From: Jim Bonhivert <jgdwntr@aol.com> Date: May 2, 2015 at 6:37:41 AM EDT To: "McDaniel, Kyle" <Robert.McDaniel@fairfaxcounty.gov> Subject: Re: Loudmouth Brewery-UPDATE

Thank you Kyle for your prompt reply. We look forward to hearing how this policy takes form for the county. It is totally insane to try to think of a logical scenario where a commercial operation is allowed to be constructed without adequate consideration for public safety, environmental and community impacts.....right in the middle of otherwise highly controlled residential housing. We can't even repair our patio deck without a permit. Absurd, Kyle. Our state and county governments are top notch and this is an uncharacteristic loophole through which common sense escapes. You guys have the ability to close this loophole. Please do it. But the way, if there is such ambiguity, why doesn't the county take the position that suits the majority of its constituents instead of one or two zealous alcohol factories? Why? Ambiguity can be useful. In this case it appears that it Is being used as an escape. " We have our hands tied and nothing we can do" How hard have you tried? The legal debate over the winery should be made public so we can answer that question for ourselves. Homeowners should not be put in a position where they have to sue their own government to provide basic protection. There is a growing suspicion in this community that the county government is focused on generating tax revenue more than protecting its citizens. This is a great opportunity to Prove us wrong, please. I think we all know how this SHOULD turn out. We count on you guys to make that happen. That is why we elected you. Please try to remember me and let me know how this turns out so I can inform the 1000 or so citizens that are following this subject with great interest In the watershed in Pats district. Thanks Jim Bonhivert Sent from my iPad On May 1, 2015, at 9:32 PM, McDaniel, Kyle <Robert.McDaniel@fairfaxcounty.gov> wrote: I wish it were that cut and dry but it is not. The county is waiting on its attorneys to come out with their opinion and for AG Herring to issue an opinion. There is also a lawsuit in Chesapeake on a similar matter that can also bring clarity. There is a lot of ambiguity and room for interpretation on this. More clarity will come soon. Thanks,

Kyle McDaniel Policy Director Office of Supervisor Pat Herrity 571-425-7584 Sent from my iPhone

(10) Farm Breweries in Clifton Fact Page

https://www.facebook.com/groups/903447006393351/permalink/910343699037015/[4/30/2015 9:37:39 PM]

GROUPS

EVENTS

Hal Moore

Edit Profile

FAVORITES

News Feed

Messages

Events

APPS

Games

Find Friends

Photos

Pokes

Saved

Create Group

Farm Breweries i…

PAGES

Pages Feed

Like Pages

Create Page

Create Event

Joined

Discussion Members Events Photos Files

Farm Breweries in Clifton Fact PageClosed Group

532 members (531 new)

See All

GROUP INFO

MEMBERS

Invite by Email

DESCRIPTIONThe purpose of this page is to disseminate factual information to concerned residents. Please t... See More

TAG:Clifton, Virginia

CREATE NEW GROUPS

Groups make it easier than ever to share with friends, family and teammates.

RECENT GROUP PHOTOS

SUGGESTED GROUPS

Northern Virginia Bass Fishing499 members

Virginia Tech Parents981 members

Create Group

See All

Join

Thomas McGrath

I sent the following email to Chairman Sharon Bulova with a copy to Supervisor Pat Herrity yesterday. If I receive a response, I will post it here.

Note: Words appearing in all caps below were actually in bold in the original text to emphasize key point and not caps, but it doesn't appear that you can bold text in Facebook.

[begin text]

Chairperson Bulova,

I have read your email to Mr. Bonhivert and find that you have selectively chosen language from SB 430 and, therefore, totally misinterpreted the intent of the law in at least two important ways.

In your email you quote the law as saying that the breweries must be "…located on a farm in the Commonwealth…" while the law actually says it must be located "on a farm in the Commonwealth ON LAND ZONED AGRICULTURAL…" This is a critical difference that should have been clear to anyone making a careful reading of the bill.

You also stated that "the bill limits local regulation of limited brewery licensees and specifically prohibits the imposition [by local government] of minimum parking, road access, or road upgrade requirements on any licensed limited brewery." Again, this is incorrect. SB 430 actually states that “it is the policy of the Commonwealth to preserve the economic vitality of the Virginia beer industry WHILE MAINTAINING APPROPRIATE LAND USE AUTHORITY TO PROTECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE COMMONWEALTH. And in paragraph C. it states that “any locality MAY exempt any brewery licenses in accordance with subdivision 2 of 4.1-208 on land zoned agricultural from any local regulation of minimum parking, road access, or road upgrade requirements,” but you are not REQUIRED to. For you to interpret this law in the way that you have causes you to abrogate your responsibility to the citizens of this county for their health, safety, and welfare.

Here is my interpretation:

SB 430 in section 4.1-208, Beer Licenses, states that the Board may grant licenses relating to beer to breweries “located on a farm in the Commonwealth on land ZONED AGRICULTURAL…”

SB 430 in section 15.2-2288.3:1 in paragraph A. states that “it is the policy of the Commonwealth to preserve the economic vitality of the Virginia beer industry WHILE MAINTAINING APPROPRIATE LAND USE AUTHORITY TO PROTECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE COMMONWEALTH. And in paragraph C. it states that

Yesterday at 5:12pm

Share Notifications

Chat

Hal Home Find Friends 8 2Farm Breweries in Clifton Fact Page

(10) Farm Breweries in Clifton Fact Page

https://www.facebook.com/groups/903447006393351/permalink/910343699037015/[4/30/2015 9:37:39 PM]

Create Ad

Fairview Elementary PTA250 members

What's Up At The Art Guild of Clifton52 members

Kings Park West1,050 members

SPONSORED

English (US) · Privacy · Terms · Cookies · Advertising · More

Facebook © 2015

Join

Join

Join

Join

Free Shippingdrgrab.com$69 for a Dash Camera with Super Night Vision! Easy to Use and Setup.

Don't you wanna try ?amazingmmogame.com# The most Sexy RPG game in 2015 ! This Game really Exist !

We don't play gamesourtime.comThe site exclusively for Mature Singles. Click here to start free today!

“any locality MAY exempt any brewery licenses in accordance with subdivision 2 of 4.1-208 on land zoned agricultural from any local regulation of minimum parking, road access, or road upgrade requirements,” but you are not REQUIRED to.

In a letter dated June 21, 2013, Kenneth Cuccinelli, then State Attorney General, drafted an advisory opinion concluding that “it is my opinion that authorizing agricultural uses in a Rural Residential Zoning district does not create an agricultural district or classification.”

Senior Attorney Maria Everett of the Division of Legislative Services, the drafter of SB 430 and the attorney who staffed the committees in both the House and Senate, stated in an email to Delegate Tim Hugo that “if the GA had intended to allow these breweries to operate in other zoning classifications where agriculture may be a permitted use, the GA would have know how to say that. It did NOT. She goes on to say that “the impact of these breweries is both agri-tourism as well as the manufacturing of beer. Large trucks come and go and when events are held there, there are lots of public that attend and such events are usually accompanied by bands of other festival-like activities. All of these activities require space and lots of it. Hence the requirement for land zoned agricultural.”

Although this property was placed in the Agricultural and Forestal District program, the Fairfax County web site states that the A&F designation does NOT change the zoning of the property and is a land use value assessment designation only.

Furthermore, the Code of Virginia in 15.2-4406 states that no parcel included within the district shall be developed to a more intensive use than its existing use at the time of adoption of the ordinance creating the district for eight years from the date of adoption of such ordinance. That eight year period has not passed pertaining to this property. Right now there is only a pre-civil war house and a barn.

Therefore, I don’t see how a reasonable person could conclude that permitting a brewery with an associated event center to be created or operate within a district zoned R-C Residential Conservation is either legal or a sensible use of delicate land in the middle of a residential area and in the watershed of the Occoquan reservoir.

I request that you study the law more carefully and come to the only logical conclusion--that a commercial and manufacturing facility that a brewery and event center actually represent do not belong in a district zoned residential conservation.

Thomas "Gerry" McGrath

From: "chairman@fairfaxcounty.gov" <chairman@fairfaxcounty.gov> Date: April 27, 2015 at 11:31:33 AM EDT To: "James E. Bonhivert" <jgdwntr@aol.com> Subject: RE: Loudmouth Brewery

Dear Mr. Bonhivert:

Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns regarding Loudmouth Brewery. I am aware of this development and have received updates from the Springfield District office regarding this matter. As this is a land use case in the Springfield District, I took the liberty of forwarding your correspondence to Supervisor Herrity’s office so that he is aware of your concerns.

As you may know, in 2014, the General Assembly passed SB 430. This bill created a “new limited brewery license for breweries that manufacture no more than 15,000 barrels of beer per calendar year, are located on a farm in the Commonwealth, and use agricultural products that are grown on the farm in the manufacture of their beer. The bill limits local regulation of limited brewery licensees and specifically prohibits the imposition [by local government] of minimum parking, road access, or road upgrade requirements on any licensed limited brewery.” For more information on this bill, please visit the state’s website at http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?141+sum+SB430 <http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-

(10) Farm Breweries in Clifton Fact Page

https://www.facebook.com/groups/903447006393351/permalink/910343699037015/[4/30/2015 9:37:39 PM]

bin/legp504.exe?141+sum+SB430> .

The Loudmouth Brewery site is in the Residential-Conservation (R-C) District. Agricultural use is permitted in the R-C District. This means that the farm brewery is a by right development and will not have to go through a public process in order to operate legally. For more information on the R-C District, please visit the County’s website at http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/…/zoningord…/articles/art03.pdf <http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/…/zoningord…/articles/art03.pdf> .

Please know that Fairfax County is looking into this new law and we will make sure that this development is in line with SB 430. County staff will give this development rigorous review and the site will have to adhere to all County regulations such as the noise ordinance.

Representatives from the Zoning Administrator’s office, my office and Supervisor Herrity’s office have met with the developer to discuss their plans for the brewery. The property is approximately 21 acres of land off of Yates Ford Road and Clifton Road. Both entrances onto the site will be from Yates Ford Road. The site includes 4 acres of agriculture, 10 acres of open space (wooded land), and a building for production and manufacturing as well as a tasting room with event space. There would be 105 parking spaces planned for this site.

County representatives asked about environmental controls within the development plans. We were informed that there would be two separate drainage systems. One septic system for sewage and another system for the waste from the brewing process. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would monitor the drainage from this site. The EPA has been contacted and will continue to be involved when the site is operating.

The County will continue to work with the community and the developer to minimize the impacts to the surrounding area. Thanks again for taking the time to write. Please let me know if I can be of further service.

Sincerely,

Sharon Bulova

Like · Comment

17 people like this.

Pam Barnett Very well presented! Thanks!!!Yesterday at 5:41pm · Like

Donna McGrath I used Gerry's letter to Sharon Bulova as part of my presentation at the Board of Supervisors.Yesterday at 6:54pm · Like · 3

Jane King Well that's a kick in the gut!!! Done deal or what?????Yesterday at 6:54pm · Like

Maryann Barbato Phelps Thanks Gerry! We need you on the BOS.Yesterday at 6:59pm · Like

Gene Stein Thank you Mr. McGrath for your comment and definition of the zoning laws. I have read quite a few comments and made a few myself but I feel now I fully get the picture. The agricultural use argument is a bit on the grey side and I sincerely hope the d... See More20 hrs · Like · 4

Dianne Janczewski very well said. Thank you.12 hrs · Like

Monica Byrne Kelly Kaufman Wolfe11 hrs · Like

Kelly Kaufman Wolfe Excellent. Thank you.10 hrs · Like

Press Enter to post.

Write a comment...

(10) Farm Breweries in Clifton Fact Page

https://www.facebook.com/groups/903447006393351/permalink/910343699037015/[4/30/2015 9:37:39 PM]

-----Original Message----- From: STEVEN WEIHROUCH [mailto:weihrouch@usa.net] Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 2:25 AM To: jgdwntr@aol.com; lhalmoore@cox.net; nlnahas1@vt.edu; boardmembers@glencairnhoa.com; residents@glencairnhoa.com Subject: Re: Fwd: Note to OWC Directors on the Loudmouth Brewery I don't know who David Schnare is, but the response to part 1 alone has my head spinning with its mendacity. "What will result from the Loudmouth venue we simply can't know, but experience suggests..." Huh? Comparing consumption use of a brewery with geothermal use? Seems that one could be explained only by either (1) he is an idiot, or (2) he seems quite comfortable operating under the assumption the people he is speaking to are idiots. Legal remedies? Totally absurd--that means--wait until everything is all screwed up, try to get money damages, in the meantime, don't worry about the fact that you will be deprived of enjoyment of your home, don't worry about the amount of time legal remedies will take after irreparable harm is sustained, and don't worry about whether the aggregate damages sustained might exceed the assets of the entity involved. I'm assuming his reference to "legal remedies" refers to monetary relief as opposed to injunctive/cease and desist relief. Even if he is including injunctive relief--his position is, wait until there is damage/harm, then try to put a stop to it. Utter nonsense--is he serious? Further--what is the "seem to think" not a problem comment based upon, particularly given the "we simply can't know" comment--quite cavalier on his part isn't it? I read a paragraph like that, and the take away is never believe a word this person says. In skimming the rest, seems like similar gibberish. Who is this clown? Dear Delegate Hugo and Delegate Barker,

Since our community meeting last Sunday the 26th, I have been corresponding with Fairfax County offices and with other Clifton residents. I am very much disquieted because both Sharon Bulova and Pat Herrity are referencing incomplete versions of the new Virginia law on farm breweries and seem to be wrongly concluding that the brewery must be allowed to go forward... without any public process, in Ms. Bulova's rather frightening words. Seriously??! Let's just plunk a water-hogging beer factory onto a residential, protected watershed area without any public process??! What ever happened to common sense? This is completely wrong for both legal and environmental reasons.

Please see below for Bulova's email correspondence and after that, Herrity's newsletter, both of which reference incomplete information on the law. Crucially - and suspiciously - the provision requiring land zoned agricultural is consistently omitted. The supervisors' correspondence below, despite assurances that the County will examine the law and adhere to it, seems to present the construction of the brewery as a foregone conclusion.

Our county officials are misusing and misinterpreting the Virginia law; there is a growing perception in the community that this could actually be intentional. Anything you can to to restore sanity will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

Robin Phillips _______

Dear Mr. ----,

Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns regarding Loudmouth Brewery. I am aware of this development and have received updates from the Springfield District office regarding this matter. As this is a land use case in the Springfield District, I took the liberty of forwarding your correspondence to Supervisor Herrity’s office so that he is aware of your concerns.

As you may know, in 2014, the General Assembly passed SB 430. This bill created a “new limited brewery license for breweries that manufacture no more than 15,000 barrels of beer per calendar year, are located on a farm in the Commonwealth, and use agricultural products that are grown on the farm in the manufacture of their beer. The bill limits local regulation of limited brewery licensees and specifically prohibits the imposition [by local government] of minimum parking, road access, or road upgrade requirements on any licensed limited brewery.” For more information on this bill, please visit the state’s website at http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?141+sum+SB430.

The Loudmouth Brewery site is in the Residential-Conservation (R-C) District. Agricultural use is permitted in the R-C District. This means that the farm brewery is a by right development and will not have to go through a public process in order to operate legally. For more information on the R-C District, please visit the County’s website at http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/zoningordinance/articles/art03.pdf.

Please know that Fairfax County is looking into this new law and we will make sure that this development is in line with SB 430. County staff will give this development rigorous review and the site will have to adhere to all County regulations such as the noise ordinance.

Representatives from the Zoning Administrator’s office, my office and Supervisor Herrity’s office have met with the developer to discuss their plans for the brewery. The property is approximately 21 acres of land off of Yates Ford Road and Clifton Road. Both entrances onto the site will be from Yates Ford Road. The site includes 4 acres of agriculture, 10 acres of open space (wooded land), and a building for production and manufacturing as well as a tasting room with event space. There would be 105 parking spaces planned for this site.

County representatives asked about environmental controls within the development plans. We were informed that there would be two separate drainage systems. One septic system for sewage and another system for the waste from the brewing process. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would monitor the drainage from this site. The EPA has been contacted and will continue to be involved when the site is operating.

The County will continue to work with the community and the developer to minimize the impacts to the surrounding area. Thanks again for taking the time to write. Please let me know if I can be of further service.

Sincerely,

Sharon Bulova

From: Robin PhillipsTo: Tim Hugo; George BarkerBcc: lhalmoore@cox.netSubject: Fairfax Officials Cherry-Picking Virginia Law re: BreweriesDate: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 6:07:57 PM

Dear Delegate Hugo and Delegate Barker,

Since our community meeting last Sunday the 26th, I have been corresponding with Fairfax County offices and with other Clifton residents. I am very much disquieted because both Sharon Bulova and Pat Herrity are referencing incomplete versions of the new Virginia law on farm breweries and seem to be wrongly concluding that the brewery must be allowed to go forward... without any public process, in Ms. Bulova's rather frightening words. Seriously??! Let's just plunk a water-hogging beer factory onto a residential, protected watershed area without any public process??! What ever happened to common sense? This is completely wrong for both legal and environmental reasons.

Please see below for Bulova's email correspondence and after that, Herrity's newsletter, both of which reference incomplete information on the law. Crucially - and suspiciously - the provision requiring land zoned agricultural is consistently omitted. The supervisors' correspondence below, despite assurances that the County will examine the law and adhere to it, seems to present the construction of the brewery as a foregone conclusion.

Our county officials are misusing and misinterpreting the Virginia law; there is a growing perception in the community that this could actually be intentional. Anything you can to to restore sanity will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

Robin Phillips

_______

Dear Mr. ----, Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns regarding Loudmouth Brewery. I am aware of this development and have received updates from the Springfield District office regarding this matter. As this is a land use case in the Springfield District, I took the liberty of forwarding your correspondence to Supervisor Herrity’s office so that he is aware of your concerns. As you may know, in 2014, the General Assembly passed SB 430. This bill created a “new limited brewery license for breweries that manufacture no more than 15,000 barrels of beer per calendar year, are located on a farm in the Commonwealth, and use agricultural products that are grown on the farm in the manufacture of their beer. The bill limits local regulation of limited brewery licensees and specifically prohibits the imposition [by local government] of minimum parking, road access, or road upgrade requirements on any licensed limited brewery.” For more information on this bill, please visit the state’s website at

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?141+sum+SB430. The Loudmouth Brewery site is in the Residential-Conservation (R-C) District. Agricultural use is permitted in the R-C District. This means that the farm brewery is a by right development and will not have to go through a public process in order to operate legally. For more information on the R-C District, please visit the County’s website at http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/zoningordinance/articles/art03.pdf. Please know that Fairfax County is looking into this new law and we will make sure that this development is in line with SB 430. County staff will give this development rigorous review and the site will have to adhere to all County regulations such as the noise ordinance. Representatives from the Zoning Administrator’s office, my office and Supervisor Herrity’s office have met with the developer to discuss their plans for the brewery. The property is approximately 21 acres of land off of Yates Ford Road and Clifton Road. Both entrances onto the site will be from Yates Ford Road. The site includes 4 acres of agriculture, 10 acres of open space (wooded land), and a building for production and manufacturing as well as a tasting room with event space. There would be 105 parking spaces planned for this site. County representatives asked about environmental controls within the development plans. We were informed that there would be two separate drainage systems. One septic system for sewage and another system for the waste from the brewing process. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would monitor the drainage from this site. The EPA has been contacted and will continue to be involved when the site is operating. The County will continue to work with the community and the developer to minimize the impacts to the surrounding area. Thanks again for taking the time to write. Please let me know if I can be of further service. Sincerely, Sharon Bulova

_________

Here is the applicable text of Mr. Herrity's newsletter. Note the link to the law does not present the reader with all of the facts:

Farm BreweriesRecently, an application was made to the Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control for the first farm brewery in Fairfax County. The farm brewery is proposed to be located on approximately 20 acres of land zoned to the Residential-Conservation (RC) District, located at the corner of Yates Ford and Clifton Road in the Clifton community. Last year the General Assembly passed (almost unanimously) and the Governor signed into law Senate Bill (SB) 430, known as the Farm Brewery Bill, with an effective date of July 1, 2014. This bill created a new limited brewery license for breweries that limits local regulation of farm breweries, similar to the farm winery bill that was passed by the Virginia Legislature and signed into law in 2006. You can read the approved law (Virginia Code§ 15.2-2288.3:1) here:

https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+15.2-2288.3C1 In response to this Farm Brewery proposal, a number of citizens in the Clifton community have expressed concerns regarding the proposed brewery, ranging from whether the use is permitted in the R-C District to environmental issues with regard to water usage, water quality, and septic controls, to other land use impacts such as traffic, noise and frequency of events which may impact the surrounding properties. It appears that the Farm Brewery would be deemed an agriculture use under our Zoning Ordinance, and agriculture is a permitted use in the R-C District as well as other zoning districts available in several of our magisterial districts. In light of this legislation and the concerns expressed by members of the Clifton community in response to the proposed farm brewery, I have directed the County Executive to prepare a memo for the Board on currently available and potential regulatory options to address farm breweries. Farm breweries have also been added to the agenda for the next Development Process Committee meeting. Within the authority provided by state law, I will work with County staff, residents and the landowners to protect the sensitive Occoquan Watershed which is the source of much of our drinking water and home to many County residents.

See below Dr. George J. Seiler From: Tim Hugo [mailto:DelTHugo@house.virginia.gov] Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 4:42 PM To: George Seiler Subject: Re: Brewery to be opened at Yates Ford and Clifton Rd Dear Dr. Seiler, Thank you for your email regarding your concerns with the proposed farm brewery in Clifton. I appreciate hearing from my constituents, and I value your views and concerns. First, in case you were not already aware, there will be a Q&A meeting with the property owner, hosted by the Clifton Betterment Association at the Clifton Town Barn on Sunday, April 26, at 4:00 PM. I will be attending, and I hope that you will as well. At that meeting, citizens will be able to voice their concerns. Let me be clear, like you, I have strong reservations with this proposal as it stands. The threats of large amounts of wastewater, impacts on our wells, increases in traffic, as well as a heightened risk of impaired drivers on Clifton’s roads are all community concerns which I share. Pending this informational meeting, I will continue to monitor this issue, and work with all parties involved to come to a solution which takes into consideration the community’s concerns regarding this proposed brewery. I look forward to Sunday’s meeting, which I hope will pave the way for a solution to this issue that addresses all involved parties’ concerns, and I hope that if you can that you take the time to attend. If I can ever be of assistance, please don’t hesitate to contact me at (703) 815-1201 or by email at delthugo@house.virginia.gov. Regards, Tim Hugo Delegate Timothy D. Hugo Majority Caucus Chairman Virginia's Fortieth District District: 703.968.4101 Richmond: 804.698.1040 DelTHugo@house.virginia.gov

From: George Seiler <gjseiler@seicorp.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 12:44 PM To: Tim Hugo Cc: Jason Seiler (JasonSeiler01@gmail.com) Subject: FW: Brewery to be opened at Yates Ford and Clifton Rd Tim Please read and get up to speed and oppose the brewery. I am forwarding details of the arguments against it. Dr. George J. Seiler

From: Robin PhillipsTo: donna.mcgrath@c21nm.comCc: Hal Moore; jgdwntr@aol.com; skime@cox.netSubject: Loudmouth - County Offices re: permits, zoning, etc.Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 1:23:13 PM

Donna et al,

I have called around to the county offices this morning. My intent is to make sure that the full-time county employees know what is going on. Elected officials come and go and may never be knowledgeable experts on county regulations or requirements, but the county employees work with all the variations of all the issues all the time. In every conversation I have mentioned that the lawyer, Mr. Strother, gave the residents the impression that he thinks they do not need permits to do what they want to do. This may explain why the county staff has not seen anything yet, but hopefully it is also setting off alarm bells.

Bottom line, no one I have contacted in the county admin offices has received any requests for permits, rezoning, exceptions, or any of those paperwork necessities that would be required to start work on the brewery. At that rate, I don't see how the Silva posse can honestly expect to have the business up and running by next March.

The Zoning Evaluation Division has no record of any permits or requests to rezone that address. They also said that a commercial operation "would not be allowed" in that area.

Yesterday I got hold of the Engineer of the Day in the division that handles permits, and she said that the brewery is a "hot topic" in the office. Still - no permits have been requested or issued.

I am also in contact with the Environmental Health people and will put in a request for data on local wells within a certain radius of the proposed brewery site. I hope to get a good feel for local water production capacity of the aquifer to see how much of a problem the brewery's large water use would be. Incidentally, the employee I spoke with said a number of other people had called in to express concern about this very topic.

Hoping this helps...

- Robin Phillips

From: Hal MooreTo: "Jim Bonhivert"Cc: "Natasha Nahas"; residents@glencairnhoa.comSubject: Brewery and Winery for CliftonDate: Thursday, April 16, 2015 10:27:52 AM

Jim, Agent Katie Kelly with VABC called me yesterday, and we had a long discussion. She clarified that we have not “lost the battle”. The “process” for an open public hearing with VABC is triggered early in this process. It starts with the publication of the applicant in various newspapers and public places, such as the Washington Post. Once that publicity has started, there is a 30 day period to organize a public input hearing. Mr. Silva started the publications on 17 February 2015. Agent Kelly clarified that the process for VABC approval is only beginning. Loud Mouth Brewery must still clear a lot of regulatory hurdles and undergo a number of administrative hearings before it is approved. She indicated that, other than being contacted by Mr. Silva’s lawyers and an initial application, most of the remaining steps on the checkoff list must still be completed before a license can be granted. Silva and his lawyers have not started submitting most of the documents that they are supposed to submit. There are apparently more than one “administrative hearings” that must be conducted. Normally, these would be conducted with attorneys for the Commonwealth and the applicant, combined with local planning, zoning, infrastructure, traffic, and health agencies. These hearings over the next few months will be our chance to voice our concerns. The VABC process is “messed up”, in that the opportunity for public commentary comes at the beginning of the process before all of the facts, artifacts, and submissions are in. Agent Kelly professes that she is curious as to “why no one has said anything by now.” The 2009-2010 disputes over Paradise Springs Winery and the earlier complaints about George Mason University turning Hemlock Park into Disneyland, were before her time. I told her that I cannot speak for myself, but I only was alerted by an email from a member of my neighborhood. I told her that I doubt that most Clifton residents peruse the back pages of the D section of the print version of the Washington Post. My guess is that she and others probably became aware of Loud Mouth Brewery through the Clifton Betterment Association. The CBA is hosting what is apparently a dog and pony show for Mr. Silva later this month. The Fairfax Underground discussion blog started on 6 April. Jim, from what you are telling me, the Occoquan Watershed Coalition is probably a “no go” in terms of support. But they did tell you that the approval of the Paradise Springs Winery was based on having the acreage populated with vineyards and hosting a maximum of 20 vehicles. What about the other home owner associations, such as Wyckland, Noble Estates,  and Mill Branch? They are the POAs directly affected by the winery and bar as they all have properties with entrances on Yates Ford Road directly.  I know residents in those communities, but don’t know the HOA

 presidents. If you know them do you want to contact them? I think that we should try to broaden the support for this effort beyond Glencairn. Are their residents aware of this license application? I have already “formerly” started a code enforcement violation complaint against Paradise Springs Winery. I have also requested on the VABC web site a “cause effect” administrative hearing against Paradise Springs Winery. This type of hearing asks “ If we had we known at the time Paradise Springs Winery’s license was approved that  it would become what it has become, would we  have ever approved it?” Finally, I submitted a request on the VABC website to disapprove the license request by Loud Mouth Brewery. However, a single person submitting an objection on a website is not going to be enough. I am also going to send letters with attachments to several entities. It will take some time, paper, and ink, but it at least puts the actors on notice. My priority is the Department of Code Enforcement and VABC. They seem to be the only public regulatory agencies willing to admit that they have a role in controlling Loud Mouth Brewery and Paradise Springs Winery. Other organizations Fairfax County Department of Health, FFX DPWES, FFX Zoning and Planning and VDEQ have it within their charter to regulate the winery and brewery, but choose not to. I am curious why Northern Virginia Parks does not react to the parking problem at Hemlock Overlook. My next priority is writing the politicians (Bulova, Hugo, Barker, and McAuliffe). They need to get energized and start asking the regulatory agencies in their areas of influence to take a harder look at what is going on here. None of the above will be enough. Their needs to be a letter sent by each of the home owner associations bordering Yates Ford Road to VABC and the politicians stating their concern about what has transpired with Paradise Springs Winery and how it is about to repeat itself with Loud Mouth Brewery. Now all of them will start to realize that there are bigger groups (with voters) that oppose these organizations. They need to lean on these regulatory authorities to “do their jobs.” The final step is a lawyer. A standard retainer for a real estate attorney would be $3,000-$5,000. They will not go to trial for that. But they will definitely write strongly worded letters to regulatory authorities that will cause “panic.” I think that it would be best if each HOA shared in that cost. I do not think that one can deal with the Loud Mouth Brewery issue without also dragging Paradise Springs Winery into the picture. I think that one of the first arguments that Loud Mouth Brewery supporters will put forth is “You have permitted Paradise Springs Winery to do A,B, and C. We are only asking for the same deal.” What gets me is the whole zoning and septic issues. The law that everything that was not grandfathered before 1982 in the Watershed had to use septic was the great protector against development. You can only accommodate a small facility with a standard septic field, certainly not a

 restaurant or something bigger as Paradise Springs has become or Loud Mouth intends to be. My septic system is bigger than that of Paradise Springs and probably Loud Mouth. I am required to periodically get it pumped out. I had to replace more than 10% of the surface boards on my rear deck last year. I had did not change its size or structure. I just replaced rotted boards.  I had to go to the Department of Health to get their “approval” so that they could ensure that I was not endangering my septic field. The Department of Health regulates me more than it regulates Paradise Springs Winery’s smaller septic field. Then the Department of Health tries to make up a really lame excuse that my wife, daughters, and I produce more effluent than the 1,000 visitors per day at Paradise Springs, plus the dishwashing of their stemware and dinner plates, as well as the laundry for their table linens and napkins. The “production facility” probably requires the use of clean up water that has to drain into the septic system. Moreover, I cannot believe that employees there never take a shower on premises.  The department of Health told me that my 750 gallon per day septic facility is designed for a house with 20 people (we have four). It does not make logical sense that this septic system can support this kind of load. Both the lots associated with Paradise Springs Winery and Loud Mouth Brewery are zoned “RC” (residential conservation). RC lots are not supposed to have businesses on their premises that can have an impact on the land. There are areas zoned “A” (agricultural) within the Watershed that are designed for such pursuits as commercial vegetable farming or horse boarding operations. But RC areas are supposed to prevent these kinds of businesses. There are certainly issues related to the traffic, parking, and drunken drivers, but the septic issue takes the cake. Paradise Springs Winery may complain that “we will have to shut down if we are limited to only 20 cars or 100 visitors at a time.” When they sought their permit they apparently had everyone convinced that they would only have a maximum of 20 vehicles at a time. They also had the VABC convinced that 51% of their wine sales would come from grapes produced on land “owned or leased” by Paradise Springs Winery. Agent Kelly told me that she does not know if Paradise Springs Winery can produce deeds or leases demonstrating compliance with this requirement. I would suspect that a much smaller percentage of their sales come from their own grapes and that the vast majority of their wine is produced in California, trucked here, where they then slap a Paradise Springs Winery label on it. No matter how nice the Kinchloes may be, they agreed to garage a Volkswagen Beetle, but are trying to squeeze in a Mack Truck. Marcus Silva is now learning from their example. Who is next? Loud Mouth Brewery is apparently not even bothering to hide the fact that they are going to “import” most of their brew. Most of their lot will be dedicated to an event center and parking, not a rustic brewery. These two organizations are in violation of zoning, health, and environmental laws and regulations. It is time for our regulatory authorities to hold them accountable.  Hal Moore703-963-0096   

Hal Moore703-963-0096 

From: Hal MooreTo: "Natasha Nahas"Cc: "Chris Potter"; "Jim Bonhivert"; "Suzy Foster"; "residents@glencairnhoa.com"Subject: RE: Brewery to be opened at Yates Ford and Clifton RdDate: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 3:59:56 PM

Natasha, I just spoke with Nestor at the Fairfax County Department of Health (703-246-2201). I asked him to let me know what type of septic system Paradise Springs Winery has and compare it to my septic system at 12840 Dunvegan Drive. He told me that they are both similar dual pump systems. My system on Dunvegan is the larger of the two systems (750 gallons per day) vs. Paradise Springs Winery (685 gallons per day). Nestor cautioned me that my family of four is not just using the toilet, but also showering, doing laundry, and washing dishes. I responded that 1,000 vs. 4 people is a big difference in bathroom usage. Moreover, Paradise Springs Winery has an extensive banqueting and wine tasting business, with lots of napkins and linens. They are probably running more loads in the dishwasher and laundry than I am. I asked Nestor if they are responsible for monitoring the septic systems in the County. He said “No, not really…we just look at the designs for permit approvals.” He pointed me toward DPWES. When I spoke with Vanessa Makeley at DPWES (703-324-5030) she said that the best place to call is Fairfax County Code Enforcement. She indicated that her husband is an inspector there. She transferred me to Code Enforcement (703-324-1300). I spoke with Mike. After listening to my story about Paradise Springs Winery and how we are about to get a duplication of the problem with Loud Mouth Brewery. He indicated that Code Enforcement would be opening an investigation of both Paradise Springs Winery and Loud Mouth Brewery’s permit.  Hal Moore703-963-0096   From: Natasha Nahas [mailto:nlnahas1@vt.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 2:25 PMTo: Hal MooreCc: Chris Potter; Jim Bonhivert; Suzy Foster; residents@glencairnhoa.comSubject: Re: Brewery to be opened at Yates Ford and Clifton Rd Dear All, Last email for the day- I know we're all busy people. I'm sorry to say I just got a call from Agent Kelly who very apologetically explained that our app. for a hearing was kicked back by higher ups, because we are supposedly outside of the 30 day time frame of Silva's "post/publish."

I've contacted the Richmond office to request an audit or appeal, and am waiting to hear back from a contact at the zoning office to fight him on another front. ~Natasha On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Hal Moore <lhalmoore@cox.net> wrote:

Thanks Natasha….I still want to make sure that there are some answers related to Paradise Springs Winery, in addition to Loud Mouth Brewery.  Hal Moore703-963-0096     From: Natasha Nahas [mailto:nlnahas1@vt.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 12:03 PMTo: Hal MooreCc: Chris Potter; Jim Bonhivert; Suzy Foster; residents@glencairnhoa.comSubject: Re: Brewery to be opened at Yates Ford and Clifton Rd Dear Neighbors, I would like to thank you all for your timely action and initiative in response to this brewery matter. I have waited to respond in an effort to avoid bombarding everyone with a constant thread of emails, but I now have some great news to share. My meeting with the Senior Compliance Officer at VA ABC went better than well. All objections filed were heard loud and clear! :) A halt has been placed on Mr. Silva's ABC application. It will not be granted until a formal hearing has been heard. Both sides will have an opportunity to present their argument before a public officer, after which time a decision will be made to either grant or deny an ABC license. Anyone who is interested in speaking or being present at this hearing, please contact me (Natasha Nahas) and I will provide more details. Another thank you, to all who forwarded my email; apparently it has been circulated all throughout Clifton, and reached the Town Council. Amanda Hencken has reached out to me and we are working on organizing a town council meeting that will NOT be formatted as a platform for Marcus Silva to pitch his brewery to a passive audience (unlike the CBA meeting). To answer a few questions: Mr. Jackson: No, the pub by the post office was unrelated, and their license has already been denied (per VA ABC Agent Katie Kelly).

Mr. Potter: Mr. Silva has applied for license to sell beer for both on-site consumption and retail off premises. "Retail off-premises" will allow him to sell cases or kegs of beer which may not, by law, by opened or consumed on site (think 7-11). (Per Agent Kelly.) This raises the question... Will customers try to find "scenic" locations in our area to drink their beer after driving all the way to Clifton for a case of beer? Mr. Moore: The VA ABC 100% does have the authority to deny an ABC license so far as we are able to substantiate and effectively express concerns about potential harm to our community, environment, etc. (Agent Kelly.) With respects to groundwater concerns, I would recommend researching USGS official documents and publications for a more in depth look at the nature and state of our local hydrology and its relationship to local demands. As a side-note, I emphatically agree with you that effluent management/treatment is likely a more serious concern. More to come on this (there is just too much to write). Thank you, so much for all your research, you have made some very useful points/discoveries. I have requested all plans/permits/etc for the brewery from Fairfax Co, by way of the Freedom of Information Act. I am supposed to have these within 5 business days at which time I will share them. You will see plans for a very large building and an obscenely large parking lot (separate from the brewing facility) which is intended to be a wedding/large conference venue per Mr. Silva himself. These events will all obtain their own 1-day ABC license, which will not be limited to the confines/regulations which apply to Mr. Silva's establishment. (Agent Kelly described it as a "free-for-all" every time there is an event. (These events will likely be buying Silva's beer, and he is well aware of this loop-hole.) Thank you all again- I knew Glencairn would not let me down in this endeavor. Agent Kelly stated that the more objections that are filed, the stronger our case, so I would urge all who are opposed and have not done so yet to look into it. Please feel free to contact me directly by phone or email with any questions or comments. My cell phone number is 703-389-9719. More to come. Sincerely, Natasha Nahas -- Natasha NahasSoil Consultants EngineeringB.S. Environmental ScienceVirginia Tech703.389.9719

On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Natasha Nahas <nlnahas1@vt.edu> wrote:

Hey Suzie,

Marcus Silva is intending to create a 22 acre Beer Brewery at the corner of Yates Ford and Clifton Road, called "Loud Mouth Brewery". He has already purchased the property, and applied for well permits and an ABC license. I thought you might want to somehow share the date and time for the town Q & A on this matter with the folks in the neighborhood.

http://cliftonva.org/content/loudmouth-brewery-qa

I am working on a fact sheet for anyone interested. Concerns could include: tremendous groundwater usage, increased traffic, drunk drivers, noise, smell (from fermentation), and effluent treatment/management. In my research, I also found that breweries are generally accepted to decrease property values in the immediate area.

Well permits have already been granted according to county records, and it's my understanding that due to very recent zoning legislation a "farm" brewery or winery of any size is perfectly legal.

For any who oppose the project, an objection to the granting of an ABC license can be made here:

https://www.abc.virginia.gov/enforcement/violation-complaint-form(You must select "object to a license") The pending license is listed here:

https://www.abc.virginia.gov/licenseesearch/retail_search_list.do?licenseId=87025 I hope I haven't bored you too much, it just really shocked me that Marcus was executing all of this preparation behind this scenes, and very "hush hush," and I figured more people in the community should know and have an opportunity to do some research and voice their opinions.

Hope all is well your way! Thanks so much if you can find a way to get the word out!

Sincerely,

Natasha

-- Natasha NahasSoil Consultants Engineering B.S. Environmental ScienceVirginia Tech703.389.9719 On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Hal Moore <lhalmoore@cox.net> wrote:

Jim, I have been following this email stream, and like Chris Potter, did some additional research. I found some of the Washington Post articles and some discussions on the Fairfax Underground. When I first read of Paradise Springs Winery (several years ago) and the Clifton Brewery, I was initially in favor of them. I thought that they would add to the “panache” of Clifton and enhance its “chiquey-weekey” image. Those who favor shutting down all businesses and eliminating all traffic through Clifton forget that the image and the existence of nice eateries and ice cream stores depends on hard working entrepreneurs who are willing to risk their financial capital. People forget that as late as the 1970s, Clifton was a “hillbilly dump”, until the interest began in creating Northern Virginia’s “Brigadoon.” On the whole, I am reluctant to put impediments in front of businesses so long as they are complying with regulatory and tax requirements. My oldest daughter, Tamara, who now lives in South Carolina, worked at Villagio’s when they first started up. I asked for her thoughts on Marcus Silva and they were positive (attached). The family that started the Paradise Winery has a very ancient pedigree in this area (attached). However, their intentions and old family status does not entitle them to a “free pass.” Since the model for Loud Mouth Brewery will probably follow the same design as Paradise Winery, I decided to go visit Paradise Springs Winery on Sunday. I guess that the last time that I took a trip down Yates Ford Road was more years ago than I would like to admit (probably 2008 or 2009). The Paradise Winery property had just planted its one acre of vineyards. It had probably 15 acres of open fields, in addition to small and rustic log cabin. I thought then “How will fit a tasting room into that small structure?” 

What I saw on Sunday, 13 April, caused my jaw to drop. I had expected that the winery would have planted most of the cleared area with vineyards. Instead, only the original one acre of vines planted in 2008 out of the 22 acres was present. A huge barn-like structure had been constructed behind the old log cabin. I counted 256 cars parked on the property (pictures attached), including along the right-of-way of Yates Ford Road. Most of the cars were parked on the grass fields of the winery. The  acreage appears to have more value to the owners of Paradise Springs Winery as parking than as vines. There are picnic tables scattered on the cleared acreage not devoted to parking. During a one minute period, I counted 20 vehicles entering or exiting the property at around 3PM during the

 afternoon. I did not count the cars in  in the lots of Hemlock Overlook Park, but I observed a number of people walking from the filled overflow parking near the park to the winery. I encountered a Blue Line maintenance volunteer, Katherine Betts (sp?), when she was opening the auxiliary gate for her car across the road from Paradise Winery. She told me that what I had observed had been occurring since at least 2012 on most weekends from April to Thanksgiving. Assuming that those 256 vehicles all stay the entire day and carry four passengers each, one is dealing with roughly 1,000 visitors per day. It is likely that the per vehicle load is less than four, but it is also likely that there are more vehicle visits than 256  per day.  I have attached a note from someone in 2014 who was complaining about the lack of parking in Hemlock Park due to the winery. When I began my return trip home, a car with four young people pulled out of the winery in front of me without looking. As I followed them, their hand motions were animated and they kept meandering into the opposing traffic lane. At one point, an oncoming vehicle had to steer off of Yates Ford to avoid them.  My guess is that the driver was intoxicated. I did not see any Fairfax County Police enforcing parking or watching for drunk drivers. It is not clear how much “production” vs. sales are present at Paradise Springs Winery. The VABC would have this information. Since REI has organized “hiking trips” in Hemlock Park followed by “wine tourism” at Paradise Winery (attached), where the tourists will see “wine production”, I have to assume that there is some wine production taking place at the winery, as opposed to just selling wine produced at other locations. Nevertheless, what appears to have happened, is that instead of opening a winery, we have allowed a giant “wine bar” to flourish. Now we appear to be heading down the road of approving a giant  “beer bar” under the guise of a “rustic brewery” in a neighborhood zoned RC “Residential Conservation”. Will Loud Mouth Brewery only grow one acre of hops with 10 acres devoted to parked cars as well? You had mentioned in one of your notes that Supervisor Herrity’s “office” told you that the winery would not have more than 20 vehicles in the lot at any time. Would one of the names associated with his “office” be someone by the name of Kyle McDaniel? Your name appears prominently in the 2009 and 2010 Washington Post articles concerning the Paradise Springs Winery. You appear to have had the support of the Noble Estates president, as well as the Planning and Zoning departments of Fairfax County, plus Chairman Bulova and Delegate Hugo. However, Delegate David Albo crusaded against those opposing a “giant wine bar” , and got the legislature and Governor McDonnell to “stiff arm” Fairfax County with a new law that prevents local governments from regulating wineries unless public safety or health is involved. You can expect that David Albo will probably repeat the process if licensing becomes difficult for Loud Mouth Brewery. Role of the VABC: Although we are encouraged to write to the VABC, and I believe that we should concerning the brewery, I do not think that the VABC cares.  I do not believe that the VABC takes its regulatory role seriously. In order for Paradise Springs Winery to function as a “winery” and be

 exempt from Fairfax County Regulation under the law sponsored by Delegate Albo, they have to demonstrate that they own or lease the property on which 51% of the grapes that they use for their product are grown. Can the VABC produce documentation that they have verified that this requirement has been met? I would bet a large sum of money that they “count on wineries to self-regulate”, which is so often the line from Commonwealth regulatory authorities.  I think that all of us should lean on our elected officials  (Delegate Hugo, Senator Barker, Attorney General Herring, and Governor McAuliffe) to lean heavily on VABC to produce this data within six months, or revoke the license of Paradise Vineyards. It is not clear that Loud Mouth Brewery would be similarly protected as Paradise Winery is. But is the VABC going to approve a similar giant “Beer bar” with 1,000 to 2,000 visitors per day? What  local authority would approve a bar with over 250 vehicles patronizing it? Septic Loading: One of the major reasons that there are almost no businesses in the Occoquan Watershed is that, but for the Town of Clifton, every lot relies on septic. Any facility with public restrooms creates a tremendous effluent load on the land. In the Town of Clifton, they rely on septic tanks near the western edge of town, which have to be pumped out frequently. My septic field is 2 acres in size and has two tanks ( 1,200 gallons and 800 gallons). It supports four people and has to be pumped once every three years. For a traditional septic field to function with a visitor load of 3000 patrons per week, it would need to be at least 10 acres in size with septic tanks in the 10,000 gallon range. It would have to be pumped out once a month, assuming that each patron made one flush at 1.5 gallons, which would appear to be the benchmark. Most California water boards have a number of good tools for estimated water use. I would bet that no one at the Fairfax Department of Health or the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality has bothered to inspect the septic loading of Paradise Springs Winery. The health and environment regulators are probably going under the impression that there are far fewer visitors than what actually occurs there. Virginia DEQ probably thinks it is a local matter, and the Fairfax County Department of Health believes that the Commonwealth has preempted Fairfax County’s authority to regulate these establishments. As a result, none of these agencies has bothered to look at the impact of this number of this stupendous number of visitors. This lack of oversight means that the septic field and tanks are overflowing and the unfiltered effluent is flowing quickly into Bull Run and the Occoquan Reservoir. What is going to happen with Loud Mouth Brewery? Is Loud Mouth Brewery going to have the same level of unregulated septic loading? I would like to see Fairfax County view this as a safety issue, an intervention category not precluded to them under the law protecting Paradise Springs Winery, but I am sufficiently cynical to know that they probably would not want to get involved, even if Loud Mouth Brewery and Paradise Winery were dumping plutonium into the water runoff. The regulators in Virginia and Fairfax County do not like to regulate. Water Quality/Levels:

I have seen some discussion of the water needs for Loud Mouth Brewery. When one goes to the web sites that purport to show the number of gallons of water necessary to produce a gallon of beer, the numbers vary by several orders of magnitude, depending on what argument one is trying to prove. In some cases, a gallon of beer cost less water to produce than a gallon of broccoli. What is clearer is what a single family home with four residents produces in water usage. Assuming the average needs for bathrooms, laundry, dishwashers, meals, and one cycle of lawn/gardening water per week, an average house uses about 500,000 gallons per year. Watering the lawn is the biggest consumer. If one assumes a brewery produces 15.000 gallons per year of beer, one comes up with about 22 million gallons of water. If the lot in question (15 acres) had three homes (5 acres each), it would use up about 1,500,000 per year. As for Loud Mouth Brewery lowering the water table, I cannot find any definitive information. In researching availability of water supplies I cannot find much information that Virginia is a “water-stressed state” like California. Most of the discussion focuses on water supplies for Hampton Roads (piped in from reservoirs over 100 miles to the west) and the City of Fairfax, which is faced with maintaining its reservoir in Loudon County on Goose Creek and then piping it to the City of Fairfax. For our area, most of the attention is devoted to stream erosion and storm water runoff, not supplies of water available to wells. It is still worth asking what measures the Fairfax County Department of Public Works and Environmental Services (DPWES) is using to back up any well permits that they might issue. I wonder if they will be at the Clifton Betterment Association meeting. What is a concern is the effluent /runoff situation for the property. The lot for Loud Mouth Brewery sits on the Northwest Corner of Yates Ford and Clifton Road. It is roughly rectangular and extends from the Dominion Power High Voltage easement to Clifton Road, parallel to Yates Ford Road. It extends about 200 yards along Clifton Road. It is currently populated almost entirely in trees. In looking at the Fairfax County GIS image, it has a storm water collection pond, which drains into a stream. The stream crosses into Glencairn before flowing into Popes Head Creek. The stream borders the Magalhaes, Foster, Nahas, Nawrotzky, Jasien, and Demmie properties. A substantial number of trees will have to be felled to support the brewery, the parking lot, and hops/barley growing fields. If it is going to entertain visitors on the scale of Paradise Springs Winery, it will have the same septic/effluent issues. The removal of the trees alone will have a substantial impact on storm water runoff.   Traffic : If the traffic congregating at Loud Mouth Brewery will be the same as Paradise Springs Winery, then we will have a problem, especially during the spring, summer, and fall months when the soccer fields are being used. Kinchloe, Clifton, and Yates Ford Roads were never designed to handle this volume of traffic. If the license for Loud Mouth Brewery is approved, I would insist

 on the stationing of at least two police cruisers during the hours on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday during the hours when these two facilities are open to deal with traffic, illegal parking, and drunk drivers along the length of Yates Ford Road from Clifton Road to Hemlock Park. Since the Commonwealth of Virginia has decided to put the permitting of Paradise Springs Winery under their control, then the Virginia State Police should supply one of the cruisers and the officers to support it. I was starting to wonder why Yates Ford Road was looking so decrepit. If the Commonwealth wants to pull the rug out from under Fairfax County to protect these ventures, then the Commonwealth should pony up the resources to support it. Political Allies: My guess is that Delegate David Albo is not going to side with anyone opposing Loud Mouth Brewery. How about Wickland and Mill Glen subdivisions? I am assuming that Noble Estates is also against Loud Mouth Brewery as they were against Paradise Winery. I am assuming that the Occoquan Watershed Coalition is against Loud Mouth Brewery. However, there has not been any apparent activity on the Watershed’s website since 2012. Is it still an active organization? My guess is that civic activism is not going to be enough. The opponents of Loud Mouth Brewery will need to “lawyer-up” . I would be willing to see Glencairn divert funds to contribute to a legal fund, with other POAs pitching in, under the collective auspices of the Watershed Coalition. My guess is that, at best, the Mayor of Clifton and the Clifton Betterment Association are on the fence, if not in favor of Loud Mouth Brewery, since anything that supports foot traffic in the town of Clifton usually wins their approval. I understand that CBA will be hosting a question and answer session on 26 April. My guess is that it will just be for Loud Mouth Brewery to put on a dog and pony show. I am going to encourage DPWES, VDEQ, Delegate Hugo, and Senator Barker to attend. The winery and brewery associations will be opposed. In a 2013 report (attached) , one of the winery associations indicates that a majority of wineries (although not the majority of the wine produced) mimics the business model used by Paradise Springs Winery. Clearly, the execution of the Commonwealth’s laws are now favoring “wineries” that have no vineyards, but derive their income from “wine tasting.” In effect, they are bars, and not vineyards. Whom to Write: Although I think that it is worth writing Fairfax County Officials on Loud Mouth Brewery, I think that they feel burned by the Commonwealth after the last run in over Paradise Springs Winery. Our representatives with the Commonwealth should be our focus. VABC will be on the side of Loud Mouth Brewery and Paradise Springs Winery. I believe that Paradise Springs Winery should have their license revoked after observing what is going on there. I think that everyone should send a letter to the VABC, and not just fill out the web site form. I am going to be drafting letters with attachments to all of these officials in the coming week.

 I would be willing to support Loud Mouth Brewery  and Paradise Springs Winery if these were institutions appropriately scaled to a level that would be compatible with Clifton, with reasonable impact on our infrastructure. However, I cannot support a giant “Wine Bar” and a giant “Beer Bar” that attract 200 plus vehicles per day on the weekends. If Loud Mouth Brewery were willing to sign a Memorandum of Agreement with Glencairn and similarly allied POAs and file the MOA with the Circuit Court that would allow a maximum of 20 vehicles on the premises, then I might be willing to agree. I am also going to work to Paradise Winery’s license revoked and hold the regulatory agencies to account. If Paradise Springs Winery were willing to execute a similar maximum of 20 vehicles MOA, I would be in favor of them keeping their license.    Hal Moore703-963-0096    From: Chris Potter [mailto:cj7.potter@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 11:18 PMTo: Jim BonhivertCc: Suzy Foster; residents@glencairnhoa.com; Natasha NahasSubject: Re: Brewery to be opened at Yates Ford and Clifton Rd All,I think it would be helpful to know the specific plans.... The permit license listed below (87025) is for the brewery but there is also another permit (87024) which is for:"Retail Off Premises Limited Brewery/Keg Permit" I'm not an expert but "Retail off premises" seems to indicate that there isn't supposed to be any on-site consumption.I also googled Virginia code and found something similar... § 4.1-208. Beer licenses.The Board may grant the following licenses relating to beer:8. Retail off-premises brewery licenses to persons holding a brewery license which shall authorize the licensee to sell beer at the place of business designated in the brewery license, in closed containers which shall include growlers and other reusable containers, for off-premises consumption.

https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+4.1-208 I'd also like to know if there are any required environmental or DOT permits but didn't have time to research tonight....- Chris On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 10:59 PM, Jim Bonhivert <jgdwntr@aol.com> wrote:

Dear all While many of us may object to this, and I encourage you to do so, my experience as the President of the Occoquan Watershed Coalition has convinced me that money talks and politics determine the outcome. Unless we collectively launch a massive campaign to stop this brewery it will go forward if it is legal. The concept of a farm for the winery and the brewery is a loophole that permits extensive retail activities in residential neighborhoods. The winery planted an acre of grapes on 35 acres and called it a farm. Right. Pat Herritys office told us it was a small boutique winery with a dozen parking spaces. Right. Go take a look at the ocean of cars, buses , limos. See if the brewery actually relies on its farming to provide the ingredients. 22 acres can probably handle 200 cars? We should be very afraid of what is happening here. Between the winery, the brewery, the soccer fields, Yates ford and kincheloe may need a stop light! A brewery is a different animal from a winery. Think about it. Do drunk people stumble onto our roads and come into our neighborhoods from a winery or from a brewery,a bar. A brewery is a bar. Another bar. We have so many abc licenses now. What's next? Come to our post office and have a shot. Is it true you can have a beer with your ice cream? If the brewery draws badly on the water table guess what happens. We get a water and sewer pipe into Clifton, the reason for the down zoned area with 5 acre lots disappears and developers will find a way to put 25 homes where there now is one. Developers were trying to use the complaint about water supply to Clifton elementary before it was closed as an excuse to bring in the plumbing. Can you imagine Glencairn with 600 housing units instead of 26? Do you think I exaggerate? If so, remember me when it happens. Money talks. For those who sell retail , do you think they object to greater density, more customers.? I doubt it. They are promoting it. Trust me.

The downzoned area exists under debatable logic already that I won't lecture on here. The honey dipper that empties the town septic tank seems to run extremely frequently now with all of the public consumption of liquids. Another force toward a sewer line and a water pipe? It is only as far away as Braddock road. The pressure to change builds. Our Supervisor, Pat Herrity, should be written to directly by any and all of you. Write to your state and Federal representatives. Barker, Hugo, Bulova. Connelly. Write to our mayor. Clifton betterment. I will exercise my own network but at the end of the day I am one vote. Do not mince your words in these communications. This does take work . Be wary of those who do not live in the downzoned area. When I was quoted in the Washington post about the dangers of the winery to the environment, I was critized by those who do not live here as nimby. My valid environmental arguments were invalid because it effected me personally. BS. Instead of 7 homes on 35 acres at the winery property , which is what I pushed for, we have hundreds of cars. Hmmm. Go figure. In order to stop George Mason from turning Hemlock Park into an inappropriate business I had to launch and manage a massive community grass roots effort which resulted in 100 people at the Park Headquarters with torches and pitchforks. It worked. Mason backed down. It was called Hotforce. That is what is needed here. If we don't have a lot of money to hire lawyers and file a lawsuit, we need to make a lot of noise. A LOT of meaningful noise. Otherwise, get used to the idea of it happening. I mean this in the most sincere way. Traditional Clifton is being changed by those who want to fill their pockets with the spoils of developing this beautiful area. Look at who makes political contributions, Those who develop the land. They have legal rights to do so, rights granted to them, or at least not stopped, by those we have elected. If the owner of this land has made contributions make it a point of embarrassment to the elected officials if you can. Reasonable people do unreasonable things to make money. Ethics and greed clash. I have stayed out of politics for many good reasons. Be a thought leader by urging everyone you know to attend the meeting later this month to express their concerns. I will likely not be able to myself as I am traveling overseas.

Maybe we should tell the Board of Supervisors that Glencairn plans to open 26 wineries, all located on private roads and the government is not welcome to check in on us. And also 26 breweries. And 26 farm stands, truck farms. The farm farce explodes when taken to its extreme . Our government did a very lousy job of defining what constitutes a farm in a residential neighborhood. Shame on this travesty and shame on those who do nothing to fix it.

I wish I could be more upbeat about this but this is how I believe that it works. If we

can't make people more uncomfortable to fight us than to back down, we lose. Make a useful, fairminded ruckus. Politics is a local process. You all probably know everything I have said here, but I thought it deserved to be repeated.If this sounds like I am pontificating please forgive me. I have wounds and scars in the local political arena and I wanted to share them with my neighbors for whatever help it may offer. We have a great neighborhood and community and I don't want to see it effected by this brew pub. Screw the brew pub. Sounds like a banner. Thanks for reading this, Jim b.

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 9, 2015, at 10:13 AM, Suzy Foster <sfoster02@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Neighbors,

I wanted to share this email with everyone. It appears that a Brewery is in the works for Clifton. I think this is important information so I wanted to share it. I will post the links to our website. You can view the info on the website at www.glencairnhoa.com. (Reminder: your user name is your email address and your password is the road you live on.) The information is on the Welcome page under Announcements.

Thanks,Suzy Foster

---------- Forwarded message ----------From: Natasha Nahas <nlnahas1@vt.edu>Date: Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 11:12 PMSubject: Brewery to be opened at Yates Ford and Clifton RdTo: Suzy Foster <sfoster02@gmail.com>

Hey Suzie,

Marcus Silva is intending to create a 22 acre Beer Brewery at the corner of Yates Ford and Clifton Road, called "Loud Mouth Brewery". He has already purchased the property, and applied for well permits and an ABC license. I thought you might want to somehow share the date and time for the town Q & A on this matter with the folks in the neighborhood.

http://cliftonva.org/content/loudmouth-brewery-qa

I am working on a fact sheet for anyone interested. Concerns could include: tremendous groundwater usage, increased traffic, drunk drivers, noise, smell (from fermentation), and effluent treatment/management. In my research, I also found that breweries are generally accepted to decrease property values in the immediate area.

Well permits have already been granted according to county records, and it's my understanding that due to very recent zoning legislation a "farm" brewery or winery of any size is perfectly legal.

For any who oppose the project, an objection to the granting of an ABC license can be made here:

https://www.abc.virginia.gov/enforcement/violation-complaint-form(You must select "object to a license") The pending license is listed here:

https://www.abc.virginia.gov/licenseesearch/retail_search_list.do?licenseId=87025 I hope I haven't bored you too much, it just really shocked me that Marcus was executing all of this preparation behind this scenes, and very "hush hush," and I figured more people in the community should know and have an opportunity to do some research and voice their opinions.

Hope all is well your way! Thanks so much if you can find a way to get the word out!

Sincerely,

Natasha --Natasha NahasB.S. Environmental ScienceVirginia Tech703.389.9719

--Natasha NahasB.S. Environmental ScienceVirginia Tech703.389.9719

--Natasha NahasB.S. Environmental ScienceVirginia Tech703.389.9719

From: Jim BonhivertTo: Hal Moore; Natasha Nahas; boardmembers@glencairnhoa.com; <residents@glencairnhoa.com>Subject: Fwd: Note to OWC Directors on the Loudmouth BreweryDate: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 10:08:14 AM

More info from OWC

Jim b.

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: David Schnare <dwschnare@gmail.com>Date: April 21, 2015 at 9:52:12 AM EDTTo: Kathryn Weller <new.leaf@cox.net>Cc: tdowdy4062@aol.com, William Hollaway <whollaway@gibsondunn.com>, orlo2@verizon.net, Dave Albo <dave@davealbo.com>, Don Kirk <donkirk7@verizon.net>, "thiel@alum.mit.edu" <thiel@alum.mit.edu>, fblechma@aol.com, hsanv@aol.com, "jcchesley@aol.com" <JCChesley@aol.com>, janetlebel@cox.net, Jim Bonhivert <JGDWNTR@aol.com>, "Bonhivert, Jim" <jim.bonhivert@sicpa.com>, khbell@yahoo.com, Lawrence Hensle <jcshen@aol.com>, Michelle Stein <michellestein@cox.net>, meademom@aol.com, DelTHugo@house.virginia.gov, Tyna Gaylor <tynagaylor@gmail.com>, Charlie Smith <charlie.smith@veraxx.com>, Pat Herrity <Patrick.Herrity@fairfaxcounty.gov>, Marlae Schnare <marlae.schnare@fairfaxcounty.gov>, Dianne Janczewski <bigpoodles@gmail.com>, jenniferbmagalhaes@gmail.comSubject: Re: Note to OWC Directors on the Loudmouth Brewery

Kathryn:

You ask good questions. Here is what we've found out, both about this one project and what we've found out over the years.

1. Regarding water withdrawal, there is a lot of water in the ground. We get over 30 inches of rain a year in this area. The drinking water staff at the health department that deal with wells seem to think that the planned maximum withdrawals will not affect nearby wells. We have seen home owners, for example, put as many as 20 wells onto their property (for use in geothermal heating and cooling) with no harm to nearby neighbors. What will result from the Loudmouth venue we simply can't know, but experience suggests it is not going to be a problem. If it is, there are legal remedies that will protect home owners.

2. The comparison of the planned farm brewery with home building is not related to water withdrawal. It's about how well folks manage their septic systems and how the two groups handle storm water runoff. The brewery is planning a state

of the art waste water facility that will be professionally run. Home owners almost ignore maintenance and repair of their systems. The OWC has taken a leadership role on this issue and has supported changes in County rules that have resulted in better management of home systems, but problems remain, especially as homes age. With regard to storm water problems, home owners rarely spend the money to make their drives and other surfaces "permeable". We want rain water to go into the ground rather than run off and erode the land. In contrast, my understanding is the brewery is going to take steps to make its flat surfaces permeable. This is something that should be asked about at the meeting. Four homes of the kind typically built today in the Clifton Area will have a larger impermeable surface foot print than the brewery, based on the brewery having a permeable parking lot and use of other storm water best management practices, none of which home owners typically use.

3. With regard to traffic on Yates Ford Road, the location of the brewery is at the corner of Yates Ford and Clifton (the southwestern intersection). The brewery is going to cause problems at the intersection but not on the remainder of Yates Ford Road heading to Hemlock Overlook Park.

There is going to be more traffic on Clifton Road. They have, on overage, 3200 trips per day along that stretch of Clifton Road. Adding 1,500 is a lot. This is why we are checking in with VDOT. Keep in mind, however, the 1,500 is spread over several hours. Hence my concern about the "pulse" traffic associated with a large gathering. It will be much like when kids are picked up from a school or a church service ends. For a relatively short period of time there is going to be a lot of traffic at that corner, no doubt. But once the pulse ends, it will be back to relatively normal levels. Saturdays are going to be the worst.

4. The comparison with churches, schools and train stations, as you surely understand, is a comparison with traffic patterns. It is important to work with facts and focus on the project without emotional projection of other values onto the issue. That doesn't really help with problem solving and tends to cause defensiveness that only destroys the comity needed to reach compromise. Lets all work together to make this brewery as neighbor friendly as possible. They have an absolute right to exist, a fact we simply can't avoid.

5. I agree with you that Fairfax County and our delegates and senators did not work together on this issue much earlier. The OWC did not know about it until recently. Had we, we would have encouraged sensible regulation of the kind that Albemarle County has adopted. We are now working with the elected officials to see what can be done to put such rules into place. It is likely that rules limited the size of gatherings, for example, can be passed that will control this brewery. But, the kind of land use controls we normally would use are not available to the County for farms of any kind. And, we have other kinds of farms we need to worry about as well. You surely don't want a poultry farm next to your home, and that, too, would be a by-right development that would be almost completely uncontrolled under current county ordinances. So, we agree with you, there is work to be done.

You should also know, the State encourages wineries and breweries as part of its

economic plan. That's how the House of Delegates ended up voting 97-0 on the bill. These groups have very influential lobbyists and are well funded. They will fight any restrictions on their development, including in court. These kinds of issues are heading to court. Whether it will be in Fairfax County or somewhere else I don't know, but we have not heard the end of this yet. Those court decisions will help interpret what a county can and cannot do under the law. At the present time, health and welfare concerns are covered by rules that do apply to the brewery. County rules address septic systems, state rules control storm water and Chesapeake Bay concerns. Noise regulations apply. VDOT controls traffic issues and our police control illegal parking. These are the areas associated with health and welfare.

6. As for support for the brewery, like it or not, there are folks that want this kind of facility, just as they like and want the winery. They probably aren't neighbors and won't have to deal with the traffic problems that will likely arise. Their home values will not be at risk. But, preservation of a rural swath, one of the purposes of the comprehensive plan, is something that has broad support. People like to walk through woods and drive on our rural roads. They like to sit and drink wine and beer while looking out at the foliage. They like to have picnics in the woods. They can't take wine and beer into our parks and they like their wine and beer. For the most part, based on police experience, they drink responsibly. The OWC is composed of a wide variety of people and cultures. It should not be surprising that some will support these kinds of venues.

The OWC takes no position on questions of values. We are closely monitoring this project and are active in ensuring not only protection of the watershed but recognition of the traffic concerns as well. We aren't in charge of anything, but what little influence we have we are using to make this brewery as compatible with the purposes of the downzoning as we can.

Again, thank you for being a leader on these issues and engaging in an important public discussion. If we can be of further assistance, please let me know.

Finally, both George Barker and Tim Hugo have contacted me over the last 12 hours. George did vote against the farm brewery bill, both in committee and on the full vote of the Senate. Although the County opposed the bill, George cannot recall that the County's lobbyist testified or otherwise took an active role in opposing the bill. To the best of my knowledge, neither George nor Tim worked closely with County leadership to address the need for county regulations to implement the brewery bill, to the degree such rules are allowed.

Without question, both George and Tim are now fully engaged, as is the County. Supervisor Pat Herrity and his staff are showing the leadership for which they are well regarded, but are handcuffed by the bill. They are working closely with County staff to examine what options exist, what authorities can be used and what new actions can be taken. They have been the main source of information to the public and should be lauded for that role.

The OWC expects that George, Tim and Pat, along with Chairman Bulova, will take efforts to work together to address these issues. They will, not because the

OWC asked them to, but because the public living on the downzoned area are uncomfortable with how things stand. These are generally responsible public officials and the OWC has confidence that they will take all reasonable steps to do what the law allows. The OWC will help where it can as we have in the past.

Best regards,

David SchnareOWC President

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Kathryn Weller <new.leaf@cox.net> wrote:Thank you, Mr. Schnare, for following this development.

I must ask: How is the brewery, which you say will use 12,000 gallons of water a day at full capacity, better for our watershed than 4 homes, which would use 3,000 gallons of water a week?

And I would invite any OWC member to come on over to Yates Ford Road any Saturday or Sunday afternoon. You will soon get over your belief that heavy traffic occurs "for a few minutes of a day."

To compare a winery or brewery to a church or a school is an insult to my intelligence. Churches and schools do not serve alcohol.

It remains to be seen to what degree farm breweries are exempt from local jurisdiction. But, as a taxpayer, I hold Fairfax County accountable for the enforcement of health and traffic laws that protect the safety of residents and visitors alike. And I am sad to hear that any member of the OWC, which represents itself as a defender of our watershed, is "simply delighted" about the Loudmouth proposal.

Kathryn Weller

On Apr 20, 2015, at 8:40 PM, David Schnare wrote:

Dear OWC Directors:

A matter has come up that I believe deserves your attention. As many of you already know, a farm brewery (the Loudmouth brewery) is being planned for and developed at 12510 Yates Ford Road - basically at the intersection of Yates Ford Rd and Clifton Road. The OWC has received a number of requests from our members and others who live within our area asking for more information and for our position on this land development.

Before I begin with regard to the farm brewery, let me first announce that to ensure the OWC is kept informed of all land use issues on the watershed, I have asked for, and Supervisor Herrity

has granted reservation of a seat on the Springfield District Land Use Committee for an OWC member. Tyna Gaylor has taken that seat and will represent us on land use issues coming before the committee.

The farm brewery, however, will not come before the Land Use Committee. It will not come before the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors. With limited exceptions, it will not come before the County staff. There will be no governmentally required public hearings.

Under state law, farms are free from local land use regulations. That includes both wineries and farm breweries. The "Loudmouth" brewery is a by-right use of the land on the RC District because it is a "farm." Not only are they exempted from all forms of local land use regulation, they don't even need to obtain building permits or otherwise meet state building codes.

Here is what they must do. They must get approval of their septic system, they must be licensed by the state ABC, and it appears that because they are shifting the location of the entry to their site, they will need some kind of VDOT approval. Because they sought approval of their well, they will have their well inspected and approved by the state, but had they not asked for such an approval, they would not have been required to get one.

There is little the OWC can do on this matter, but to the degree we can, we have taken steps to represent the interests of the community and those most likely to be affected by this new land use. Please understand, we have members who are very displeased with this by-right development and others who are simply delighted about it. Hence, there is and can be no consensus with regard to any position the OWC can take other than what we have always done, ensure that all reasonable steps that can be taken to protect the watershed and our roads are taken.

Here's a summary of the facts on this matter:

Water well and water use

There is deep concern that the facility will withdraw a very large amount of water, so much that neighboring properties might suffer their wells going dry. There is a lot of misinformation about the amount of water the brewery will withdraw. Because the brewery sought approval of its well, the State Office of Drinking Water - Hugh Eggborn and Deborah Hoy (out of Culpepper) have examined the plans and will be responsible for the well permit. They are responsible for issuing a construction and operation permit for the well.

They do not, however, have the authority to consider any impact beyond the property line, so they are unable to assess whether the brewery operation could cause the neighbors' wells to run dry. Mr. Eggborn said that from the figures that he was given by the brewery, and only after full construction (stage 3) of their plans, they will be using 12,000 gallons per day. Trummers, a Clifton restaurant on Main uses 2,500 gallons per day. So it's a lot of water, but Mr. Eggborn said its "very unlikely" the neighbors will have problems.

Under Virginia law, there is no limit on the amount of water anyone can withdraw from a private well. Speaking as an attorney, if the level of the water table is drawn down by their actions, and you can prove it (through a fairly expensive hydrological study), then a neighbor whose well had gone dry can sue to recover both the cost of digging/drilling a deeper well and the cost of having to sue them. I have recommended to the several Clifton residents that have concern, that they determine the depth of their well and the level of water in them so that they have a baseline of current conditions in case their wells do go dry and they seek legal relief.

Protection of the watershed

The brewery must obtain County approval for their septic system. I am informed that the brewery's drain field will be very large. However, the brewery plans on providing pretreatment of its waste so that the discharge into their septic system and drain field will be identical or less polluting than the per gallon discharge from a normal residence.

We know that approved and well managed septic fields are sufficient to protect the water supply, so if the County approves their application, we have no basis for further concern. Significantly, the waste from a brewery does not contain much human (fecal) waste. It produces biological sediment that they will pretreat and which is not hazardous.

Their plans also do not appear to have any impact on Resource Protection Areas that are protected under the Ches Bay Ordinance. And, they plan to keep a significant amount of land completely undisturbed. They plan to have nature trails through their property. If, instead of a farm brewery, they simply wanted to farm the land, they could (by-right) clear cut the property and till and plant the entire 21 acres. Thus, compared to a worst-case scenario, a farm brewery on this property will better protect the property than either development of five acre residences or full farm tillage. The only better protection would be from no development at all, but because the owner has a right to use the land for a farm, there is no means to stop his development, even if a majority of the OWC board agreed to work to that end.

Supervisor Herrity's staff is still looking into whether they will need a grading plan and whether stormwater regulations would apply. It is not clear that they do as the State regulates both on farms.

Transportation and roads

We often think of the roads within the RC district as "our roads." The fact is, they are not our driveways. They are state roads. A VDOT website shows the average daily trips on Yates Ford Road between Kincheloe and Clifton roads is 670 trips. (2011 data). In other words, trips to Hemlock

Overlook Park, the winery and the communities living on that part of Yates Ford Road sum to 670 trips a day. This is the baseline for use of Yates Ford Road. Keep in mind, because the brewery is basically at the corner of Yates Ford and Clifton roads, the impact is on the intersection more than on Yates Ford Road itself.

Supervisor Herrity has asked about several ways to protect the use of this strip of road. He sought a reduction of the speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph. It was denied by VDOT. He asked for traffic calming (road bumps). That was denied. He asked for higher fines for speeding and posting of such signs. That was granted. He asked for chevron striping to give a visual slowing effect. That was granted.

Because Yates Ford Road is a state road, VDOT has complete control over how it is used. At this time, they consider 670 average daily trips acceptable. We don't know how much additional traffic may come from the brewery, but will interact with VDOT to ensure they take the cumulative effect into account when they review the change in entry into the brewery.

In addition, there has been illegal parking along Yates Ford Road near the winery and Hemlock park. This has been addressed through police ticketing of those vehicles. To prevent this, the brewery has been asked to look carefully at the amount of parking they plan to have, especially in light of their plans to host weddings and similar large gatherings (which they are allowed to do). I have spoken with the brewer and he is sensitive to this issue.

When there are large gatherings, use of Yates Ford Road will be much like roads used for churches and railway stations. For a few minutes of a day when there is a gathering, there are going to be high traffic flows that will surely cause problems from neighbors trying to get on down the road. But, like churches and rail road stations and schools, these will be fairly limited periods of time. There is no way to force the brewery to address this. There is no way to impose a traffic control activity (a police person to assist traffic movement) on a farm brewery, unlike what we can require of a church or school.

ABC approval

The brewery must get a license from ABC and to do so, they are required to provide notice to neighbors. I have closely

investigated this and found that the brewery has met all public notice requirements, and they have physical proof of having done so. I don't know of anything we can do to further influence the ABC on this.

Public Meeting

We all need more facts. On April 26 at 4pm there will be a meeting in Clifton (in the Barn) at which time the developers will describe what they are doing and answer questions.

I encourage you to go to the meeting on the 26th to participate in what is likely to be the only public meeting on this issue.

Finally, I understand some of our board members are interested in an aggressive effort to prevent building of the brewery and shut down of Paradise Springs winery. They have not contacted me about this and I don't know much about what they have in mind. I do know, however, of no legal theory to make that happen. These are both by-right developments, they are generally supported by the Fairfax County Board, and both have very influential industry lobbies that appear to be ready to jump into any legal battle. I see the OWC's role as providing information and seeking to protect the watershed. Because of the significant diversity in views about these two facilities within our own membership, I do not see an advocacy role beyond that.

Best regards,David SchnareOWC President

-- David W. Schnare, Esq. Ph.D.

-- David W. Schnare, Esq. Ph.D.

--

David W. Schnare, Esq. Ph.D.