Virginia Beer Museum owner petitions court to overturn parking exemption denial

David Downes makes his case for a parking exemption to expand his Va. Beer Museum backyard beer garden – could the museum proprietor, an attorney by profession, fare better in court than he did before the town council? Royal Examiner File Photos/Roger Bianchini

On Friday, February 8, local attorney and proprietor of the Virginia Beer Museum David Downes filed for a declaratory court order to overturn the Front Royal Town Council’s denial of his request for an off-street parking exemption. By a binding 4-2 margin on January 14, the newly-configured council reversed a first-reading, December 10, 4-3 vote of approval.

The basis of his petition for a declaratory judgment reversing the council decision is that he has been singled out unconstitutionally as “a class of one” on several fronts for treatment different than other downtown property, museum and business owners.

“This Complaint seeks to reverse the Town Council’s decision of January 14, 2019, that upholds Town ordinances that intentionally and Unconstitutionally treat the Plaintiff as a ‘class of one’ without any rational basis for treating similarly situated property owners differently that own (a) other art galleries and museums in Town; (b) other properties on the west side of Chester Street between East Main Street and Peyton Street, and (c) other properties on Main Street and Jackson Street that are in the same revitalization area of downtown Front Royal,” the complaint filed in Circuit Court states.

Expansion of the outdoor, backyard ‘Beer Garden’ of the Virginia Beer Museum is currently in limbo.

Downes sought the exemption regarding about 12 existing off-street parking spaces at the rear of his properties at 14 and 16 Chester Street, housing his legal office and the Beer Museum, respectively. His goal is to expand a special-event Beer Garden area to the rear edge of his now fenced-in property. As Downes has pointed out during the petition process, he also has five off-street parking spaces at the north side of the Beer Museum building abutting the Town’s public Peyton Street Parking Lot.

Above, the now fenced-in private property at rear of 14 and 16 Chester Street: to park OR not to park (in order to expand an outdoor events area)? THAT is the question. Below, a car in one of the Beer Museum’s 5 off-street parking spaces outside the fence area.

After detailing adjacent and nearby properties’ square footage and parking requirements or exemptions versus the status of his properties, the Downes’ complaint cites the publicly-stated rationale for a decisive negative vote from Vice-Mayor William Sealock delivered on January 14. Sealock had voted with a 4-3 majority including Councilmen Meza, Morrison and Mayor Tharpe’s tiebreaking vote (with Tewalt, Gillespie, Connolly opposed) approving the request at the December 10 first-reading vote.

However after two new councilmen were seated in the new year in the wake of the November election, Sealock changed his vote to “no” to create a binding second vote majority with Gillespie, Tewalt and newly-installed Chris Holloway to deny the request. Meza and newly-installed Letasha Thompson voted for approval at the second reading.

Of that changed perspective by the now vice mayor, Downes’ complaint states, “On January 14, 2019, Councilman Sealock was the only councilman to offer a basis for treating the Subject Property differently from other museums, adjacent properties, and all of the properties exempt on Main and Jackson Streets”

Of that “basis” the complaint indicates a belief Sealock’s statement reflected a misunderstanding of the involved issues upon which the request was based – “But for that misapprehension, he would have recognized that an uninformed basis to treat Downes differently would, at a minimum, prompt him to follow the recommendation of the Zoning Commission to not decide the issue until further study could be conducted … Upon information and belief, Councilman Sealock misapprehended the issue requiring a rationale basis to treat Downes differently from similarly situated property owners.”

The complaints reasons that had Sealock’s vote been cast from “an informed” perspective, and in favor of the request as he had previously voted, again creating a 3-3 tie the mayor would have again cast a decisive vote in favor of the request.

In fact, the complaint points to Mayor Hollis Tharpe’s question following Sealock’s remarks if he would like to delay a vote for further work session discussion and staff explanation of the evolution of the request through the zoning, planning and council levels, to which Sealock replied, “No, it has gone on long enough.”

The complaint concludes of the process and final vote: “As a result of the Amendment being denied on January 14, 2019, the Town Council intentionally treated Downes and the Subject Property he owned differently than similarly situated real estate owners that (a) operate museums on Chester Street, (b) own property on the border the Subject Property, and (c) own property located in the downtown area designated as the ‘Revitalization’ area without a rational basis for being treated differently.”

Planning Commission member Cee Ann Davis and Planning Director Jeremy Camp at map of the Downtown Business District Revitalization Area during an August work session discussion on the Beer Museum parking exemption request.

In his pre-vote statement the vice mayor references lost leaf-season tourists ending up in the Chester Street area; a belief the issue is more a neighborhood dispute than a matter of town government concern; and some confusion at the nature of four variations Downes’ exemption request took between planning-zoning and council consideration; as well as a lack of information on the area’s parking history.

The final of those four exemption options and the one Downes finally presented to council – applying for the exemption as a museum – appeared to be made by the applicant to allay fears that if granted simply as a property or business owner’s request it might set a broader precedent in the downtown area.

As Downes has explained in amending his requested exemption to that already granted to museums or art galleries, approval of his final proposal would not create any wider parking exemption precedent.

See Vice-Mayor Sealock’s full statement prefacing his January 14 “no” vote in the full transcript from the court filing below:

To left in 2018 file photo, now Vice-Mayor William Sealock’s reasoning for his final vote against the Virginia Beer Museum parking exemption is a focal point of owner David Downes legal filing to reverse that decision.

“Mr. Mayor, I have some real concerns. I tried to find data from the Parking Authority that was in control of the area before and, unbeknownst to me, there is no such data to tell us what the past history was.

“There was a great deal of parking there for the forty years I have been in town. What I am concerned about is a major concern. When we discussed this as a council, we were going with the Commission’s recommendation. So, when I reread when I got the agenda, what I heard was there were four motions. And when you look at the four motions, they are almost identical except the last few words which I felt we should have had discussion on the change to the museum which did not happen as a council.

“We came into the meeting and were presented with four motions. I have a little concern with that. I did not have time enough to do my research to find out exactly.

“And it is an argument between the property owners. It is not a council issue except other then it has changed to the museum.

“The other thing that concerns me when we had the excessive, ah, ‘Peepers’ (fall leaf season tourists) that came into town, I was checking all of the streets to see, you know, what the traffic flow was and a lot of our tourists were confused because about how to get where they want to go with the traffic falling out.

“So, I came down Chester Street and I know Chester Street is extremely, ah, crowded. You can’t get two vehicles past and when you get up to the, ah – when I was looking for the Parking Authority information, I wanted to see why those two houses was left off of parking in front. I cannot find any information.

“That a, that’s a, from a lawyer’s stand point, Mr. Downes, you would argue that point very much just like I am. So, in my travels today, looking at the traffic with the Peepers, I almost got hit when I hit Virginia Hale’s area because it is a bad turn right there and it bottle necks down. So, I bring those issues forward because I was really concerned seeing four motions and at the last work session, I finally got an answer why we had four motions and that troubles me because we never had the opportunity to discuss a museum option and it was not presented from the Commission as well.

“So that is my concern. We did not have the time to discuss the so called four motions that came up. So, that is what I got to say about that.”

Download the filed complaint here.

Dressed for beer history – patrons and staff in the Helltown Saloon at the Virginia Beer Museum anxiously await final resolution of the plan for an improved rear area special event outdoor Beer Garden, after all spring is on the horizon.