Decision set an ‘alarming precedent’
Isupport the efforts of Charlotte Wagner to have a dog training facility on her commercially zoned property in Sperryville.
However, I am troubled by the recent decision of the BZA which overturned a ruling of our county zoning administrator which had required Ms. Wagner to obtain a special use permit if conducting dog training operations on agriculturally zoned property adjacent to her commercial lot. The BZA decision potentially sets a dangerous precedent and should be appealed by the county.
The BZA ruled that because other dog training facilities in the county appeared to be operating without a special use permit, that created precedent which relieved Ms. Wagner of the obligation to obtain a permit. Thus, the BZA appeared to reason that if our county zoning administrator fails to enforce an ordinance in some cases, or makes an erroneous decision, future parties no longer have to comply with the underlying zoning ordinance. The apparent effect of this is to allow Ms. Wagner a by-right use to operate a dog training facility without any restrictions or limitations not otherwise imposed in agricultural zoning districts.
Under our zoning ordinance, certain uses are allowed as a matter of right, while others, because they may have a greater impact on neighboring properties or important scenic or other resources, require a special use permit.
These special uses may be made compatible with the zoning district through the imposition of special conditions and restrictions. This is neither unfair, nor anti-business, but rather is a means of enabling the maximum number of uses while still protecting the scenic and rural resources clearly identified in our Comprehensive Plan.
Twice recently Ms. Wagner applied for special use permits for these same dog training operations on different agricultural parcels in the county. Her permit application was ultimately approved by both the Planning Commission and the BZA, with both boards applying the special use permit requirements to dog training operations on agricultural lands. Conditions were imposed that were satisfactory to Ms. Wagner, including vegetative screening, limitations on hours, lighting and the nature of the training (such as no guard dog training) and others.
The BZA decision potentially sets an alarming precedent for our entire zoning ordinance, allowing lack of enforcement or a single erroneous decision by the zoning administrator to negate the underlying zoning requirements for future parties. Such a ruling is unsettling at best, and while arguably beyond the authority of the BZA in any case, should not be allowed to stand. Mary Katherine Ishee Sperryville