Unlimited Events Debate Exposes Rural Divide at Special BOS Meeting

By Sophia Clifton

The debate over the future of western Loudoun came down at the Board’s May 4 meeting to two competing visions of rural life.

For winery and brewery owners in Loudoun County, private events such as weddings, concerts and festivals are more than supplemental income—they are viewed as an important part of the economic model that helps sustain farms and rural businesses. 

For nearby residents those events have increasingly raised concerns about traffic, noise, public safety and growing commercial activity in rural residential areas long defined by quiet roads, farmland and open space.

Those competing visions dominated a special May 4 meeting of the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors focused on Western Loudoun Rural Uses and Standards. At the center of the debate was whether wineries and breweries should be permitted to host an unlimited number of events each year.

The sharpest fight centered on Motion 20, a proposal that would have allowed farm wineries, limited breweries and limited distilleries to host private parties and events “with no limitations on the number of such,” provided they complied with state alcohol laws. 

County staff opposed the proposal, warning that unlimited events could worsen traffic, noise and safety concerns on rural roads. Instead, staff backed an alternative approach centered on use-specific standards tied to the size and intensity of operations.

During public comment, winery and brewery owners repeatedly argued that limiting events would threaten the survival of rural businesses already operating on narrow margins.

Peter Deliso of 868 Estate Vineyards told supervisors that events are inseparable from the agricultural business model.

“Events are not incidental. They are essential,” Deliso said. “We sell wine by bringing customers to our property. These events are an integral part of our business. They are not something separate.”

Steve Bazzo of Bazzo Family Vineyards described events as the direct driver of wine sales. “For us, events equal on-premises wine sales,” He said. “It’s the only reason we operate.”

Tollga Baki of Hillsboro Winery and Brewery argued that the county was standing in the way of ordinary business activity.

“Any artificial limits on these events amounts to the county literally standing between us and our ability to sell our products,” said Baki.

Amee Henkle of Lost Creek Winery pointed to the dramatic expansion of Loudoun’s wine industry over the past four decades, saying events and tasting rooms are what allow farms to survive economically.

Kate Zurschmeide of Great Country Farms urged supervisors to support Motion 20 and avoid what she called unnecessary regulation and “capping out revenue potential.”

Residents painted a far different picture of life beside increasingly event-focused rural businesses.

Britton Rogan, an equestrian resident and horse farm operator, described how nearby event activity has directly affected her agricultural business.

“What we’re seeing is a by-right agricultural use operating at a level that is no longer consistent with the size of the parcel,” Rogan said. 

“On less than 15 acres, this neighboring operation is regularly bringing hundreds of people on site, and transporting additional people by shuttle daily. 

“That level of activity functions like a high capacity commercial or special event use, but it is not subject to the same performance standards. The impacts are measurable,” she explained.

“The increased traffic on rural roads, early morning— by the way, my family was awoken at 5:15 this morning—and late night activity, the smell of sewage, noise, trespassing, and conditions incompatible with adjacent uses that include my residence and my horses,” she added.

Rogan said she has already lost clients “because the surrounding environment no longer meets the expectations for a safe, consistent agricultural setting.”

Gem Bingol, Senior Land Use Field Representative with the Piedmont Environmental Council, urged supervisors to preserve stronger protections in the county’s Mountainside Overlay District, arguing that sensitive mountain areas deserve additional scrutiny, not fewer restrictions.

“We continue to promote greater protections than generally proposed in the motions for the sensitive MOD.”  She described the MOD as a valuable asset that deserves a waiver-based, case-by-case approach instead of blanket changes.

John Ellis, who lives near two rural establishments, described weekends dominated by competing outdoor music.

“On Saturdays and Sundays of most weekends from spring to fall it sounds like who’s competing to make more noise,” Ellis said. “We cannot play our own music in our own backyard because we cannot hear it over what’s happening.”

Maura Walsh-Copeland summarized the frustration felt by many residents who believe the county has spent years revisiting the same issues without establishing firm standards.

“After three rural ZOAMs, it’s time for your staff and citizens to get off the rural uses roller coaster,” she said.

Walsh-Copeland argued that Loudoun has clear authority to regulate local land use decisions involving events and public safety.

“The business costs of compliance should never supersede public safety,” she said. “Loudoun does have authority to set consistent hours of operation, and set consistent setbacks and parking ratios that are needed for the protection of children and patrons, and trespass, noise, and road issues.”

Supervisor Caleb Kershner (R-Catoctin) emerged as the board’s strongest defender of the winery and brewery industry, warning that tighter regulations could devastate one of western Loudoun’s most recognizable economic sectors.

“If we even speak about limiting these and their ability to do that, we are going to ruin the wine industry, the brewery industry that we have grown accustomed to and enjoy in Loudoun County,” Kershner said. “It is a very dangerous path that we walk down.”

Kershner argued that Virginia state law limits the county’s ability to regulate farm wineries and breweries. 

“I am literally in shock that we’re talking about regulating one of the most important businesses to Western Loudoun, and we don’t know the problems that actually exist,” he said.

Supervisor Laura TeKrony (D-Little River) pushed back, arguing that the county has spent years hearing complaints from residents affected by increasingly intense rural event operations.

“Unlimited events with unlimited guests flies in the face of public input that we have heard for 10 years now,” TeKrony said. “Unlimited events on a 10-acre brewery—that is not okay. I don’t know how it could ever be okay.”

TeKrony advocated for use-specific standards addressing parking, road access, amplified music and lighting.

“I just want to make sure the standards include parking, road access, road upgrade, and outdoor amplified music,” she said. “We really do need to be looking at use-specific standards that help mitigate the use … take into account the impact of the neighbor.”

Supervisor Mike Turner (D-Ashburn) acknowledged the exhaustion surrounding years of zoning debates.

“My sympathies to the members of the finance committee,” Turner said. “I’ve been doing this for two years, and now I’m confused.”

Tensions escalated after Kershner attempted to add language emphasizing that any future standards must remain strictly consistent with state law. Turner rejected the amendment, prompting Kershner to imply that supervisors were willing to exceed their legal authority.

“I’ve been a supervisor for six years,” Turner responded. “It’s the first time I’ve ever been accused by a colleague of advocating that the staff violates state law. It really astounds me that that is tolerated by this board and this chair.”

Supervisor Matthew Letourneau (R-Dulles) attempted to calm the dispute, reminding colleagues that no final ordinance language had yet been written.

“If we’re that unsure that staff is following the law, then we have bigger issues than what’s here that need to be addressed,” Letourneau said. “I’m not gonna look at staff and say that you’re not following state law.”

The board eventually retained Motion 20 after a 4-4-1 tie vote, with Supervisor Sylvia Glass (D-Broad Run) serving as the tie-breaking “yes” vote to make the final vote 5-3-1. 

Supervisors later approved a separate motion directing staff to explore use-specific standards for rural event operations, including parking, roads, lighting and amplified music. That motion passed 7-1-1, with Kershner opposed.

The board also debated operating hours. Chair Phyllis Randall (D-At Large) proposed capping Sunday operations at 9 p.m., saying residents deserve evenings without loud music extending late into the night.

“I do believe that people have the right to, some days, have things go down and not go hearing music all the way to 11 o’clock or 12 o’clock at night,” Randall said.

That proposal failed in a 4-4-1 tie. Kershner then successfully moved to extend Sunday hours to 10 p.m., which passed 7-1-1, with Randall casting the lone dissenting vote.

By the end of the meeting, supervisors remained divided over whether wineries and breweries in western Loudoun should be allowed unlimited events and more flexible operating hours in rural residential areas. 

At its May 19 meeting, the Board of Supervisors voted 5-4 to revisit the issue of event limits for wineries and other agricultural venues after Supervisor Kristen Umstattd (D-Leesburg) asked the board to reconsider direction from May 4. 

Several supervisors cited concerns about public safety oversight, fire code compliance, and the County’s ability to monitor large gatherings as reasons to continue evaluating potential event cap options before a final decision. Kershner, who originally raised the issue at the May 4 meeting, opposed reopening the discussion.