Loudoun County Board of Zoning Appeals Public Hearing – September 21, 2026

The Loudoun County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) met on September 21, 2026, at 6:00 PM in the Dulles Room of the Government Center. The board considered a variance application for a sunroom addition, two appeals of zoning permits, and administrative reports. The first appeal was withdrawn, the variance was denied, and the second appeal ended in a tie vote, leaving the zoning administrator's permit in effect.

BOZA-2026-0002 – Variance for 25339 Diligence Court, Aldie

• Staff Presentation: Planner Stephanie Longerbeam presented the variance request from Mr. and Mrs. Khalid Wasser to construct a sunroom on an existing deck, requiring a reduction of the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 19.2 feet (a 5.8-foot encroachment). The deck was permitted in 2020; a sunroom requires a variance. Staff noted the proposed sunroom would occupy the same footprint as the existing deck and would not extend further into the setback. —Applicant Testimony: Attorney Cecilia Cardoso argued the variance was the minimum relief needed, the property was acquired in good faith, and no detriment to neighbors would occur. The applicant explained that alternative locations on the deck would require structural changes and removal of windows. —Board Deliberation: Members discussed the “unreasonable restriction” criterion, comparing the existing deck (permitted to encroach) to the proposed sunroom. Mr. Kanonico and others questioned whether the hardship was compelling enough to justify the variance; the applicant cited a growing family and need for additional space but did not demonstrate that denial would unreasonably restrict property use. —Motion and Vote: A motion to approve was initially made then withdrawn. A motion to deny the variance succeeded. The board voted (not recorded in detail, but the motion carried). The variance was denied.

APPL-2026-0001 – Appeal of ZCOR-2025-0471 at 39071 East Colonial Highway

• Withdrawal: The appellant, represented by Michael J. Overson, withdrew this appeal during the hearing, stating the issues would be more appropriately addressed in the second appeal. The board accepted the withdrawal without a vote.

APPL-2026-0004 – Appeal of Permit #ZONC-2025-054564 at 39081 East Colonial Highway

• Staff Presentation: Planner David Moore explained that the zoning permit was issued for a 150-foot telecommunications monopole at the Hamilton Safety Center (a volunteer fire and rescue station). Staff argued the monopole is a by-right accessory use to the fire station under Zoning Ordinance Section 4.0708.D.1.b, and is exempt from a commission permit because the fire station is shown on the Comprehensive Plan. The facility would host AT&T FirstNet and other carriers, addressing coverage gaps. —Appellant Position: Attorney Michael J. Overson argued that the monopole requires a commission permit under Section 10.09, and that the exemption for “features shown on the comprehensive plan” does not apply because the plan shows only a fire station, not a monopole. He further contended the tower is incompatible with surrounding development, would reduce property values by 15–20%, and is not genuinely accessory to the fire station (since Fire & Rescue is merely a customer). —Public Testimony:
  • Dustin Whitmer (Hamilton resident): Supported the tower, citing a serious coverage gap; he could not make calls in an emergency.
  • Randall Farron (Hamilton resident, outgoing Planning & Zoning employee): Opposed the tower, stating it would alter the rural character and harm property values; he questioned whether the monopole was contemplated in the original special exception plat.
  • Juliana Edwards (neighbor): Opposed, citing visual impact and adequate existing coverage.
  • Amber Meisenheimer (Hamilton resident): Opposed, emphasizing the loss of rural views and adequate personal cell service.
  • Graham Thompson (nearby resident): Opposed; he has reliable coverage and argued a tower at Clark’s Gap already addresses gaps.
  • Thomas Bannerton (HOA president): Opposed, noting existing infrastructure (water towers, Dominion poles) that could be used instead.
  • Ben Bruno (Hamilton Estates): Opposed, questioning the tower’s necessity and suggesting alternative funding for the fire station. —Permit Holder and Property Owner Testimony:
  • Heather Beardsley (President, Hamilton Safety Center): Supported the tower, explaining lease revenue funds life-saving equipment and operations; the tower is subordinate in size and intensity, and FirstNet will improve emergency communications.
  • Oswald Reyes Chica (Milestone Towers): Supported, noting consistent county interpretation over 30 years; the tower is screened by trees, complies with FAA and VDHR, and fills a demonstrated coverage gap. —Board Deliberation:
  • Mr. Gray: Argued that the Board of Supervisors, through the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, has designated fire and rescue stations as preferred locations for monopoles, and the zoning administrator’s consistent interpretation should be upheld. He found the appellant did not rebut the presumption of correctness.
  • Mr. Kanonico: Disagreed, stating the “accessory” characterization was a stretch and that a commission permit is needed to evaluate site-specific factors like need, compatibility, and impact. He considered the linkage between the Comprehensive Plan fire station icon and a monopole too tenuous.
  • Mr. Moyes: Expressed concerns about the dual principal/accessory status and the automatic approval of towers at every fire station without individual review. —Votes:
  • Motion to deny the appeal (uphold the permit) failed 2–2 (Mr. Gray and Mr. Clark in favor; Mr. Kanonico and Mr. Moyes opposed; one member absent).
  • Motion to grant the appeal (overturn the permit) also failed 2–2 (Mr. Kanonico and Mr. Moyes in favor; Mr. Gray and Mr. Clark opposed).
  • Due to the tie, the appeal did not pass, and the zoning administrator’s permit stands.

Key Outcomes

• Variance (BOZA-2026-0002): Denied. The board found the applicant did not meet the burden to show strict application would unreasonably restrict property use.
• First Appeal (APPL-2026-0001): Withdrawn.
• Second Appeal (APPL-2026-0004): Tied vote; the permit for the monopole remains valid. The zoning administrator’s decision is upheld.
• Administrative Items: The next BZA meeting is scheduled for November 19, 2026; no October meeting will be held.