Transportation and Land Use Committee Special Meeting: Western Loudoun Rural Uses and Standards CPAM/ZOAM – July 16, 2025

The Loudoun County Board of Supervisors Transportation and Land Use Committee (TLUC) held a special meeting on July 16, 2025, as the fourth stakeholder meeting in the CPAM-2024-0002 and ZOAM-2024-0002 process reviewing Western Loudoun rural uses and standards. The meeting focused on farm wineries, limited breweries, and limited distilleries. Committee Chair Supervisor TeKrony presided and set a hard stop of 10:30 p.m. No minutes were provided in the source material, so this summary is based on the agenda and raw transcript.

Staff Presentations

• Planning and Zoning staff introduced the item, noting future stakeholder meetings: September 30, 2025 (mountainside overlay and signage), October 22, 2025 (bed and breakfast), November 5, 2025 (food trucks, food service, and rural restaurants), and an early 2026 catch-all meeting. Staff noted ABC was invited but unavailable; a supplemental memo contained ABC's written responses, many of which were unanswered because ABC's legal counsel said answers would depend on specific facts.
• Karen Bergen of the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) presented on food safety jurisdiction. She explained that VDACS regulates retail food establishments and manufactured food products; wineries, breweries, and distilleries can be VDACS-inspected if food preparation is limited and does not involve raw animal protein, while complex food preparation and raw protein handling fall under the Virginia Department of Health. Inspections are risk-based, occurring roughly every 12 months, 18 months, or 3 years, and VDACS investigates 100% of complaints.
• County Attorney Jason Hobby summarized Virginia Code provisions for farm wineries, limited breweries, and limited distilleries. He said farm wineries have the most protection from local regulation, limited breweries somewhat less, and limited distilleries the least. He noted the Code uses terms such as "substantial impact" and "reasonable" without precise definitions, leaving localities discretion in drafting regulations.

Invited Stakeholder Input

• Richard Rasmus, a Hamilton resident, described a proposed brewery on 17 acres near his farm with plans for 265 parking spaces and eight buses. He said the property could not credibly be considered a farm operation and urged uniform standards, including review of counties such as Fauquier.
• A representative later referred to as "Mr. Fabbioli" said the craft beverage industry had helped build the rural economy, businesses need room to evolve, and he was concerned about overregulation.
• Scott Seiburger, a Blue Ridge Mountain Road resident, said a limited brewery near his home operated as a commercial entertainment venue under a zoning loophole, and he urged strict on-site agricultural requirements, noise caps, event limits, inspections, and stronger protections for the mountainside overlay district.
• Tol Gabaki of Hillsborough Winery and Brewery, vice chair of the Loudoun County Brewers Association, said limited breweries and farm wineries collectively preserve over 3,000 acres, host nearly one million visitors annually, generate nearly $50 million in economic impact, and are regulated by 27 federal, state, local, and private agencies. He urged a light-handed approach and said the limited brewery law intentionally omitted growing requirements because processing facilities were not yet available in Virginia.
• Lacey Huber of Stone Tower Winery, secretary of the Virginia Wineries Association, said events are integral to selling farm product and economically sustaining farmland. She said additional local regulation could stop investment and lead to more housing in Western Loudoun.
• Kate Zerschmid of Great Country Farms, Bluemont Vineyard, and Dirt Farm Brewing cited a May 8 poll in which over 82% of respondents wanted to promote farming and preserve open space while discouraging subdivisions, and only 3.8% wanted to limit business uses. She urged solutions that help rural businesses thrive while addressing noise, lighting, and traffic concerns.
• Scott Hamburger of Blue Valley Farm, a former founder and CEO of Fortessa, said he operates a 100-acre working farm near at least seven wineries and breweries that collectively preserve thousands of acres. He argued that zero adverse impact is impossible and called for the lightest possible regulatory touch, while still expecting businesses to be good neighbors.
• Chris Suarez, a Loudoun resident and brewing industry professional, quoted a congressional record statement supporting agritourism and said agritourism is an economic imperative that helps farmers pay taxes and maintain land.
• Doug Smith, speaking as a residential representative, said residents near ABC uses experience noise, headlights, trespassing, road congestion, accidents, and potential septic strain from large crowds. He called for uniform regulations consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies 3.1 and 3.2.
• A later unlabeled stakeholder warned that unrestricted "booze tourism" could inflate land values and undermine genuine agricultural activity.
• Dale Poland Myers, a fifth-generation farmer and planning commissioner, recalled the 1988–1990s farm crisis and the "200-acre/1,000-acre solution" preservation plan. She said many current concerns sound like enforcement issues, not a need for heavy new regulation, and warned against taking a "sledgehammer" to the industry.

Committee of the Whole Discussion

Topic 1: On-Site Agricultural Operation and Production

• Staff asked whether farm wineries, limited breweries, and limited distilleries should have to meet the county's agricultural operation definition to qualify for building and fire code exemptions. Building official Raymond Rinaldi explained the Code of Virginia definition of farm structure and said occasional wedding use may be permitted by an Attorney General opinion only if it does not supersede the primary agricultural use.
• Fire Marshal Micah Kiger said his office has limited ability to inspect agricultural-exempt structures, and he asked participants to consider safety because he does not want to "be the reason there are statistics."
• Supervisor Kirchner cited zoning noise complaint data from the Catoctin District: 62% of noise-related complaints were determined unfounded, 36 complaints were resolved through warnings or minor infractions, and only 2% resulted in formal citation.
• Supervisor Kirchner suggested using the Commissioner of Revenue's existing land-use assessment process, which requires applicants to document acreage, crops, and livestock every five years under penalty of law, as one way to verify bona fide agricultural operations. Staff and the County Attorney agreed this could be one criterion but not necessarily the only one.
• Some industry representatives warned that the state has not defined specific on-site growing amounts for breweries and distilleries and said imposing local thresholds could conflict with state law and create lawsuits. No formal consensus was reached on the agricultural operation definition.

Topic 2: Separate Limited Distillery Use

• Staff noted limited distilleries are not currently identified as a separate use in the zoning ordinance and are treated like limited breweries. The County Attorney said the Virginia Code gives localities broader authority over limited distilleries, including noise regulation, than over limited breweries.
• The committee generally appeared to support creating a separate limited distillery use with its own use-specific standards rather than folding it into the limited brewery definition.

Topic 3: Use-Specific Standards for Commercial Wineries, Limited Breweries, Limited Distilleries, and Farm Wineries

• Hours of operation: Discussion centered on whether hours should be consistent across the uses. Some supervisors preferred earlier weekday hours and slightly later weekend hours; Vice Chair Turner said midnight was too late for rural Loudoun; several winery representatives said the current 11 p.m. noise ordinance effectively serves as their event cutoff. Fauquier County was cited as having 9 p.m. Monday–Thursday, 11 p.m. Friday–Saturday, and 10 p.m. Sunday. No consensus was reached.
• Noise: The committee generally agreed that the existing 55-decibel property-line standard should be retained and applied consistently to indoor and outdoor areas. Enforcement, especially after hours and on weekends, was highlighted as a key issue.
• Road access: Current standards apply only to commercial wineries; farm wineries, limited breweries, and limited distilleries have no road access standards. DTCI staff noted that road adequacy depends on width, geometry, sight distance, and other factors, not just pavement. Supervisors discussed whether to apply traffic thresholds or performance standards and whether new regulations could discourage rural businesses. No consensus was reached.
• Parking: The current standard is eight spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, which does not count outdoor licensed areas. Stakeholders said field or pervious parking should be allowed and that overflow parking designation and zoning permit exhibits should be strengthened. No final decision was made.
• Buffering and screening: Limited breweries and farm wineries currently have no buffer requirements; commercial wineries are subject to Chapter 7 buffer standards under certain conditions. Some supervisors supported requiring buffers based on proximity to existing dwellings, while others warned against penalizing businesses when new neighbors move in. No consensus was reached.
• Setbacks: Current setbacks vary by use, including 25 feet for farm wineries and 50 feet for limited breweries/distilleries. Board Chair Randall said setback issues were not among the complaints she receives, and several participants warned that changing setbacks could create many nonconforming structures. The committee did not agree to increase setback requirements.

Topic 4: Accessory Events

• Staff explained that the county's zoning administrator has consistently interpreted weddings and other events not directly related to winery or brewery operations as requiring temporary special event permits or a separate banquet/event facility use, although the Code of Virginia provides for "usual and customary" activities and events.
• Several industry representatives argued that events are simply another way to sell their wine and beer and should be treated as part of normal business operations. Supervisors and staff noted that if a use qualifies as a bona fide agricultural operation, agritourism events could be permitted by right up to certain limits, while non-agricultural commercial operations would still need special event permits or banquet facility approval. The issue was not resolved.

Key Outcomes

• No formal votes or binding consensus were recorded; the meeting functioned as a stakeholder and committee work session for staff to refine draft language.
• Staff were directed to explore using the county's existing land-use assessment process as a possible basis for verifying agricultural operations, while considering additional criteria.
• There was general support for creating a separate limited distillery use rather than continuing to treat it as a limited brewery.
• The remaining accessory events discussion was deferred to the November 5, 2025 meeting, which will also cover food trucks, food service, and rural restaurants, to avoid overlap and accommodate industry schedules.
• Staff were asked to consider enforcement capacity, including potentially assigning new zoning enforcement positions to after-hours and weekend work in Western Loudoun.
• The next scheduled meetings in the series are September 30, 2025; October 22, 2025; November 5, 2025; and an additional early 2026 catch-all meeting.