Loudoun County Board of Zoning Appeals Public Hearing - October 23, 2025

The Loudoun County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) convened on October 23, 2025 at 6:00 PM to hear Appeal APPL-2025-0004, challenging a temporary special event permit issued for 39483 Charles Town Pike in Hamilton, Virginia. The board addressed preliminary matters regarding late-filed submissions, debated the appellants' standing, heard public testimony, and ultimately voted to grant the appeal and reverse the permit.

Consent Calendar

• Preliminary Matter 1: Landowner's counsel (Randy Minshew and Anna Ritter) requested leave to accept a supplemental filing submitted on October 9, 2025, which was less than 20 days before the hearing. The board voted 3-0 to accept this filing.
• Preliminary Matter 2: Appellants' counsel (Stephen Price) requested leave to accept a filing dated October 21, 2025, containing revised permit documents from September and October 2025. The board voted 2-2 to reject this filing (motion failed due to lack of majority; members expressed concerns about insufficient time to review the materials).

Public Comments & Testimony

• Appellants (Thomas Giddings and Stephanie Van Pries, property owners adjoining the subject property): Argued that the permit was improper, citing increased traffic over a shared easement, noise, dust, light pollution, and a loss of privacy. They noted the permit was originally signed by an unauthorized official and that the use—a baseball training facility—did not meet the definition of a "special event" under the zoning ordinance. They also claimed the permit allowed a months-long operation without proper public process.
• Landowner/Property Owner (RD Baseball, represented by Randy Minshew, Anna Ritter, and co-owner Daniel Olds): Defended the permit as a lawful temporary measure to allow baseball instruction (a by-right use) while a minor special exception for the building’s setback was pending. They emphasized that the temporary event permit was limited in duration (90 days, later extended 90 days) and that adverse impacts were evaluated. They cited good neighbor efforts (road widening, mailbox replacement, tree planting) and denied significant traffic or noise issues.
• Neighbors in Support (David Maloney, Kathy Lazarus, Joseph Carodi, Mitch): Reported positive experiences: RD Baseball was accommodating, improved road safety, reduced dust and noise compared to prior conditions, and contributed to the community. They disputed claims of excessive noise or traffic disruptions.
• Neighbor in Opposition (Denise Roll, Stephen Giddings): Expressed concerns about increased traffic on a single-lane private road, headlight glare, noise from indoor training, and the intensity of use compared to the prior livery (which had a 20-vehicle limit). They argued the permit bypassed the normal application process for a minor special exception, denying neighbors a voice.
• Public Comment (John Benedict, Western Loudoun resident): Argued the permit set a troubling precedent, allowing an intensive commercial use in a rural area without proper review. He called the permit an abuse of process.
• Additional Public Comment (unidentified speaker): Raised issues about unpermitted parking lot construction, lack of fire marshal approval, and inability to contact county supervisors.

Discussion Items

• Standing (Preliminary Issue): Landowner’s counsel moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of standing, arguing that the appellants had not demonstrated particularized harm distinct from the general public (e.g., traffic shared by other users of the private lane). Appellants countered that their property uniquely hosts the easement traversed by all event traffic. After debate, the board voted (3-0) to find standing, concluding that the appellants had identified a concrete injury (traffic over their property) different from that suffered by the public.
• Merits of the Appeal:
  • Staff Presentation: Zoning Administrator Teresa Miller and Senior Planner Andy Londos presented the permit history: originally issued July 10, 2025 for a baseball training camp (classified as a "personal instruction service," a by-right use), later extended and corrected for a signature error and parking capacity (from 4 to 40 spaces, though max attendance per session is 30). Staff argued the permit complied with Sections 304E and 1004 of the zoning ordinance, which allow temporary special events for up to 90 days plus extensions. They maintained that adverse impacts were considered and found not significant.
  • Board Questions: Board members probed the basis for the permit, the definition of "special event," and whether the ordinance truly covered a months-long business operation. Chairman Gray expressed concern that the permit was used to bypass normal process, effectively allowed six months of commercial use without the public hearing required for a minor special exception. Others questioned whether staff properly evaluated off-site impacts (traffic, noise, dust) as required by ordinance.
  • Appellants' Argument (Stephen Price): Contended that the "event" did not meet the ordinance definition—it was not a noteworthy happening but a routine business. He argued the permit was an abuse of process, allowing the landowner to start operations while seeking a special exception, and that staff failed to make a required finding of no significant adverse impact before the extension.
  • Landowner's Rebuttal (Anna Ritter): Distinguished the temporary event use from the proposed small business use (which would require permanent improvements). She stated that staff did evaluate adverse impacts for the extension and that the zoning administrator’s decision is presumed correct under state law. She further argued the permit was properly issued under the ordinance.

Key Outcomes

• Standing Ruling: The board determined (3-0) that the appellants have standing to bring the appeal.
• Final Decision: The board voted (3-0) to grant the appeal, reversing the July 10, 2025 issuance of temporary special event permit EVENT-2025-028987 and its October 10, 2025 reissuance. The board found the permit did not comply with the Loudoun County Zoning Ordinance, specifically because the use did not qualify as a "special event" under the ordinance’s definition, and the approval mechanism was improperly applied.
• Consequences: The temporary permit is void. The property (RD Baseball) may not operate the baseball training activities under that permit. The property owner may continue to pursue the separate minor special exception application with the Board of Supervisors for the building setback, but the by-right outdoor use would require a standard zoning permit.
• Next Steps: The board discussed upcoming business – a November training session on the new zoning ordinance (scheduled for November 20, 2025) and a December public hearing for a sign variance and a possible appeal of a zoning permit denial.