Loudoun County Zoning Ordinance Committee Fencing and Floodplain Discussion (February 13, 2026)

An ad hoc work session of the Zoning Ordinance Committee (ZOC) brought together county staff and agricultural stakeholders to discuss proposed floodplain ordinance changes affecting agricultural fencing. No formal agenda or minutes were available for this session. The discussion centered on lowering the floodplain accessory-structure threshold for agricultural fencing from 840 to 600 square feet, the definition of exclusion fencing, and FEMA no-rise certification requirements. No votes were taken.

Discussion Items

• Proposed threshold change: Staff explained that both major and minor floodplains currently allow agricultural fencing up to a limit, beyond which a special exception is required. The proposed zoning ordinance would lower that limit from 840 to 600 square feet, matching a FEMA accessory-structure recommendation. Staff described 600 square feet as about the size of a residential garage or shed. Because FEMA treats a fence as a structure, Loudoun County must regulate it as one.
• Exclusion fencing in the proposed rewrite: Maggie noted that exclusion fencing would be added as its own permitted use, so it would not be limited by the square-footage threshold; however, it would still require a zoning permit and a FEMA no-rise certification.
• Post-footprint calculation: The 600-square-foot limit is based on the footprint of the fence posts, calculated using the pi-r-squared formula, not on linear fence length. Bill Hatchet, a Western Loudoun cattle farmer, said a fencing project that used roughly 6,000 nine-inch round posts would exceed the threshold, and ordinary pasture and cross fencing can easily run long distances across a floodplain.
• Hatchet position: Bill Hatchet said farms need agricultural fences in floodplains for cattle control, and exclusion fencing is an environmental benefit because it keeps livestock out of streams. He asked the committee to broaden the exception beyond the draft exclusion fencing definition so farmers are not caught in a costly special-exception process for ordinary agricultural wire fencing.
• Exclusionary versus agricultural fencing: Staff read the draft exclusion fencing definition as a system of fencing, such as barbed, high-tensile, or electric wire, installed to exclude livestock from water courses for water quality improvement. Chris, from the soil and water conservation district, said the difference between exclusion fencing and general pasture fencing is often a distinction without a difference, because the same wire fence can serve both purposes; he supported considering a broader agricultural fencing definition.
• FEMA and no-rise requirements: Staff and Chris clarified that exclusion fencing is an allowed use and does not need a special exception, but it is not exempt from zoning permitting or from the FEMA no-rise requirement. Any fence in a floodway requires a no-rise certification and a zoning permit. Chris estimated no-rise studies for fencing in the 1,500 to 3,000 dollar range, and riparian buffer tree-planting studies around 8,500 dollars. For soil and water conservation projects, grant funding can cover these costs.
• Federal advocacy: Dale suggested asking the Board of Supervisors or the Virginia congressional/senate delegation to seek changes to FEMA rules. Staff and Chris noted that county staff and multiple previous members of Congress, including Congresswoman Wexton and Senator Kaine, had already tried multiple times without success. Gwen added that the no-rise interpretation is a FEMA-wide national policy, not a local or regional one.
• Proactive zoning enforcement: Dale expressed concern that proactive zoning enforcement could suddenly target long-existing farm fencing. He described a 177-acre Trap Road operation that had operated for about 20 years and was recently told it needed a special exception. Staff responded that agricultural fencing would be an allowed use, so it would be unlikely to trigger enforcement, and a fence installed without a permit could be remedied by obtaining a no-rise certification.
• Simpler fencing definition: Dale suggested defining agricultural fencing by construction type, such as wire fencing that lets water flow through, rather than by whether it is exclusionary, so farmers do not have to determine which regulatory box applies. He also questioned whether fencing on lands enrolled in open-space or conservation programs should be included.
• Environmental distinction: Tia agreed with exploring a broader agricultural fencing definition but stressed that fencing that blocks or moves water must continue to be treated separately. The committee chair said ZOC would treat agricultural/exclusionary fencing as one category and all other fencing as a separate issue.

Key Outcomes

• No formal vote or decision was made; the session was an information-gathering discussion.
• The committee directed staff to explore whether the exclusion fencing definition could be expanded to cover broader agricultural wire fencing and to bring draft options back to ZOC.
• Staff reiterated that the county cannot waive the FEMA no-rise certification requirement for floodplain fencing; any permitted fencing still requires certification.
• The item will be placed on the next ZOC meeting agenda for March 4, 2026. Staff may provide draft language by March 3 if ready; otherwise, the discussion will continue at a later meeting.