Loudoun County BZA Public Hearing: Ashburn Training Facility Sign Plan, June 25, 2026
Loudoun County Board of Zoning Appeals Public Hearing - June 25, 2026
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.
Discussion Items
- LEGI-2025-0056 – Ashburn Training Facility Sign Development Plan (ZMOD-2025-0005):
- Staff presented the revised plan: removal of the top dome sign, reduction of the four remaining dome signs by 40–49% (total sign area reduced by 46%), and addition of "Home of the Washington Commanders" text. The signs are non-illuminated except for the ground-mounted sign (hours of operation restriction applies).
- Board members raised multiple concerns:
- Content and naming rights: Member Gray analogized the proposed naming rights (Big Bear AI Performance Center) to billboards, questioning whether off-premise signage standards apply. He noted this is a "case of first impression" and that content-based restrictions are limited under free speech. Member Canonico argued the sign could be considered off-premise since the named entity (Big Bear AI) does not own or operate at the site. Staff clarified that the zoning ordinance does not regulate commercial speech content and that similar naming rights (e.g., Segra Field, Raventech Park) exist in the county.
- Size and wayfinding: Member Forbes and Walker questioned whether the signs meet criteria for avoiding traffic hazards and unnecessary distraction. Forbes called the signs "enormous" and stated they overpower the landscape. Walker noted the difficulty in applying subjective standards for distraction/competing demands. Applicant argued the signs are proportionate to the 3-acre dome and serve wayfinding for a tourism destination (35,000 annual visitors, 25+ events).
- Redundancy: Several members suggested that signs on the east and west facades (P1 signs) are redundant when north and south facades already provide visibility from main roads (Gloucester Parkway and Loudoun County Parkway).
- Visibility of Commanders branding: Member Forbes pointed out that the "W" logo and "Home of the Washington Commanders" text on the east facade are partially obscured by a fence when viewed from Gloucester Parkway. Applicant acknowledged and offered to consider co-branding adjustments.
- The applicant admitted a sign was installed prematurely without permits and that this was a communication error. The Board acknowledged the error but did not take enforcement action.
- A motion to continue the application to July 23, 2026 was made, seconded, and carried unanimously (voice vote). The board directed the applicant to provide updated photographs from key viewpoints, consider reducing the number or size of dome signs (especially P1 signs on east/west facades), and improve the visibility of the Commanders branding on signs visible from public roads.
Administrative Items
- Assistant County Attorney Report: No new litigation updates; pending appeals (Fields Farm storage/RV case) remain in settlement discussions with a potential trial date in late 2027.
- Zoning Administrator Report:
- Member Gray inquired about lighting compliance for the previously approved Pin Stack sign near Route 28 and Route 7. Staff agreed to investigate possible operation hours violations and report back at the July meeting.
- Deferred Hamilton Public Safety Center appeals will be scheduled for September 24, 2026 (note: board members indicated potential unavailability in September).
Key Outcomes
- Vote: The board voted unanimously (all members present) to continue the sign development plan application to the July 23, 2026 BZA meeting.
- Directives to applicant:
- Provide updated photographs from Gloucester Parkway and Loudoun County Parkway showing existing tree lines.
- Consider reducing the number of dome signs (e.g., eliminate east and west facades or consolidate) and/or further reduction in size.
- Revise the co-branding on signs to make the Washington Commanders name/logo more prominent from public roads.
- Staff actions: Zoning staff to investigate Pin Stack lighting hours and report back; continue monitoring existing unpermitted signs on the property (enforcement not initiated pending the July hearing).
- Future scheduling: The Hamilton Public Safety Center appeals and a variance are scheduled for September 24, 2026, subject to board availability (alternate date may be needed).
Note: No consent calendar items or public comments (other than the applicant's presentation) were presented.
Meeting Transcript
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.
openpublica.com