Winchester City Council approved a zoning text amendment on second reading Tuesday that adds definitions and performance standards for “humanitarian service facilities” and establishes where charitable provision centers are permitted.

The measure, O.2025‑4 (TA‑25‑7), was the subject of a public hearing during which Diana Simpson, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice in Arlington, Virginia, told the council she believes parts of the draft ordinance raise constitutional concerns under the Equal Protection Clause and cited the U.S. Supreme Court precedent City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center.

Simpson said the ordinance’s conditional‑use‑permit requirement for some humanitarian service facilities and charitable provision centers could treat similar land uses differently based on who they serve. “The equal protection clause requires government to treat similar uses in a similar manner,” Simpson said. She urged council to reject the amendment or revise it to avoid singling out unpopular groups.

City staff and the zoning administrator told council the draft text was revised following meetings with nonprofit providers in May and that no changes had been made since the first reading. The city attorney said he had reviewed the proposed amendments and discussed potential federal‑law impacts with staff but did not offer a definitive legal opinion. “I can’t say that [there is] zero risk,” the city attorney said, describing the question of whether the new rules treat like facilities differently as a matter that could be decided by courts.

Council members asked whether nonprofits that would be affected had expressed remaining concerns; staff reported follow‑up with the Highland Food Pantry and said it had received no new correspondence since the last meeting. Councilors also discussed whether the conditional‑use‑permit (CUP) process could be applied in a way that effectively prevents facilities from opening; staff acknowledged the CUP is a discretionary process that could be used to deny applications, and that such use would carry legal risk.

After discussion, a councilor moved to approve the text amendment “as presented.” The motion was seconded and carried on a roll‑call vote. The meeting record shows affirmative roll‑call responses; the council declared the ordinance approved.

The amendment also repeals the prior category for “philanthropic and charitable institutions” and replaces it with more specific definitions and performance standards aimed at clarifying where and how humanitarian service facilities and charitable provision centers may operate in the city.

Council materials indicate the item was re‑advertised because substantial changes were made after the first reading and that staff sought final action at this meeting. The city attorney and zoning administrator both told council that the draft is similar in approach to prior text considered in 2021 but that differences in interpretation could create legal risk if applied unevenly.

The council proceeded to other business after approving the item; no additional amendments to TA‑25‑7 were adopted at the meeting.