The Napa County Board of Supervisors, in a joint session Tuesday with the Napa County Planning Commission, agreed to rethink the strict regulations that prohibit local wineries from hosting large-scale events such as weddings.

Leaders from across the Napa Valley wine industry will come back to the board by February with a recommendation for whether or not to give wineries more flexibility in how to market their wines during these tough economic times.

Tuesday’s decision marks the first time that the idea of allowing weddings at wineries gained traction since the county’s landmark Winery Definition Ordinance was adopted in 1989. The WDO, as it is commonly called, prohibits wineries from hosting weddings and other large events by narrowly defining wineries and their marketing events.

But with the local wine and hospitality industries in a financial freefall, some say Napa County’s severe regulations on winery events are driving much-needed business to other wine destinations, such as Sonoma. They claim increased marketing events are needed to keep wineries and the supporting hospitality industry alive.

Others argue that the preservation of agriculture — and not dependence on tourism — is what makes Napa Valley great.

Acknowledging that even wine industry officials are split on the issue, the board approved a measured approach Tuesday proposed by the Napa Valley Vintners.

“While the WDO has largely served us well, the Napa Valley and the overall manner in which wine is sold is much different now than it was 20 years ago,” Napa Valley Vintners Executive Director Linda Reiff wrote in a letter to the board, suggesting that the issue be studied more closely.

She stated that the study is not intended as a delay tactic and vows to return with a recommendation no later than Jan. 31. Trade organizations including the Napa Valley Vintners, Napa County Farm Bureau, Napa Valley Winegrowers and Napa Valley Grapegrowers will all contribute.

In the meantime, the county will investigate using existing temporary event permits to allow for expanded marketing events sooner than January 2010. County officials will consider charging permit fees, with revenue going to the county’s enforcement of the program and to the Napa Valley Destination Council.

Napa County Planning Director Hillary Gitelman told the board Tuesday that temporary event permits are potentially problematic, but said she will come back to the planning commission with an analysis in the next two months.

Supervisor Bill Dodd said he would have been willing to vote in favor of loosening restrictions on wineries immediately.

“Nobody has regulations like these,” Dodd said, adding that wine aficionados often bypass Napa for places like Sonoma because Napa is widely seen as unfriendly to tourists.

Supervisor Mark Luce, who spearheaded a failed effort three years ago to allow weddings at wineries, agreed that potential customers “are being encouraged to go elsewhere.” Now, as the wine industry struggles under the weight of the recession, flexibility is even more important for local businesses to survive, he said.

Supervisor Keith Caldwell, who ran on a platform of slow growth last year, spoke in favor of expanding the WDO to allow different types of events. But he added that some wineries are located in places that make them unsafe for large parties.

Diane Dillon was the only supervisor to voice specific concerns about opening up events at wineries. The legal analysis that helped shape the WDO in 1989 hasn’t changed, she said, and neither have the principles that make Napa Valley what it is today.

“Is (Napa) about agriculture or is it about tourism?” Dillon asked.

Dillon’s comments largely echoed those of vintner Andy Beckstoffer, who helped shape the debate in 1989 and who spoke out against the proposal Tuesday.

Beckstoffer argued that restrictions were put in place for a reason following a 1980s Grand Jury report that asserted that increased promotional activities at wineries would not only threaten agriculture but could actually be illegal.

Beckstoffer said changes to the WDO would require a full-blown environmental review and might require a change to the county’s General Plan, which values agriculture as the highest use of Napa County land.

Beckstoffer added that the review could inadvertently tighten restrictions by throwing out the grandfather clause that allows some wineries to operate under old rules.

“What this does is it puts your Ag Preserve at risk,” Beckstoffer said. “Napa is about history and vineyards … We’re a small county. We’re focused on one crop. (If we) become a tourism destination, we risk losing that.”

But David Aten, an event planner who initially proposed loosening winery restrictions earlier this year, argued that Napa County already is a tourist destination.

“We are now inter-dependent,” Aten said. “Events happen in this valley every day, and we all know it.” With wineries selling hats and T-shirts in their tasting rooms, “We’re a cultural destination,” he said.