All right.

So let's get started.

It's six o'clock.

The um Loudoun County Board of Zoning Appeals Business Meeting is now open.

Today is Thursday, October the twenty-fourth, twenty twenty-four.

Pursuant to code of Virginia's section two point two thirty-seven oh eight point two and the Board of Zoning Appeals participation policy, Mr.

Walker has requested to participate in this public hearing by electronic communication from a remote location that is not open to the public.

Mr.

Walker has communicated that he cannot attend this meeting due to business out of town that prevents his physical attendance at this meeting.

And he will be joining the meeting from Springfield, Virginia.

As required by law, a physical quorum of the Board of Zoning Appeals is present in the boardroom, and members have arranged for the voice of Mr.

Walker to be heard by all persons in the boardroom.

Mr.

Walker made the request within the time frame required by policy, and the county attorney's office has determined that his request meets the requirements of remote participation.

The Board of Zoning Appeals will record in its minutes the reason for Mr.

Walker's remote participation and the location from which he participated.

And before we continue with our meeting, um I would ask everyone present to please silence your phones so that they don't beep and whoop during the meeting.

All right.

So the since we don't have any hearings, I'm not going to give the usual speech with regard to the voting and the filing of notices and what have you.

So our business meeting items is sign plan applications with the new zoning ordinance.

And who will talk to us about that?

Hi, good evening, uh Chair members of the board.

I'm Hugh Green.

I'm the assistant county attorney.

Uh tonight, as uh the chair has pointed out, um this is uh to kind of go over to actually go over the sign development plan ordinance as well as sort of put a framework to uh both how uh the staff um deals with applicants and the application process as well as some legal considerations for you all as you exercise your authority over these plans.

And so my brief presentation tonight will talk kind of walk through some of the the legal aspects of this delegated authority as uh as uh in dealing with the sign development plans, and then um uh my colleague here, Marchant uh will uh also kind of carry through the the actual.

Can I just ask a question on the Sure, fire away?

Um we I wasn't here last time, but I was here the time issue before us.

Is there any concern for the way that we handled that?

Or is there simply a propend or a propensity or probability that because of the nature of the the new sign ordinance that we can go among the no, I actually I don't think it was um a matter of going amok.

It was a matter of in our last signed plan.

I think there were a number of considerations that the board had raised um in in reviewing that application, and I think it would be helpful for us to kind of walk through it in a in an individual uh kind of at a in a slower pace so we can can look at some of the questions because I know I've tried to address in at least some of my presentations, some of the concerns and kind of flesh those out about um that was raised at the last board meeting, but no, I don't think it was about going amok.

I think it was concern from the staff, us what needs to be presented to you all so you can make informed decisions as well as maybe eliminating any possible confusion as we go forward.

That's really the the benefit of this.

I don't know if anyone else wants to Michelle, did you have any thoughts on that?

Well, I understood too, and these were points that I think Mr.

Clark was making at the last meeting, and that is that you know, historically, what this board has done is interpret the zoning ordinance.

Um instead of being quasi-judicial with regard to this issue with the zoning ordinance, we're almost quasi legislative.

It is so legislative.

And you may want to articulate that so Mr.

Gray can hear those comments because articulate that to me.

I'll try I'll try to articulate, yeah.

So I remember, well, I think it's in this the state statute, but one of the things drilled on us in the certification is that this creature of the BZA was to serve two roles.

One was the quasi-judicial role of taking things that might not necessarily have to go to a real circuit court judge, but also to take some heat off the board of supervisors.

So there are two distinct roles, one where we uh wear a hat where we are acting as judges making interpretations, making judgments about whether the zoning administrator's decision was correct or incorrect.

And then there is this other role which is completely different, which is legislative, where we have this limited authority to use discretion if we are persuaded it's in the best interest of the county under the federal, I mean under the state law and the and the county ordinance.

And because of the problem on Route 7, the old board of supervisors withdrew a lot of legislative authority.

So since you and I have been on here 15 years or more than 20, we've had very few opportunities to exercise our legislative muscle.

But our friends in other counties, like in Fairfax are doing it all the time.

And I think they're very conversant with it, but our voices are a little weak in that department because we haven't had to practice them since before 2005.

Just a an aside.

Blue Mont is no longer, by the way.

So I mean, they've they've gone out of business.

But is there a Can we go back and give the county the road or pass?

Is there a bright line?

There is by which we can identify.

It's how it comes up here.

Okay.

If it's an appeal or a notice of a violation.

Those are quasi-judicial.