute a structural alteration. At the circuit court hearing, a structural engineer testified that the electronic message board's force load was under five percent, indicating it wasn't a structural alteration as defined by IBC 3402.2. He noted the message board was supported by horizontal angles and nylon straps. Conversely, the zoning administrator testified that the electronic message board had both structurally altered and enlarged the billboard, citing increased size and the installation of steel beams. The administrator stated that compliance with the zoning ordinance (CZO) required the billboard's removal, as billboards were no longer permitted in the city.
The circuit court interpreted 'structurally altered' and 'enlarged' based on their plain meanings, concluding that the installation of the message board constituted a structural alteration and increased the width of the billboard. The court rejected the argument that Adams had restored the billboard to its original condition, referencing a prior case that indicated removal was the appropriate remedy for abandoned nonconforming billboards. The circuit court determined that the BZA did not err in its decision, affirming that the principles of law were correctly applied and that the interpretation of the CZO was not in violation of its purpose, thus directing Adams to remove the billboard.
On appeal, the BZA's decision held a presumption of correctness, which the petitioners needed to rebut by demonstrating the BZA's error in law or plainly wrong application of the zoning ordinance. The appellate court maintained this presumption regarding the circuit court's affirmation of the BZA's decision.
Petitioners contest the circuit court's ruling that upheld the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) decision, which determined that the installation of an electronic message board 'structurally altered' and 'enlarged' a billboard, violating the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO) § 215(a). The core issue on appeal is whether the message board 'enlarged' the billboard. Petitioners argue that the CZO lacks a definition for 'enlarged' and that the definition of 'signs, surface area' in CZO § 111 provides the only measurable standard, asserting that since the message board did not increase the billboard's advertising square footage, it did not constitute enlargement under CZO § 215(a).
In contrast, the BZA maintains that the zoning administrator and BZA correctly interpreted 'enlarged' based on its plain meaning, which considers not only surface area but also increases in mass and volume. They argue that the addition of the message board increased the billboard's weight by 3,000 to 3,500 pounds and its depth, thus constituting enlargement. The court agrees with the BZA, emphasizing that undefined terms in zoning ordinances are given their natural meaning, and substantial weight is afforded to the interpretations of zoning officials. The ruling concludes that the addition of the message board indeed enlarged the billboard in both dimensions and weight.
The court further notes that the CZO’s provisions can be interpreted disjunctively, making it unnecessary to address the petitioners’ challenge regarding structural alteration. Additionally, the petitioners' argument that returning the billboard to its pre-alteration state could remedy the enlargement is not considered, as it was not challenged independently. The issue of 'just compensation' is also left unaddressed since it was not part of the BZA proceedings. Consequently, the circuit court's judgment is affirmed.
