BZA permits larger sign at 2600 Valley Avenue but keeps three‑color limit

On July 8 the Winchester Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance that allows a tenant at 2600 Valley Avenue to install a building‑mounted sign up to 80 square feet, but limited the sign to no more than three colors. The board voted unanimously after hearing staff analysis, community discussion, and testimony from the applicant, who said the tenant’s storefront is centered in a large building set back roughly 300 feet from the road and would be effectively invisible with smaller signage.

Mr. Davis (city staff) summarized BZA 26‑3: the NDD (Neighborhood Design District) sign rule generally allows one square foot of signage per linear foot of tenant frontage up to a 100‑square‑foot maximum. Staff noted a dispute over the tenant’s measured frontage (the applicant’s permit materials said 52.2 square feet but staff said the frontage supports 62 square feet) and that the applicant requested six colors. Staff advised that, under the current ordinance and state code, staff would not support the variance as presented and that adaptive‑reuse provisions in the ordinance did not apply to a 62‑linear‑foot tenant.

Jason Green, sworn as the applicant’s representative, said the shopping center is set back far from Valley Avenue and his tenant’s central storefront would be visually disadvantaged between larger, nonconforming signs for neighboring tenants. "We're really far off the road with the shopping center... the smaller sign just wouldn't be in uniform either," Green said, arguing the requested size and colors are consistent with his franchise branding and other locations.

Board members and staff discussed three separate issues: whether the correct frontage measurement was an appealable administrative calculation (52 v. 62 feet), whether the sign size was justified given the 300‑foot setback, and whether the ordinance’s color limits should apply. Several members said color limits help avoid visual chaos but were more sympathetic to a size variance because the building sits well back from the road. One member noted that nonconforming adjacent signs were approved under an older ordinance.

A committee member moved to grant the variances identified in BZA 26‑3 subject to conditions: a sign permit submitted to and approved by staff; completion within one year or the variance is null and void; the sign must not encroach on public right of way or create a visible traffic obstruction; and the approved signage must not exceed 80 square feet and must use no more than three colors. The motion was amended on the floor to remove permission for six colors and restore the three‑color limit. The board voted by roll call and the motion passed unanimously (Mr Paul — Yes; Miss Shaner — Yes; Mr Wilson — Yes; Miss Bloom — Yes; Chairwoman Marsha — Yes).

The approval allows the tenant to proceed with the larger sign under the stated conditions; staff reminded the board that routine maintenance does not trigger conformity requirements but that any structural or sign changes will be subject to current code.