Dog trainer’s zoning issue is more than just a neighborly dispute

With respect to your article in the Rappahannock News Daily (“Sperryville dog trainer appeals challenge from neighbors,” Jan. 31), I feel that it is unfortunate that the headline and the article frame this matter as a dispute between neighbors.

The headline, for example, would be more informative if it read:

Sperryville Dog Trainer appeals Notice of Violation from Zoning Administrator.

Ms. Wagner was advised even before she purchased her property, and therefore obviously before any complaints by neighbors, that her dog training activities could only take place “by right” on the portion of her property zoned Commercial General, and that a Special Use Permit would be required to use any land zoned Agriculture for those activities. Ms. Wagner has so far chosen not to apply for such a Special Use permit.

The Zoning Administrator repeated this admonition in several more communications, requesting that Ms. Wagner cease and desist her activities on the land zoned

Agriculture, and encouraging her to apply for a Special Use Permit, before finally issuing the Notice of Violation on Oct. 25, 2022.

While it is true that I, as a neighboring property owner, complained to the Zoning Administrator about Ms. Wagner’s use of land zoned Agriculture for her dog training activities, neighbors cannot issue a notice of violation. In this case the Zoning Administrator did not base her decision on complaints made by neighbors. She made a personal visit to the property, with the County Administrator and the Commonwealth Attorney, before issuing her Notice of Violation.

Therefore, to represent this matter as primarily a dispute between neighbors is misleading, or at least, does not tell the whole story. I hope you will make a FOIA request to receive the paper trail between the Zoning Administrator and Ms. Wagner before writing future articles about Ms. Wagner’s appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision.

Thank you. Sharon Luke Washington