Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Trash Receptacle Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Reston DRB denies appeal to keep playground trash can, says litter concern not a design issue
Summary
The Reston Design Review Board on Oct. 21 denied an appeal from Purple Sage residents seeking to preserve a trash receptacle at the neighborhood tot lot, voting 5–0–1. Appellants argued removal would increase litter and harm property values; the board found the cited guideline governs design impacts, not convenience or litter control.
The Reston Design Review Board denied an appeal from Purple Sage residents who sought to keep a trash receptacle at their neighborhood tot lot, voting 5–0–1 on Oct. 21. The board concluded the residents’ claim of increased litter and inconvenience did not amount to a misapplication of the design guideline cited in their appeal.
The appellant, Bob, told the board the appeal was “solely related to the removal of the trash receptacle that’s at the playground,” saying the can matches nearby picnic tables and has been in place since the playground’s approval roughly two decades ago. He said removal “would increase the amount of litter and add a lot of inconvenience to the people who use that picnic area,” citing Reston Association maintenance at nearby Walnut Branch Recreation Area as evidence that receptacles reduce litter.
Board members and staff discussed whether the DRB’s design guidelines — specifically the provision stating the proposed removal should not detrimentally impact neighboring properties — apply to the litter and convenience concerns raised. Planning staff explained that whether a removal is subject to DRB enforcement can depend on the original approval: if the DRB approval included a stipulation requiring specific elements, removing one could be nonconforming and require review; absent such a stipulation, removal may not fall under the DRB’s design-review authority.
Several board members said the guideline is focused on design and aesthetic impacts rather than litter or convenience. The DRB chair moved to deny the appeal on that basis; Mike B seconded the motion. The board voted with five members in favor, none opposed, and one abstention (Samantha), resulting in a denial of the appeal.
The chair summarized the board’s view that the asserted “detrimental effect” cited in the appeal relates to convenience and litter control rather than to an effect on the tot lot’s overall design or aesthetic, which is the scope of the DRB’s guideline. The appellant did not present new evidence showing a design-related detriment tied to the removal.
The DRB’s action was procedural: the board denied the appeal and did not adopt a requirement to retain the receptacle. Planning staff advised that if the original approval had included a stipulation mandating the element, a complaint or enforcement review could be pursued to determine nonconformance.
The board did not take further action on the trash receptacle at the meeting; the denial closes the appeal unless additional new information or a different procedural route is submitted.
