The Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) held a public hearing on June 25, 2026, at 6:00 PM in the Board Room of the Loudoun County Government Center. The primary agenda item was the sign development plan (ZMOD-2025-0005) for the Ashburn Training Facility (Washington Commanders sports dome). The board also received administrative updates on pending litigation and other sign enforcement matters. After deliberation, the board voted to continue the sign plan application to the July 23, 2026 meeting to allow the applicant to address concerns raised.
Note: No consent calendar items or public comments (other than the applicant's presentation) were presented.
The signs proposed for the sides of the sports dome also have text added to them that now reads home of the Washington commanders. And just to summarize the three changes to the sign plan, the removal of the sign on the top of the sports dome facility, the reduction in size of the remaining four signs proposed for the sports dome, and the addition of the commander's logo and branding to the signs on the dome. But earlier this month, it was brought to the attention of staff that at some time after the May BZA meeting, a sign had been installed on the sports dome structure. So this is sign P One. All of the existing signs on the subject property were installed without the required county approvals. All the signs included in this signed development plan will need to get permits if it is approved by the board. And if this sign plan is not approved, any existing signs on the property that do not have or cannot get permits would need to be removed. At some point, enforcement action would be initiated to affect that. In order to approve a signed development plan, the Board of Zoning Appeals must make all the findings as specified in Section 101103 of the Loudoun County Zoning Ordinance. These findings are listed on attachment three to your staff report. And that concludes staff's presentation. Thanks very much. Does anyone have a question? Mr. Gray? Just a couple of things I'd like to address. And the first is billboards. We don't have sp we don't call out billboards specifically in the zoning ordinance. I think billboards would probably fall under the category of a sign that is directing attention to a use that is located on a property other than that which the sign is located. Which is a prohibited sign. I'm looking at it from a a slightly different perspective is that generally a billboard is an advertisement for an activity on a background that may or may not be owned by the advertiser. In other words, if I own a billboard company and I basically place a billboard for lease, someone can come in and purchase that billboard, if you will, the the lease on that billboard, and generally put up whatever they want to put up in terms of advertising. Is that a reasonable I I think that's the definition of billboard. I don't think it would be permitted in this county. Well, that that's where I'm going. I mean, essentially, the way that that Loudoun County has developed is that we have never allowed billboards, or if we did, we we withdrew that permission for billboards. And our previous sign ordinance was such that it was almost the minimus. I mean, it there were there were so many restrictions that it made it very difficult in order to place advertisements on site or off-site. And that led to the current the current sign ordinance, which is a little bit more interactive, if you will, but yet has limits. I guess going back to the conversation that we had at the last meeting when the question was if we permit something like this, does that mean that Schmuckatella who owns a barn someplace could rent out his or her uh the barn space for advertising without any requirement or any restrictions under the current signed ordinance I don't think that's the case. I think that it would be uh more similar to this if they were selling the naming rights to their barn, then maybe there would be a discussion about that. But but that's where I'm getting to. I mean, the difference between naming rights to a barn where there is no inherent ownership or activity by that organization for which naming rights have been granted within that facility, other than on its exterior that says we're sponsoring this. It's not that they're paying the electricity, it's not that they're paying for the uh the maintenance uh of whatever activities occurs within. They're simply taking somewhat of an ownership right for the outside of the building for the sole purpose of placing a name, which gets back to what what he was speaking to. And it that's where I I get the billboard analogy, if you will. It may not necessarily be a good one. But I mean we have we have steadfastly said no billboards because it is just a nuisance type of advertising and it's a sign it's a site blight that we're we're attempting to do. And that that term about site blight, if you will, actually populates our our ordinance to some degree, maybe not specifically in those words, but it's something that we have to take into account when we authorize the uh the placement of signs on a on a property. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Canonica? I'm going to follow up on that. Because I think what you what I referred to at the last meeting and what we discussed was Section uh 8.03.a.2, which basically prohibits off-premises signage. Now I thought the response I got at the last meeting was the county can't control what the sign says. It can only control the size and location. If that's the case, then it seems to me that section of the ordinance, that off-site signage, is is unenforceable. So the analogy to follow not a billboard, but you got a lot of blank con large concrete walls on data centers in the Eastern Lab. I'm gonna I'm gonna we talk about naming rights.