Winchester BZA denies O'Reilly Auto Parts request for larger building-mounted sign

The Winchester Board of Zoning Appeals on March 12, 2025 denied a variance request from Jonathan James, on behalf of O'Reilly Auto Parts, to add a 70-square-foot building-mounted sign at 603 Cedar Creek Grade.

The variance request, filed as BZA 25-21, sought relief from section 18-8-14(a) of the Winchester zoning ordinance to exceed the maximum building-mounted sign area. City planning staff recommended denial, saying the applicant had not shown the unique hardship required for a variance and noting that financial hardship is not a recognized basis under Virginia state code.

Davis, a city planning staff member, told the panel the ordinance limits building-mounted signage to 1.5 times the linear frontage up to a 200-square-foot cap. For this property staff calculated a maximum allowable building-mounted sign area of 31.49 square feet based on the building's frontage; the site currently has about 21 square feet of building-mounted signage. The applicant sought approval for a new 70-square-foot wall sign on the east elevation facing the adjacent CVS, which would require roughly a 60-square-foot variance.

Staff presented photographs of surrounding properties, noted the lot is a recently completed building on a 1.03-acre B-2 (highway commercial) parcel with a corridor enhancement overlay, and said it found no unique physical hardship that would justify exceeding the ordinance. "Per Virginia state code, financial hardships are not considered true hardships in calculating variances," Davis said during his presentation.

Jonathan James, the applicant, told the board the store is a new prototype for O'Reilly Auto Parts and said visibility from Valley Avenue and Cedar Creek Grade is important for customers. "We gotta be visible. We are new to the community," James said, adding the building was constructed with an empty façade panel intended for a sign. He also told the board that professional customers use a side entrance and argued that visibility concerns and the site layout supported the larger sign.

Board members questioned whether the side entrance cited by the applicant would qualify as a customer entrance that could change the frontage calculation. Staff said that designation was not disclosed in conversations with corporate representatives and would need to be analyzed before it could affect the allowed signage calculation. Members also compared the request to a prior case with similar facts and debated whether the applicant had presented evidence of a hardship that would meet the legal standard for a variance.

One board member moved to deny the variance, citing lack of demonstrable hardship and the risk of granting a special privilege; another member seconded the motion. On a roll-call vote the motion passed with affirmative votes from Vice Chair Redinger, Paul, Shader, Wilson, George Gonzalez and Parmesan. The board denied BZA 25-21 and closed the hearing.

The board and staff discussed alternatives available to the applicant, including installing a smaller building-mounted sign, adding an additional publicly facing customer entrance to create more legal frontage, or pursuing an administrative appeal if the applicant later contests the staff's frontage determination. The record shows staff suggested the applicant had not raised the separate-entrance argument during initial review, meaning that question remains subject to staff analysis or a future appeal.

Following the vote the board moved on to other business.