St. Mary’s County Planning Commission opened a public hearing April 27 on a proposed zoning text amendment that would expressly allow wineries in the Rural Preservation District (RPD) and the Residential Low‑density (RL) zones, add a definition of “winery” to chapter 90 of the zoning ordinance, and create site‑specific standards for processing and limited on‑site events.

The amendment was introduced by Shay Shelley, a county planning staff member, who said the change would add wineries to “use type 2, agricultural industry minor” and add standards to section 51.3. Shelley read a proposed definition into the record: “a producing vineyard or orchard with facilities for processing and fermenting grapes and other fruits into wine. Includes bottling, aging, storing, and shipping of wine. In the RPD, it may include administrative office functions for the winery, incidental retail sales of wine, and related promotional items, wine tasting events, promotional events, incidental to the winery, and food service.”

Why it matters: staff and industry presenters said the change is intended to recognize agritourism and help farmers diversify after the expiration of tobacco payments. Bob Schaller of the Department of Economic and Community Development told the commission that Porta Leonardtown Winery is under construction and that more commercial wineries could support local grape growers and regional tourism.

Industry representatives described local capacity and plans. Richard Ford, identified as the president of the Southern Maryland Wine Growers Cooperative, said small wineries could self‑distribute and sell at tasting rooms and events; larger operations that exceed certain production thresholds typically must use a distributor. Bruce Perrigo, coordinator with the Maryland Grape Growers Association, said wineries often rely on event income such as weddings and receptions to be financially viable and noted local examples in Virginia as precedent for co‑located tasting and banquet activity.

Commissioners pressed staff on several points: whether wineries may process grapes grown off‑site, how state licensing (class 3 and class 4 winery licenses) affects on‑site retail and distribution, whether breweries or distilleries should be considered in the same amendment, and how events and “food service” should be defined. Shelley said the state limits the label “Maryland wine” to wine made from Maryland grapes unless the Secretary of Agriculture authorizes imported fruit; she also said staff was not proposing brewery or distillery language in this amendment but could consider them separately.

Use and event controls: staff proposed allowing limited wine tastings, promotional events and incidental sales as part of the winery definition, while larger special events such as wedding receptions would be handled through a separate banquet/conference facility standard. Because conference facilities are currently allowed in the RPD only as part of planned unit developments (PUDs), staff recommended amending use type 44 (conference facility) to include banquet facilities and to change that approval from PUD to conditional use in the RPD, so events with higher impacts would be subject to Board of Appeals review.

Public comments and next steps: no members of the public sought to speak during the hearing, and the commission voted to leave the record open for 10 days for written comment. Commissioners asked staff to refine the draft language to better define “food service” and to explore whether agritourism should be addressed through a broader “agritourism” classification. The commission did not make a final recommendation; staff will return with revisions and the hearing record for consideration at a later meeting.

Context and constraints: staff repeatedly noted that state licensing and federal requirements set limits on what a county ordinance can require; Shelley and industry speakers said state law governs wholesale/retail distribution and some licensing details. Commissioners agreed the proposal warrants additional drafting attention — particularly to ensure that accessory event uses do not become the primary use of a site without appropriate review.

Ending: the planning commission kept the hearing open for 10 days for written comment and directed staff to return with clarified language on event/food service definitions and options for addressing banquet facilities and agritourism uses in the RPD and RL zones.