The legal document pertains to an appeal regarding the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County's denial of Special Exception Application SE 96-H-032 filed by McDonald’s Corporation and associated entities. The trial court ruled that the Board's denial was invalid on the grounds of discrimination. McDonald’s has been operating on a 1.20-acre site at the intersection of Colts Neck Road and Glade Drive in Reston since December 31, 1995. The property is part of a 141-acre area previously rezoned to a Residential Planned Community (RPC) and later to a Planned Residential Community (PRC) zoning district. The PRC zoning requires compliance with an approved comprehensive plan for development.
A development plan for the “Southern Sector of Reston” was approved in 1970, designating specific areas for commercial use, including a village center known as Hunters Woods Village Center (HWVC). The HWVC includes various retail and community uses, emphasizing pedestrian accessibility. The subject property is separated from existing commercial establishments by Colts Neck Road and bordered by Glade Road and a residential community.
McDonald’s previously obtained Non-Residential Use Permits for fast food establishments on the property, including for a drive-through facility. In compliance with the zoning ordinance, McDonald’s submitted an application on June 19, 1996, seeking to add a drive-through facility to its existing restaurant, which would slightly increase the building's size. The legal proceedings focus on the Board's decision-making process regarding the special exception for the drive-through facility.
On October 23, 1996, County staff recommended approval of McDonald’s special exception (SE) application, contingent on development conditions. Prior to the Planning Commission hearing set for November 6, 1996, McDonald’s sought to defer the application to address civic concerns and gain community support. Concurrently, McDonald’s filed variance application VC 96-H-091 to allow 22 parking spaces to remain 6.5 feet from the front property line, despite regulations requiring a 10-foot distance. Although these spaces were existing and unchanged in the SE application, County regulations necessitate conformity or a variance for existing conditions upon SE approval. The Board of Zoning Appeals deferred this application, which was reactivated in May 1997 with modifications made to the SE application to address earlier concerns.
On October 22, 1997, County staff recommended approval of the modified SE application, but on November 5, 1997, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial to the Board, which subsequently denied the SE application after a December 8, 1997 hearing. On the same day, the Board approved a development plan amendment for Hunters Woods Village Center involving the demolition of an existing shopping center and the construction of a new facility. The consideration of McDonald’s variance application was deferred pending the SE application outcome. Modifications to the SE application included changes to the drive-thru design and landscaping.
On June 1, 1999, McDonald’s filed a Second Amended Bill of Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief against the Board, claiming that the denial of its SE application was discriminatory and lacked a rational basis, particularly in light of approvals for similar drive-through establishments. McDonald’s argued there was no significant distinction between its property and the approved sites. A bench trial occurred over several days in September and October 1999, including a site visit by the trial court and counsel.
On January 27, 2000, the trial court determined that McDonald's was subjected to unfair and inconsistent treatment by the Board, as evidenced by the Board's denial of McDonald's special exception (SE) application while approving similar applications for the Tall Oaks and HWSC shopping centers. The trial court issued a Final Decree on March 15, 2000, invalidating the Board's denial and prohibiting any further actions preventing McDonald's from constructing and operating a drive-through window, subject to reasonable development conditions.
On appeal, the Board argued that the trial court erred in concluding that its denial was discriminatory, arbitrary, and capricious, asserting that the other shopping centers were not comparable to McDonald's site and that its decision was based on rational grounds. The Board also claimed that the trial court misapplied the 'fairly debatable' standard and improperly allowed McDonald's to amend its SE application during trial, as well as incorrectly finding that the application met zoning requirements. McDonald's did not raise any cross-errors and sought affirmation of the trial court's ruling.
The standard of review acknowledges that the right to issue special exceptions is a legislative function, which is presumed valid. The appellate review involves weighing the trial court's findings against the presumption of legislative validity. The trial court focused on whether the Board’s denial of McDonald’s application was unlawfully discriminatory when compared to its approvals of similar applications. It found that the two centers were indeed similarly situated and that the Board's denial was inconsistent and discriminatory. The presumption of validity attached to the Board's decision remains until proven unreasonable by compelling evidence.
In the context of zoning actions, evidence of reasonableness determines whether a decision is subject to judicial review. If evidence supports that an issue is fairly debatable, the zoning action is upheld; conversely, if evidence is lacking, the presumption of reasonableness is defeated, and the action cannot be sustained. Fairly debatable issues arise when reasonable individuals could draw different conclusions based on the evidence. Discriminatory treatment in zoning is deemed arbitrary and capricious, lacking substantial relation to public welfare, and thus cannot be upheld if found unjustified. For a claim of impermissible discrimination, it must be demonstrated that one landowner's use is restricted while another's is permitted without rational justification. Merely showing proximity of properties is insufficient to establish discrimination. In this case, the trial court incorrectly concluded that HWVSC and TOVSC were comparable to the subject property. Key distinctions include the size and usage of the properties, access configurations, and traffic mitigation measures. The subject property’s limitations in size and road access compared to the larger, multi-use shopping centers contributed to the decision that it was not similarly situated to those properties.
The subject property has only one entrance located 265 feet from the intersection of Colts Neck Road and Glade Drive, while competing sites have multiple entrances positioned further away from intersections (HWVSC at 1200 feet and TOVSC at 670 and 940 feet). Vehicle trip estimates show a significant discrepancy, with the subject property expected to handle 539 vehicles per day per thousand square feet, compared to only 62 at HWVSC. The visual screening requirements differ markedly; the subject property must maintain a 50-foot vegetated buffer, which McDonald’s seeks to reduce to 6.5 feet along its border with Hunters Square, and to 14.5 feet along Glade Drive. In contrast, HWVSC has a 35-foot buffer with a 32 percent waiver, while TOVSC has no screening requirement. Additionally, the subject property is the only one requiring a variance for parking, with its lot just 6.5 feet from the Hunters Square residential area, compared to HWVSC’s parking lot at 140 feet and TOVSC’s at 239 feet from their nearest residences. The trial court's error in equating HWVSC and TOVSC with the McDonald’s site led to the decision to reverse the judgment and enter a final judgment for the Board.
