Mystical Bluegrass owner challenges Danville historic-district window rule; appeal withdrawn after tie

Cheyenne Abbott, owner of Mystical Bluegrass, told the Danville Board of Adjustments on May 19 that vinyl decals she installed to cover preexisting dark-tinted windows brought customers to her new downtown shop and that removing them would hurt business. "I put $2,300 into those window stickers," Abbott said, adding the decals helped attract customers from out of town.

Staff and the Danville Architectural Heritage Board defended enforcement of the city's design guidelines. Joni House, the city's historic preservation coordinator, said the downtown historic overlay limits signage to 25% of storefront glazing and described pictorial vinyl clings as signs that cover too much glass. "We consider those vinyl clings a sign," House said, and she cited prior denials for similar installations on other downtown properties.

Board counsel reviewed relevant legal standards and advised members that courts have recognized a governmental interest in aesthetics and preservation that can support content-neutral sign rules. Counsel told the board it must find either insufficient evidence or arbitrariness in staff's enforcement to overturn the administrative decision.

Board members debated evidence of prior noncompliant window treatments elsewhere and whether those omissions waived enforcement; staff said earlier oversights do not preclude enforcement now. The board moved to uphold the administrative decision but, because a member was missing, the roll call produced no majority and counsel said the matter remained pending without a successful vote.

Planning staff subsequently reported the sign-permit appeal had been withdrawn and the board moved on to other agenda items. The appellant had asked the board for guidance on whether a variance or other paperwork could allow her to keep some elements of the decals; staff had suggested a compromise such as retaining the approved flat signs and purple lettering but removing the mural-like window artwork.

The board's ruling on this matter was procedural: staff contended the installed window imagery exceeded the 25% coverage standard in the design guidelines and was not part of the approved permit; the applicant disputed the standard's origin and its local application and said she would continue to pursue a challenge to the rule if necessary. The applicant withdrew the pending application, leaving the enforcement action unenforced by a board decision that evening.