Zoning: Outdoor firing range didn’t require special permit

Where a couple were not operating a firing range on their property as a business venture, it was exempted from the County noise control ordinance.

Background                                                       

The Nelson County Board of Supervisors appeals an order of the Circuit Court of Nelson County overturning a Board of Zoning Appeals, or BZA, decision requiring Thomas and Juliette Wagner to obtain a special use permit for an outdoor firing range on their property. On appeal, the Board of Supervisors argues that the trial court misinterpreted the language of the zoning ordinance by focusing on the meaning of the word “conjunction” instead of the idiom “in conjunction with.”

Analysis

It is uncontested that the term “outdoor firing range” in the zoning ordinance at issue here is an undefined term. Assuming without deciding that the definition of “outdoor firing range” used below was correct, the trial court was tasked with determining how the idiom “in conjunction with” contained in the language of the zoning ordinance affected the application of the “County noise control ordinance” to this specific zoning ordinance and, subsequently, the determination of whether the Wagners were required to obtain a special use permit or not.

The Board argues that the trial court’s erroneous focus on the definition of merely the term “conjunction” rather than the idiom “in conjunction with” led to an improper determination that the zoning ordinance and the County noise control ordinance were to be read as one. The trial court determined that the “plain meaning” of “conjunction” was “a state of being joined” and, therefore, read the zoning ordinance in “a state of being joined” with the County noise control ordinance to determine that the Wagners did not need a special use permit to operate an outdoor shooting range on their property.

While this court agrees with the Board that the trial court erred in determining that the plain meaning of just the word “conjunction” rather than the idiom “in conjunction with” controlled the analysis here, the definition of either the lone term or the whole idiom would lead the trial court to the same result. The definition of “conjunction” applied by the trial court was “a state of being joined” whereas the idiom “in conjunction with” another means “together with.”

Though slightly different, these definitions are functionally the same and affect the reading of the zoning ordinance identically. To read the phrase “outdoor firing range” “in a state of being joined” with the phrase “County noise control ordinance” leads to the same result as reading “outdoor firing range” “together with” “County noise control ordinance.” Thus, the trial court had to look to the County noise control ordinance to determine how it applied to the zoning ordinance at issue.

In reading the zoning ordinance together with the County noise control ordinance, it became clear that because the Wagners were not operating the firing range on their property as a business venture, it was exempted from the County noise control ordinance and subsequently the Wagners were not required to obtain a special use permit.

Affirmed.

Nelson County Board of Supervisors v. Wagner, Record No. 1633-24-3, Sept. 16, 2025. CAV (unpublished opinion) (Fulton III). From the Circuit Court of Nelson County (Doucette). Phillip D. Payne IV, for appellant. VLW 025-7-259. 6 pp.