Transportation and Land Use Committee Special Meeting on Western Loudoun Rural Uses and Standards CPAM/ZOAM - September 30, 2025
Transportation and Land Use Committee Special Meeting on Western Loudoun Rural Uses and Standards CPAM/ZOAM - September 30, 2025
The Transportation and Land Use Committee (TLUC) held a special meeting on September 30, 2025, to receive stakeholder input on proposed amendments to the Mountainside Overlay District (MOD) and signage regulations in Western Loudoun County. The meeting featured staff presentations, invited stakeholder comments from business, residential, and conservation sectors, and a committee-of-the-whole discussion on five key topics. No votes were taken; staff will return to a future TLUC meeting for direction on drafting ordinance language.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Business Sector (Vineyards/Wineries) – Tremaine Hatch, Steve Bazo, and Todd Hinkle urged the committee to allow greater flexibility in the MOD to support vineyard and winery operations. They argued that prime vineyard land lies within the MOD and that current regulations are cost-prohibitive and hinder expansion, which is essential for farm viability and world-class wine production. Hatch noted that his family farm cannot subdivide forested land for residences without a costly special exception.
- Residential Sector – Casey Chapman stressed the need for balanced regulations that allow property owners to use their land without over-regulation, advocating for flexibility and a tiered review process. Bonnie Mattingley emphasized preserving the mountain's scenic beauty, dark skies, and water resources, opposing new uses that compromise MOD protections. Donnie Walker pointed to burdensome permitting for small structures (e.g., sheds, chicken coops) and argued for administrative flexibility, particularly for small lots, and for simpler grading permits.
- Agricultural/Conservation Sector – Peter Weeks (Friends of the Blue Ridge Mountains) opposed weakening MOD protections, citing the value of forest canopy and clean water, and urged no new commercial uses in the MOD. Robert Wilbur (Soil and Water Conservation District) highlighted the importance of protecting steep slopes and sensitive soils, cautioning against loopholes for agricultural exemptions that could lead to excessive clearing. Scott Sieberger, a resident near a commercial establishment, described negative impacts from clearing and traffic, advocating for stronger enforcement of MOD protections.
- Planning Commission Representatives – Rob and Eve Jasper called for balancing economic opportunity with stewardship, warning against over-concentration on vineyards similar to data centers. Mark Miller raised concerns about the Euclidean zoning system and suggested considering form-based zoning for greater flexibility. He noted that the sign ordinance was extensively developed and should be given time to work before significant changes.
Discussion Items
- Topic 1: Regulatory Standards, Flexibility, and Development Costs in the MOD – Staff presented the current prescriptive standards and asked whether greater flexibility should be allowed based on use type (residential vs. commercial) and whether a tiered review process (e.g., administrative approvals, minor special exceptions) could be implemented. Many stakeholders supported a tiered approach for small-scale, low-impact projects. Supervisor Kirchner emphasized the need to support farm businesses to prevent conversion to residential development. Chair Randall and Vice Chair Turner noted that several of the proposed considerations were administrative in nature, not lowering standards.
- Topic 2: Mountainside Feature Protection (Spring and Ridge Setbacks) – The committee discussed the 300-foot spring feature setback (established in the General Plan and aligned with the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite). Conservation representatives argued the setback is appropriate for protecting water recharge and sensitive soils. Business and residential stakeholders questioned the basis for the increase from 100 feet, citing no known issues. Some suggested a case-by-case review process. Staff noted that the 300 feet came from the General Plan to align with the Risper requirement. No consensus was reached; staff will research the basis.
- Topic 3: Tree Cover Clearing and Land Disturbance – Staff presented complex tables limiting tree clearing to 15–25% of forested area depending on slope and sensitivity. Many stakeholders supported simplifying the criteria and clarifying exemptions. Several questioned the 30% forest retention requirement for non-residential uses. Conservation representatives opposed offset systems, noting that replanting cannot quickly replace mature tree functions. Mr. Walker raised concerns about small lots where drain fields might exceed tree clearing limits. Staff noted that the 5,000 sq ft threshold for grading permits is being considered for minor disturbances.
- Topic 4: Sign Size, Number, and Illumination – Staff asked whether the current sign regulations, adopted in 2023, are working or need adjustment. Most stakeholders (planning commission, business, residential) agreed that the sign ordinance has not generated significant issues and should be left alone. Mr. Hinkle raised a specific problem: off-premise signs on easements are prohibited, preventing vineyard access signs. Vice Chair Turner suggested a lease arrangement might solve the property issue. Staff clarified that murals on barns are considered signs but do not count against the allotted square footage.
- Topic 5: Separation of Sign Categories for Residential vs. Nonresidential Uses – Staff proposed considering whether signs should be regulated by use (residential versus commercial) rather than by zoning district. Planning Commissioner Miller argued that within villages, consistent signage standards are preferred to maintain character. Stakeholders indicated no strong demand for change.
Key Outcomes
- No formal decisions or votes were taken during the meeting.
- Staff will compile stakeholder input and present a summary at a future regular TLUC meeting.
- The committee will hold three follow-up directional meetings: December 17, 2025 (food service, MOD, signage); January 2026 (farm wineries, limited distilleries, bed and breakfast); and a third after the eighth stakeholder input session (miscellaneous items).
- Staff will provide additional information on the reasoning behind the 300-foot spring setback and will research the feasibility of a tiered review process for MOD activities.
- The committee acknowledged the need to balance environmental protection with economic viability of farm operations, and will continue discussions on flexibility and administrative streamlining.
Meeting Transcript
Here we are. All right, good evening, everyone. I would like to call to order the September 30th, 2025, Transportation and Lane Use Committee special meeting. The route this room has a hearing loop. If you need hearing assistance, switch your hearing aids to the telecoil mode. If you need a headset, we have those available as well. Please see the clerk to request one. For this special meeting, committee members will be allotted two minutes for questions, and we're gonna structure tonight's meeting in the following order. Staff will provide their introductory presentation following staff's presentation. The TLUC members will have two minutes to ask questions. Then I will call on each stakeholder to provide their comments. Each stakeholders will be allotted three minutes, and I thank you, all the stakeholders who are here tonight. We will then take a dinner break, and after returning the committee and invited stakeholders, we'll then move to the tables in front of the dais for a committee of the whole. We will go through the five issue topics that staff has detailed in the item in the following committee of the whole setup. Staff will introduce the issue topic and then they'll probably go through a few slides just to give some background information on the issue topic. We will hold a 20-minute committee of the whole session with a two-minute time limit per speaker. Each person will speak only once per topic. So that's within the 20 minutes of the time that we have. Starting with tonight's meeting, we are making slight adjustments to our process to facilitate an efficient meeting and ensure we gather feedback from all stakeholders on every agenda topic. At the conclusion of tonight's meeting, the staff will provide the committee with a brief summary of the meeting's highlights. However, committee members are not expected to finalize their positions on the issues during this meeting. After this input session, the staff will return to a future regular TLUC meeting to summarize the discussions and receive guidance from the committee, the TLUC committee, on the agenda topics before they begin to draft proposed text. Okay, at this time, staff will present the item. And following staff's presentation, each member will be allotted two minutes for questions. Thank you, madam chair. Welcome to the fifth stakeholders input meeting for the Western Loudon Rural Uses and Standards Project as we uh continue to review the uh zoning ordinance regulations on specific top topics uh in Western Loudoun. Uh just to look at the schedule uh tonight is the fifth meeting. Uh going forward, we do have three additional stakeholder meetings uh left. Uh October 22nd will be bed and breakfast. That's a continuation of a discussion that we began on April 24th. Uh November 5th will be food trucks, food service, and rural restaurants. And in addition, uh of particular note, that will also be the night we will continue our discussion on farm wineries, limited breweries, and limited distilleries uh that we held in, I believe July. Uh, and we will basically discuss the items that we did not get to at that meeting. Uh the eighth uh meeting uh is scheduled for a date to be determined, uh most likely in early 2026. That will be uh the meeting that we discuss miscellaneous items that we did not have a resolution on and just general general cleanup items. Now, as uh the chair indicated, there will now be uh additional TLUC meetings where uh TLUC will be providing staff with direction. Those uh direction meetings uh right now we are anticipating three of them. Uh the first one to be on December 17th, uh, where we will discuss food service mountainside overlay district and signage. Uh the second one will we will discuss the farm winery limited limited distillery and bed and breakfast uh category uh tentatively scheduled for January, and then the third uh directional meeting will uh essentially be uh scheduled following the completion of our eighth stakeholder input meeting, which was the miscellaneous and overflow meeting. Um as we indicated previously, this meeting is is uh designed to discuss the mountainside overlay district and signage. Uh we are looking to receive stakeholder input and discuss these issues. Uh we want to have a robust discussion. We want to get uh different viewpoints and uh essentially uh we want to make sure that uh we uh we cover all aspects of the of the issue so that when we uh you know go to that directional meeting, uh TLUC has the information they need to make make decisions on uh which direction they want staff to go as far as drafting uh the ordinance. Um again, I I just want to emphasize as I do every meeting that you know some of these issues uh do uh bleed into other topics, uh you know, recognize that that we are going to impact other areas of the zoning ordinance with our discussions. We'll make notes of that and we'll revisit visit those if it is an issue that we need uh additional direction on in the future. With that, I'll turn it over to David and he will uh give a general overview of the zoning ordinance requirements that we will be discussing tonight. Thank you. Thanks, Brian. So I'm just gonna jump right in, but the sections that we'll be focusing on today are section 504 for the mountainside overlay district, chapter 8 for the sign regulations, and chapter 12 for the corresponding definitions related to the topic areas that we'll be discussing tonight. Um before I jump into providing an overview of section 504, I did want to define covered activities as that is a very prevalent term throughout the mountainside overlay district regulations.
openpublica.com