Stakeholders and staff move to combine agritourism and 'agritainment,' favor state definition

Loudoun County staff and Western Loudoun stakeholders on April 24 agreed that the zoning ordinance should not retain separate, competing terms for agritourism and agritainment and recommended instead adopting the state agritourism definition.

At issue is how the county regulates farm‑based visitor activities — from “pick‑your‑own” and educational farm tours to harvest festivals and corn mazes — and whether those activities should sit under the zoning code’s agricultural support standards or under the county’s cultural‑tourism rules.

Staff overview and state definition

Planning staff told the committee the current local distinction between agritourism (regulated under cultural tourism) and agritainment (regulated under agricultural support uses) is “murky” and can produce inconsistent outcomes. During the meeting a stakeholder, Justin Wish, read the state definition on the record: “Agritourism activity means any activity carried out on a farm or ranch that allows members of the general public, for recreational entertainment or educational purposes, to view or enjoy rural activities, including farming, wineries, ranching, horseback riding, historical, cultural, harvest‑your‑own activities, or natural activities and attractions. An activity is an agritourism activity whether or not the participant paid to participate in the activity.” (transcript citation: 3.2‑6400)

Several stakeholders — including farmers and operators of farm businesses — urged the county to treat agritourism as accessory to bona fide agricultural operations and to align local language with the state code to reduce confusion and protect legitimate farm practices. "We support those operations being agriculture first and tourism second," said stakeholder Molly Croys, framing a recurring theme among speakers who said visitor activities should not displace working agriculture.

Committee direction

Committee members and staff signaled agreement on a path forward: collapse the two local terms into a single agritourism use aligned with the state agritourism statute, ensure agritourism is regulated as an agricultural support/accessory use (so that agricultural operations remain primary), and revisit the county’s cultural tourism language to determine which non‑agricultural visitor uses belong under that heading.

Concerns and next steps

Stakeholders and some committee members asked staff to ensure the adopted language preserves protections for ordinary farming activities while limiting the use of agricultural exemptions to avoid permitting environmentally damaging site work (clearing steep slopes, working in floodplains) under the guise of agritourism. Conservation and soil‑and‑water representatives said conservation plans and clearer definitions of “agricultural products” and “agricultural operations” can help prevent misuse of agricultural exemptions.

Staff said it will draft ordinance language that: (1) replaces separate local agritainment/ agritourism definitions with a single agritourism definition aligned with state code; (2) treats agritourism as accessory to agricultural operations; (3) flags the agritourism liability notice required by state law; and (4) returns to the committee with recommended edits and cross‑references to the county’s cultural tourism provisions.

Why it matters

How the county defines agritourism affects which rules apply to farms that host visitors, the kinds of events allowed, and the county’s ability to protect environmental overlay areas and neighbor interests without blocking farm revenue streams that support rural livelihoods.