To Shirley Damon, the appeal just didn’t make sense. Residents who live near the leaf mulcher on Beulah Road were at Monday's Town Council meeting appealing a Jan. 27 decision by the town's Board of Architectural Review. The Board had decided that a proposed sound barrier around the mulcher site would be aesthetically appropriate in the Town of Vienna.
"I’m mystified as to this particular appeal," said Damon, chair of the Board of Architectural Review. "I see nothing that directly addresses that issue."
The Town applied to its own Board of Zoning Appeals for a permit to operate a leaf mulcher in a residential neighborhood.
Last fall, the Board of Zoning Appeals found that the Town would be able to operate the mulcher if it constructed a sound barrier around the mulcher that would result in a "significant" reduction in noise. The sound level is to be tested before and after the wall’s construction to determine if it is able to reduce the sound level.
If no significant reduction occurs, the entire mulching operation may have to be moved to another location.
The proposed barrier then went to the Board of Architectural Review for approval. The Board of Architectural Review studies proposed construction within the Town to determine if a structure is aesthetically pleasing. The Board’s charter does not give it the authority to determine if a given structure will work. That is the job of other Town bodies and departments.
WHILE RESIDENTS complained that they do not believe the barrier will be effective, that determination is not within the purview of the Board of Architectural Review.
The Board found that the barrier is aesthetically acceptable to have within the Town.
The Board further found that if it was decided that the barrier is going to become permanent, it would review the structure again and consider requiring the Town to add some landscaping to screen the wall from neighbors.
Residents who came to speak generally discussed two issues, the efficacy of the barrier and also its proposed design.
Linda Ebersole cited the opinion of the Board of Zoning Appeals that the sound barrier must result in a significant decrease in the noise level. No one, she said, has defined "significant." "What definition of ‘significant’ has the Board of Zoning Appeals provided to you?" Ebersole asked. "If you can’t define it, you can’t design it."
She also stated that the current design is out of character with the neighborhood.
Other residents took a similar tack, first suggesting that the wall will not perform as designed and then attacking its appearance.
Adele Friedel said that the wall will not result in a significant reduction of noise. "It seems that it might behoove us to have a formal technical review process," Friedel said.
She pointed out that the wall will deteriorate. "It’s going to start buckling and its going to fall apart, and I’m going to look at it through the woods," she said.
During the Board of Architectural Review meeting on Jan. 27. Dennis King, Vienna's director of Public Works, estimated that the barrier would have a minimum life expectancy of 10 years. Also during that meeting, Boardmember Paul Layer suggested that if the barrier is to become permanent, the Town should add "cap flashing," which would be designed to protect the barrier from the elements and extend its life span.
Councilmember Sydney Verinder, who attended the Jan. 27 meeting, also pointed out that King made a commitment to maintaining the wall. "It’s not going to be left trashed and blistered and not maintained," he said.
Friedel also commented on things Councilmember Laurie Cole said while a contestant on the television show "Jeopardy!" as support for why the Town should support the position of the residents near the mulcher.
Cole took umbrage with the comments, saying that Friedel had misrepresented what she said. "It’s exactly this … twisting of what members of the Council have said that has discouraged us from engaging in conversation," Cole said. "It’s very frustrating."
Boardmember Rebecca Hartley pointed out that the Board is only permitted to analyze the aesthetics of a given structure, not its engineering. "We don’t rule on noise," Hartley said. "We don’t look at the engineering."
The efficacy of the wall will be analyzed by the Town's Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals when they hear about the wall again later this year, either in the late summer or early fall.
The Town Council unanimously rejected the appeal and let stand the Board of Architectural Review’s decision.