Progress on Western Loudoun rural zoning amendments

By Katie Northcott

Stakeholders reached a consensus about several aspects of Western Loudoun zoning ordinances at Loudoun County’s Transportation and Land Use Committee’s (TLUC) meeting on April 24.

Four Loudoun County Supervisors and three members of the Loudoun County Planning Commission met with nine representative stakeholders to discuss Western Loudoun zoning laws relevant to the farm industry.

Supervisor Caleb Kershner (R-Catoctin) said one of his constituents wished to be nominated as a representative stakeholder. However, a member of the Planning and Zoning staff told this person that he was ineligible. When Kershner asked the County Attorney about the situation, the County Attorney said that the person was eligible.

“I hope in the future that if there are those decisions or determinations or suggestions being made by staff on whether a person should or should not participate in this process just because they have a zoning issue or whatever it may be, that is run by the County Attorney’s office,” Kershner said.

This meeting is the third in a series of stakeholder meetings that are part of a zoning revision process the Board of Supervisors conducted for the entire county. The Board chose to focus on Western Loudoun separately from the rest of the county because of the community’s unique needs.

The stakeholders and government officials hoped that the zoning ordinance revisions should strike a balance between allowing property owners profit from their land and supporting residents who want to enjoy the quiet of the country.

The discussion featured seven topics: value-added agriculture, consistency between lodging uses, sawmills, definitions, agricultural structure setbacks, and conservation easement density. Three of these topics are highlighted below.

Value Added Agriculture

The first issue up for discussion was value added agriculture. Discussion centered around definitions for “agritainment” and “agritourism”. 

“If I do think there’s a difference—and I do think it’s a pretty murky one—I would say that agritainment is what happens and agritourism is where it’s happening,” Chair Phyllis Randall (D-At Large) said. “But having said that, I think the difference is murky enough that those two things could be collapsed.

With no objections, the group agreed to proceed with deleting “agritainment” and changing the definition of “agritourism” to conform to the state code.

Consistency Between Lodging Uses with Noise Regulations and Setbacks

Discussion turned to the inconsistency between the standards for bed and breakfast homestays, bed and breakfast inns, country inns, and rural resorts.

Currently, outdoor music is permitted later for country inns and rural resorts than for bed and breakfasts. Manisha Shah, who spoke on behalf of the Bed and Breakfast Guild, asked that the standards be consistent for each use. Shah said the guild would like 11 p.m. to be the cut off for outdoor music on weekends and 10 p.m. on weekdays.

Randall suggested the committee consider setbacks before considering noise. However, Supervisor Michael Turner (D-Ashburn) disagreed.

“If we start moving setbacks, we’re going to start having a lot of non-conforming locations in Loudoun County, and I think it’s going to drive you back to something you can regulate, which is the amount of noise,” Turner said.

Kershner agreed with Turner. Commissioner Robin Eve Jasper objected, saying that country inns may start opening too close to the property line and having daily outdoor parties.

“As rural uses become harder and harder to maintain and the quality of our rural communities deteriorate through more development, I think it will incentivize more people to move in that direction,” Jasper said.

Randall suggested a grandfathering clause and reminded the committee that the goal is to find a balance between allowing residents to both profit off their land and enjoy the quiet atmosphere of a rural community. TeKrony said the committee should also consider the impact on the network of gravel roads in Loudoun County’s rural areas.

Kershner concluded the discussion by encouraging the bed and breakfast, country inn, and rural resort owners to self-regulate.

“If you don’t self-regulate, you will be regulated,” he said.

He reminded the committee that there is a demand for more of these types of businesses. He warned that if the demand was not met in Loudoun County, businesses would move elsewhere.

Ultimately, the committee did not reach a consensus on this issue and will continue discussion at the seventh meeting about the rural zoning ordinances.

Definition of “Farm”

The committee discussed adding a definition of “farm” the zoning ordinance. Previously, zoning relied on definitions of broader categories like “agriculture,” “agricultural operations,” and “agricultural products”. The idea of defining the term “farm” received pushback from some stakeholders and from planning and zoning staff.

“I do not support a definition of a farm. This is defined in the state code as well as at a federal level by the IRS,” said Justin Wisch, owner of Longstone Farms, “A county-specific definition will create further confusion and misunderstanding throughout the zoning ordinance for staff and county officials for an industry that is facing daily pressures from existing regulations and land development opportunists.”

The committee agreed that it was best to continue without defining “farm.”

“As one of the groups that got this discussion started about the definition of ‘farm,’ I have talked to Jason and the staff, and I think their strategy on defining ‘agricultural operation’ and ‘agriculture’ and ‘agricultural products’ is a good path forward,” conservationist Chris Van Vlack said, “because we weren’t really concerned about ‘you’re a farm, you’re not a farmer, are those crops you’re growing really a farm?’ It was more about folks who were already in violation of zoning.”

Summary

At the end of the meeting, the committee reached a consensus on several issues. Planning and zoning staff would make a definition of agritourism that complied with state code, create its own use, make it accessory, and add agricultural operations as its primary use. They would delete agritainment from the zoning ordinance. Staff would review the impacts of cultural tourism and keep it in the ordinance.

Sawmills will now require a minor special exception.

Staff will not pursue a definition for farm but will look at agricultural operations and agricultural products definitions.

Agricultural structures will receive an exemption that allows for the replacement of those structures due to natural disasters.

Conservation easements will not count toward additional density.

None of these changes to the zoning ordinances are final but are recommendations of the committee.

Planning and Zoning staff aims to complete the zoning ordinance revision project by 2027. Four stakeholder meetings are upcoming, and three have already been scheduled. The dates are listed in the box.