“Let the mountains stand as they are” – BOS discusses Mountain Overlay District policies

By Grace Bennett

As the fifth in an extensive chain of eight meetings hosted by the Board of Supervisors, staff and representatives gathered on Sept. 30 to discuss western Loudoun rural uses and standards. Staff hoped to receive stakeholder input to inform future changes to the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan—a task begun with a meeting in November of 2024.

Conversation up until this point had already addressed a litany of topics (and grievances) raised by the community. Liveries, stables, outdoor recreation, agricultural processing, tenant housing, farm lodging, agritainment, sawmills, building code exemptions, conservation easements, wineries, breweries, limited distilleries … all received attention within the past year.

Now, the Board was on to discussing the standards and costs of mountainside development, feature protections, tree clearing and land disturbance, and the regulations surrounding signs for businesses.

The first step lies in understanding the significance of changes being made to the 2019 Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.

The 2019 Comprehensive Plan is, according to the information item outlined by staff, the “guiding document for land use policy in Loudoun County.” Its objective is to “foster land use patterns that safeguard natural, cultural, and agricultural resources … [it] provides a framework for managing development in environmentally significant locations to protect steep slopes, moderately steep slopes, and mountainside areas.”

The Loudoun County Zoning Ordinance is broader in scope. It “currently maintains a comprehensive framework for the regulation of the MOD (Mountain Overlay District) and Signage.”

The issue, however, is that such guidelines—while helpful in extreme circumstances—can often act as an overly restrictive barrier to property owners. Many attendees of the Sept. 30 meeting reported horror stories of waiting months at a time for permits and paying a fortune to do something as simple as building a shed or chicken coop.

“We hamstring people to come through a process that takes twelve to eighteen months to come through with the specs of almost any kind,” observed Mark Miller (Catoctin).

Casey Chapman, a residential representative, stated, “I think it is a fair ask that we don’t overregulate or overcomplicate to the point where people cannot afford or even be able to—under new regulations—drive an outcome that is beneficial to their planning, their legacy farm, or their family.”

When a property owner is forced to consider grading permits, land disturbances, tree coverage, slopes, drainage, conservation, permeable surfaces, and wildlife habitat preservation, it’s no wonder that so few personal projects are undertaken.

Recognizing this fact, staff is bringing the issue to the Board to present the possibility of special exceptions, simplification of the process, and increased flexibility with a set of clarified guidelines.

After discussing the difficulties of those restrictions, staff turned the conversation to mountainside feature protections. Current regulations state that all natural springs must be given a 300-foot setback for the sake of ecological protection. Staff asked if this setback is too strict and, if so, whether it should be reverted to the ruleset from 1993 that placed setbacks at 100 feet.

Robert Wilbur, a conservation specialist and soil scientist, was adamant. “I would just like to put in that the 300-foot setback, especially in a sensitive region, really makes sense from a conservation perspective,” he said. Wilbur added that it was vital to “[make] sure that flexibility doesn’t become a loophole.”

Several attendees and Board members appreciated the professional input. Chapman expressed that “it would also be acceptable on a case-by-case basis to provide the flexibility … to look at two different studies done by other experts to see if there is an impact to make a final determination.”

Caleb Kershner (Catoctin) pointed out the restriction as being rather “draconian.” Three hundred feet, he explained, would be the length of a football field.

Staff promised to provide their reasoning in their next report. But for now, the goal was to listen rather than come to a consensus, and Robin-Eve Jasper (Little River) encouraged putting off a decision until the Board could be properly informed on the semantics of the setback.

Peter Weeks, representing the agricultural sector, made a statement as soon as discussion turned to tree cover clearing and land disturbance. “We don’t want to have excessive clearing of trees on the mountains,” he declared, “period.”

Wilbur offered elaboration. “The reality is that when you take something down, there’s a lag time, even in the best-case situations, to restore the value that [the land] had.” Even with optimal replanting conditions, he explained that it would take 30 years for a plot of land to recover its ability to provide the same environmental services as before.

The Board understood their meaning and expressed hesitation to remove established root systems and mature trees—even with the promise of planting more trees elsewhere. Staff is taking their collective input into consideration for outlining the conservation requirements for building new structures on the mountainside.

Signage, thankfully, proved to be a far simpler topic. The meeting attendees were unanimous: the current rules should be kept with no further restrictions imposed or removed. 

“I would sure like to see our sign ordinance that we have in place work before we go and change it,” remarked Mark Miller. Donnie Walker, a resident of the Catoctin district, added that he’d collected feedback from neighbors and found that people are saying that they have no issues with the current ordinance.

Todd Henkle, the owner of Lost Creek Winery, summarized the difficulties of reconciling tourism and business-owning with a short speech by the podium. 

“Like many here, I’m a conservationist at heart and want to protect the beauty and tranquility of western Loudoun,” he said. “But I’m also a businessman who knows thriving agricultural enterprises which include vineyards, wineries, and their partners are essential to preserving open space and resisting unchecked sprawl.

“These businesses are very hard to run, but they’re a huge part of why we live, work, and raise our families here in Loudoun County. 

“So if you’re a wine lover in this room, take this with you: Loudoun County, and Virginia as a whole, isn’t capable of making wine. It is capable of making world-class wine. Wine that commands global attention. Those bottles won’t come from the valley floor or a thin strip along the Potomac or a forgotten block of land next to Dulles Airport. These wines will come from the slope soils and elevations of the MOD.”

Speaking beyond business and tourism, attendee Scott Seeberger insisted that western Loudoun’s Mountain Overlay District is integral to the community’s legacy.  “To weaken protection here is to erode not only our environment,” he said, “but also our identity and responsibility to future generations.”

Following the most recent Oct. 22 meeting, staff will compile feedback and return to the Board of Supervisors on Nov. 5 to discuss food service.