[Music] Good evening everyone. Thank you for coming. Uh I'm opening the regular meeting of the zone board of appeals.
Much being present. I'm going to ask all the members to introduce themselves beginning with member Ron Trunky member Bill Johnson Steve Allen Rob Schovin Dakota Richards D Roger
I'm Adam Fosta special council thank you uh the first item on our agenda is reorganization uh I'm the chairman pro Tim so the chair will ask for nominations for chair
I may nominate the current chair proel second. Thank you. Uh is there anyone else uh wish wishes to be nominated? If not, then I'll close the floor for nominations and call for a vote. I I
I have no choice. Thank you. Uh second position is clerk of the board. Are there any nominations? Valley. Okay. Is is that a nomination? Yes, it is. Is there a second?
Second. Uh any other nominations? Hearing none. Call for a vote, please. I I yours truly. All right. Thank you very much. Um we're going to have our uh public hearing regarding the matter of
um single source services shortly. That's scheduled for um 510. In the meantime, uh, does the board have any other discussions? Then I call upon member Tronkey. Yes. Um,
due to the nature of the meeting, I'm going to recuse myself or we perceive conflict of interest and the building too. Thank you. Recusable is accepted. Any other items that we need to discuss prior to the hearing?
Well, I guess we've been away. Sure. No. Okay. Just want to confirm to the members to the new members that you've all been sworn in. Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Yes. And you received your packs that we need
for this evening's meeting. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Did you get one in the middle? I got And in the audience, is everyone signed into a signin sheet? Sign
in. Sign in. There's two sheets. There's no problem. Okay, go energy. [Music]
What should you do? Welcome ladies. Do you mind signing in please? ma'am. Excuse me. M would you mind starting over please? Thank you. [Music] Just a few more moments. And did you know James Cory was not
James Cory passed away? He's about to be the full suffers. Wow. What? [Music] Good job. [Music]
That's okay. That's okay. Mhm. I know people. [Music] [Music] We're about to open the the meeting in about a minute. And I just want to inform all people attending here tonight
that only five members of the board will be voting on any matter tonight. It would be Mr. Herro, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Chovin and Mr. Richards. You're an alternate member, so you can participate, but you cannot vote with this money because we have an offer. All
right. Thank you. All right. Legal notice in accordance with the provisions of general laws chapter 4A sections 811 and 15. Notice is hereby given that the Graanby Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing on October 7th, 2025 at 5:10 p.m. at One
Library Lane, Graanby, Massachusetts to consider the following petition. an administrative appeal by the by Single Source Services LLC of correspondence issued by the Grampby Building Commissioner dated May 31st, 2025 entitled missing information and
addressing certain permit application submitted for a change of use at 16 East State Street Grand, Massachusetts. Interested parties are welcome to attend and comment. Persons wishing to be heard should appear on the date and time and place designated above. A copy of the
reference petition is on file with the town clerk and is available for public inspection during normal business hours. Steve, the address was incorrect. It's East Street, not East State Street. I'm sorry. It is East Street. My I
misspoke. I apologize. Uh the chair recognized Mr. Trumpy. You can introduce your council, please. Yes. Thank you for beh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is attorney Peter Durning. I'm an attorney at the law firm Dana. I don't mean to interrupt you. Do you
want a drink? I'm going to be all right. I'm going to be all right. You look like you're stuck. No. No, I'm with it. I'm with We got We got an extra chair we can rent yet. All right. So, um, sorry. Thank you for thinking of that. Is the mic on?
It's only for the camera. We can't. Oh, okay. Yeah. Okay. Is this out okay? Uh, so again, my name is attorney Peter Durning. I'm an attorney at the law firm of Verald Dana LLP and we've been working with Single Source and Winehouse
and Mr. Tronkey and I appreciate the opportunity to come before all of you today. I see many of you thumbming through Mr. McN. I see the full uh over inch thick stack of paper associated with this matter. And I I do want to report that this afternoon in response
to some issues. We did make one additional submitt that we transmitted by email this afternoon and I do have some paper copies. Unfortunately, I don't have copies for the entire board, but I do want to get into the record
just two items. And that is one a transmitt letter that addresses an issue that was brought to our attention regarding the submission of this administrative appeal and that is exhibit one to this letter. And as I'll
show and discuss later, there is a date stamp that was signed for the submittal of this appeal letter on June 30th. And the date stamp says that it was signed on June 30th, 2025 at 2 p.m. And it was
signed with the initials of the uh administrator for the board of health as we described in our transmitt letter sending this to the board today. When um Mr. Trumpy went to uh town hall to file
this, the town clerk was on vacation. He addressed um Colleen Aberdale from the board of health. She stamped it, signed with her initials, and she did that on three copies and Mr. Trumpy physically brought a stamped copy
to the zoning board of appeals to initiate this appeal. And then I subsequently transmitted a copy of that packet that was unstamped um via email. But the filing did go in at the town clerk's desk and that stamped copy did
go to the zoning board of appeals. In addition to this letter um showing that date stamp, we have compiled a list of the various approvals that the operation enjoys including the entertainment and
common victual victers license. We have in our possession right now the 2024 version but 2025 versions were approved the basic permit I didn't hear that about 25 the 2025 versions were issued but they
we don't have a copy in this letter the we've also included a basic permit from the US department of treasury the alcohol tobacco and tax and trade authority a foreign brewery license an a permit to operate a food establish ment
license issued by the Graanby Board of Health, a retail food sales license issued by the Graanby Board of Health, an alcohol beverages control commission farm winery license, an alcohol beverages control commission transport and delivery permit, the licensing board
from the town of Granbury for a farmer brewery pouring license for malt on Sunday through Saturday 12:00 noon to 9:00 p.m. a similar license from the licensing board of the town of Graanby for a farmer brewery pouring license for wines and malt again Sunday through
Saturday 12:00 noon to 9:00 p.m. A building permit for 16 East State Street dated July 22nd, 2025 noting the obligation to install two awnings over existing entries. the final approval
letter of a final approval dated August 18th, 2025 recognizing a change in use A2 permit and a final letter of approval dated August 18th recognizing the installation of the two awnings over the existing entry and the inspection site
card memorializing the inspection of those awnings on August 18th, 2025 and the town of Ganbury certificate of inspection date of issuance August 18th, 2025. Um, in addition to that compilation of information, we also have
an affidavit from Patricia Fitzgerald, the prior owner of 16 East State Street, in which she recounts um her knowledge and understanding of her predecessor um Richard and Gustlooki
and as well documenting her commercial her Miss Fitzgerald's commercial activity on sixth East 16 East State East 8 Street, pardon me. And I have multiple copies of the affidavit, but
only a few copies of the letter, but I will submit those around first to you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. And again, this was submitted via email, but uh later today if you have that great. Thank you.
And again, I do have a few copies of um this is [Applause] um and I thank the board again. I acknowledge there has already been a lot of paper in this matter. I think the the
information that has provided is um a fairly elementary um level to give you the update of the permitting that has occurred through this year. Um and I think that the affidavit of Miss Fitzgerald is also
informative. With that housekeeping put aside, um while there are some procedural issues that we will address in the course of our presentation this evening, the core issues before this ZBA are
fairly simple and discreet. Is Winehouse conducted entitled to conduct its agurism tasting room in the RS residential district? And there are at least three ways or three findings that the board could make that would
recognize and acknowledge that Wine House is a permitted use. It could find that it there is a prior non-conforming commercial use on the property. Alternatively, it could find that it is engaged in agriculture and entitled to protection from zoning requirements
under general laws chapter 48 section 3. Or finally, it could also find that all of the agurism activity that is taking place at Wine House is agriculture under the town's right to farm bylaw. Any one of those three would be sufficient to
find that this facility um is compliant with zoning and could continue. With respect to the prior non-conforming use in our submittals, including the April 25th request for a written determination to the building inspector
and our June 30th letter to the ZBA, we provided ample evidence that this property at 16 East State Street had been engaged in agriculture and related commercial activity for decades. Though it is in a residential zone, 16 East
State Street has participated in agriculture and commercial activity through haying and animal husbandry among other activities. From the Proglookies and continuing with the Fitzgeralds, the property was active in agriculture and commercial activity. The
agricultural activity included hanging the fields, breeding horses, animal boarding, and breeding. The main commercial activity at 16 East State East Street, pardon me, was operating dog kennels. While dog
kennel operations are generally understood to be commercial in nature more than agricultural, the more the operations involve breeding, the closer they come to agriculture. The Pragaloois were involved in the breeding
of Labrador retrievers and the breeding operation takes that activity closer to agriculture. But again, there are sufficient independent activities of breeding Labradors that demonstrates that the that agriculture was an active use at the property.
Dog kennels are significant commercial activity that provide a strong basis for this board to find that 16 East Street is grandfathered to permit commercial activity despite being in a residential district. The nature of the commercial
activity is extensive. boarding, greeting, grooming, offering obedience classes, taking strays from Wover Air Force Base for a fee. The commercial kennel licenses for this facility date back to 1968.
As noted by Mrs. Fitzgerald, the property pulled a license to conduct its commercial activities every year during her ownership. It was clear and evident that the town knew that commercial activity was allowed at this property.
As Mrs. Fitzgerald notes, this activity was loud and commercial clients were arriving at the property at all hours, including evening evening obedience classes, pickup and drop offs at the kennels that occurred outside regular
operating hours. When Single Source Wine House acquired this property, it had knowledge and awareness that the agriculture and commercial activity were permitted at this location despite being in a residential zone. Winehouse developed plans to increase the site and
the intensity of cultivation activity and developed essentially a farm stand concept to sell the products through Wine Houses's tasting room. All of this activity is consistent with the prior non-conforming use of the property in the residential district. As White House
developed this concept, it was before the building commissioner and the ordinary course and the and building commissioners both Tom Quinnland and Damen Cody made early inspections of this property and neither mentioned that the use being developed required zoning relief. to the extent the building
commissioner in its missing in his missing information letter had an issue with the language of the 2010 special permit regarding business services or industry being prohibited in the building. Neither building inspector had raised that as an issue in 2023.
As demonstrated in our June 30th appeal letter to the ZBA, the language of the prohibition in the 2010 special permit is discreet and specific. Under the Graanby bylaws, this prohibition cannot be read to bar the
agricultural activity at the property or the retail operation that has been developed to sell the fruits of that agricultural activity. Of course, there is further support for this conclusion based on the town's right to farm buyer law and the broad definition of agriculture which is defined to include
agurism. It is important to note that even with the 2010 special permit proceeding, the town was well aware of the commercial and agricultural activity at the property. The special permit was required for the size of the accessory building. It was not a special permit to
approve or disapprove certain commercial uses at the property. Even within the notation by the board on the 2010 approval, that language does not impede the continued agricultural use or the tasting room to promote agricultural
activity and to sell farm products. All of the activity was open and the town was well aware that the commercial activity being planned was to complement more intensive agricultural crop development. In some this property has a
long agricultural and commercial history. The town was well aware of that history as the property was being developed for the wine house concept. And this board can provide a ruling that the tasting room is allowed given the prior non-conforming commercial and
agricultural activity on the property within the residential district. Second alternative way or second alternative finding that this board could make would be to determine that this use is permitted without further formal zoning approvals under the do
amendment general laws chapter 48 section 3. Dover amendment provides express protection from zoning activities that are related to agriculture. If you determine that the property and activities qualify as agriculture under the do amendment, then
the property cannot be subject to further zoning approvals to operate. While Wine House is still in its infancy as an agricultural operation because its plants and vines are still maturing, it has significant economic activity
generated by its produce. Principally, the grapes on the farm are used in the wine- making process and hops grown on the farm are used in beer making. As the program develops, Winehouse does bring in juice from
grapes harvested on other properties and some of that juice is from out of state rather than from Massachusetts. But the wine product is crafted, blended, and developed at Wine House. Beer products are being brewed on site
and will soon be available on the from the taps at Wine House. And as I mentioned at the top, Winehouse has secured uh winery and brewery licenses to conduct this activity. In 2025, Winehouse's farming operation
produced 200 gallons of grape juice and expects that it will produce more as the vines mature further. That 200,000 gallons will produce roughly 30,000 to $45,000 in revenue. It may depend on
what year that uh revenue is realized or when those sales are booked, but that's the the nature and extent of the uh wine produce that will be associated with this. For the last principal criteria is
important for the ZBA to appreciate the importance of agro tourism under the town's own right to farm bylaw. Agriculture is a tricky venture. There are extreme vagaries of weather, pests, and disease that can simply decimate a
crop. Just two years ago, wine grapes in western Massachusetts were completely wiped out due to a late frost. Having an additional revenue stream to support and bolster the agricultural activity on the property is a way that many small holding farms are able to get by in
Massachusetts and keep those lands in agriculture. Graanby recognized this when it adopted its right to farm bylaw and the use in agri tourism and the definition of agriculture. The Wine House operation is a good example of the activity that that right
to farm bylaw is entitled to protect and you can find this board can find that this operation is agricultural and entitled to zoning protection under the right to farm bylaw. Those are the three primary issues or or core findings that I think this zoning
board can make. I will touch on a few procedural issues that have come up. As I said at the start and in the transmitt that we made uh later this afternoon, this matter was timely filed with the town clerk in the ZBA. Though
the town clerk was on vacation on June 30th, the clerk from the board of health stamped the document received a town hall and as Wine House's representative Chim Krompki brought a date stamped copy of that appeal to the ZBA. With respect to the nature of this
appeal, we filed this appeal after receiving the communication from the building inspector on May 31, which we're now referring to as the the missing information letter. And in the body of that letter, it explicitly included a reference and the ability to
appeal. We received the May 31st letter after making a prior request for a written determination from the building commissioner on April 24th. The building commissioner could have responded directly to that request for a
written determination, but he did not. He could have responded stating that he was adopting the prior determination or that giving the unappealed enforcement order, he believed that the property still needed zoning relief, but
he did not say any of those things. The next communication we received from the building inspector ignored those issues, but stated a single concern with the 2010 special permit. Either the building commissioner acquiesced on our request
for a written determination, potentially he constructively approved it, but alternatively, as we have argued by calling out the 2010 special permit issue, but not addressing either the prior enforcement action or our
arguments, frankly, that all the activity is allowed prior to the non-conforming use or under dover. The building commissioner's lack of response is before this ZBA and part of this appeal. We maintain that all those
issues are here and are part of this appeal because of the building commissioner's lack of response to our request for a written determination. But it is equally proper for this to be before the board based on the appeal of
the May 31 determination letter by the building commissioner with respect to the 2010 special permit because that document is only understood in the context of the longexisting commercial and agricultural activity at the
property. Lastly, it is important to note that the operation at Winehouse is properly conditioned. One of the reasons that I'm submitting the numerous licenses and permits to the board's attention is to
provide some assurance that there is a sufficient regulatory framework that is uh properly conditioning the operations on this property. To the extent there are issues regarding hours of operations or permitted activities, those issues
are already currently and adequately regulated under those various licenses for the operation. Most importantly, with respect to the ancillary activities such as having a DJ or having some music performers, the
entertainment license from the select board governs those activities. Regulations of hours of operation, numbers of persons who are able to attend inside the structure and the nature of of the entertainment are all addressed under the entertainment
license befitting the setting and the business of this agro tourism use. This is a positive amenity for the town that promotes agriculture and keeps this property in agriculture. For all these reasons, the board should make a finding
that the property is properly engaged in agriculture. That as a prior non-conforming property, the commercial activity is appropriate and can continue. And that specifically request with respect to the 2010 special permit, the property is not engaged in
any business services or industry and no further zoning relief or approval is required. Thank you for hearing me out. I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you, Mr. Durning. Um, first, um, I
want to accept their submitts uh, dated October 7th together with the affidavit from Patricia Fitzgerald as part of the record. Without objection. No objection. Fine. Uh, also, Mr. Ding, I would like you to um be able to be
recalled back to the podium uh after other speakers um address the topic just so that you can uh properly address any comments. Yes, of course. That makes sense. Does any member have any questions at this point in time? I do not know.
No. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Is there any other proponent uh to the applicant who wishes to speak? Hearing none,
the chair recognizes Mr. Mclofflin. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, board members. Uh my name is Tony John Mclofflin. I'm with the law firm of Green Miles Lipton in Northampton. I represent Raymond and Carol Morsette. Uh my client's very ill unfortunately. His
wife has taken care of him. So he he is in here this evening. But um he is here in spirit and um I believe that many of his neighbors support uh his endeavors. Okay. Um uh so many things to address. First off, the the issue of what this
appeal that you're for us right now. I know it sounds harsh, but statute 48, section 15, says it has to go to the town clerk before it goes to any of the other boards. Uh, and that simply wasn't
done. Um, if you leave an appeal to the last day, you can run into problems. And, uh, the the statute says it goes to the town clerk first. I've even heard of people, um, on the last day going to find the town clerk at her house or something like that. Um, but not getting
it to the town clerk till a week later is seemingly fatal in this that would mean that the building could not be used for this project because that's clearly what was the uh the order of uh um Mr. Quinland. That won't push that further,
but that's my understanding of Massachusetts General Chapter 48 section 15 has to go to the building the town clerk first before it goes to anyone else. Um, as for the fact that there's licensing um that are that's uh already
been granted to this facility, uh that is well and good. I'm not saying all the licensing was proper, but the licensing doesn't say anything about zoning. I I recently uh working with another council got the first disc golf course liquor license for, you know, a golf course
with frisbes instead of balls. Um but the zoning was in superior court for ages after that. They're separate things. You can get a liquor license and the zoning still is separate and distinct. We ultimately got the zoning for the uh disc golf course too. But there, you know, the fact that you can
get uh common venticular license, the fact that you can get uh liquor licenses, the fact that you can get winery or um brewing licenses doesn't mean that the zoning is okay. I just want to make that clear. And also um I want to clarify another thing. uh making
wine and making beer is not farm farming you know the the what farming is raising animals or growing crops not making beer I mean it you need uh crops to go into the beer but that is not in and of itself any type of agricultural activity
all right as for the three arguments uh uh pertaining to the appeal um the first argument that brother councel makes pertains to private to prior non-conforming use. All right, prior non-conforming use is where you're
doing something uh and then it becomes illegal, but it was legal when you were doing it. Um and the prior owner was uh had a kennel. Uh even though that now that kennel wouldn't be allowed in the district. Uh and that means that there is some prior non-conforming rights
established for a kennel, not any other business. There's no case law or statue that says if if you have a piece of property that was used, let's say you're in a residential district and it was used for a store. I can't go in there
and turn it into a bar because it had been used for a store. You it's those are different. Your your prior non-conforming rights pertain to what you did, not the fact that it was commercial in general. So, they have prior non-conforming rights for a kennel
and nothing more. Now there is a provision that says that they can uh change a prior non-conformity um as this board probably has seen it before. They have to show uh that what is being changed to is not substantially more
detrimental to the neighborhood than what it was. I don't see that application before us. Um that we need evidence about that. And and mostly the the big problem is that um your bylaw uh
says that you can change a prior non-conforming use. Your bylaw doesn't say you can change it to another non-conforming use. If I and that's what they're trying to do. They're trying to go from a kennel to a bar, nightclub,
brewery, entertainment facility. First off, the effect on the neighborhood is significantly different. Um, I can't imagine that it's not substantially more detrimental. Now, understand when I say substantially more detrimental, I'm not saying that it's detrimental to the neighborhood. It's horrible. All you
have to do is weigh what was there and what the new use is. And is the new use substantially more detrimental than the old use? Yes. Uh, it's driving the neighbors absolutely crazy. It is substantially more detrimental. doesn't have to be ruinous to the neighborhood or detrimental to the neighborhood. Just
that the new new use is worse than the old use. And I think that's clear. It is. It's driving the neighbors absolutely crazy. Um and I've cited to two cases um that I had to deal with recently where your bylaw doesn't say you can switch to another non-conforming
use. Courts on two occasions have said that means they can only switch to a conforming use. They can't switch. They can't say, "I'm going from a kennel to a bar." Unless you had a bylaw that said you had the power to let them go from a
prior non-conforming use to a current non-conforming use. Some towns have that in their bylaws, but you don't. So, they can't switch from a kennel to a bar. It's just impossible under the law. And I cited to two cases in there that deal
with that issue. Um, the other grounds that they talk about is what is known as the do amendment. The Dover Amendment is actually chapter 48, section three of the Massachusetts zoning law. I have to admit the the Dover amendments
difficult. The the first sentence of the Dover Amendment has 318 words in the sentence. Okay, it it is very very cumbersome and difficult to get through. But to get protection for an
agricultural use, the the gist of the agricultural use protection is that it allows farmers to do stuff on their property without being hindered by excess regulation from the towns as to the agriculture. Okay? As to the
agriculture. It also allows them to make certain sales of the products that are either grown or raised, not brewed or winery, but grown or raised on the property. Um, and it's it's clear from
and I cite it to the case law. Okay. Um, you two things about this. One thing is what is the big one and what is the small one. Okay. If you're claiming protection from the Dover Amendment, you
have to have first off the the use on the property has to be predominantly agriculture. Now, if they're making much much more money from the restaurant, uh from the bar, from the brewery, from the winery, from the entertainment compared
to hanging a few fields, then it's not then they're not substantially agricultural. there's it's going the wrong way when you weigh the two. And if they do incidental stuff like things that aren't directly farming like the
brewery, like the uh restaurant, like the winery, like all these things, those things have to have two elements to them. They have to be kindly related to farming. And in this 21st century, people are more mushy about what's kind
of related to farming. So that maybe someone could argue that, you know, a brewery is kind of related to farming, but the important element is it has to be significantly smaller than the farm. You can't have the thing that's there to support the farm be bigger than the
farm. And that's what's going on. I mean, presumably they're making a lot more money from this huge entertainment complex than from having a few fields. Presumably, that means they don't have the do amendment. the that a limit of the do amendment. The other way you can
look at the do amendment is there's specific statutory percentages of what you can sell. All right. And at first before this case, I didn't know if there were restaurant cases, but there are there are a couple. Okay. There was a there's an ice cream case that I signed
to where the guy has a farm. It's a real farm, you know, selling some of his crops uh at his dairy stand, but the ice cream is coming from Connecticut cows, not Massachusetts cows. And believe it
or not, that's fatal. The this is to protect um Massachusetts farms. Okay? And um they the they said they denied that. Interestingly, that when the judge denied it, he said, you know, if you get your own cows, come back here in a few
years. But now, if you're not doing it, you don't meet the numbers, you can't do it now. Same with their wine. If they're if their wine's going to be ready in a few years, then they could come back and try it again, but it's not there now. Okay. Um, so, and then I said it to
another case where a farmer did have a restaurant. The farmer had a restaurant on his farm. The farm was huge, over 100 acres, had tens of thousands of uh trees. It was an orchard, and they were selling tons of food in the restaurant,
but the restaurant was smaller economically than the farm. That's the only way you get to use the Dover Amendment. You can't just say, "I'm a farm, so I want a bar." That's not the way the Dover Amendment works. Okay. Um
then, um he also talks about the right to farm provision. that's that's in um your general bylaws. The thing about the right to farm permission is it's basically just aspirational. It it's basically saying trying to protect farms from uh um maybe nuisance claims, trying
to protect the farms, trying to allow people to to do farms under little houses. Uh but it specifically says it's not designed to o to trump your zoning bylaws. So, you can't use that to somehow get around zoning bylaws because
it the the actual right to farm bylaw says we can't beat the zoning bylaw. It says it. Um so, I just don't see how any of these things and also I I cite it to um the the Agra tourism is not defined in your bylaws, but it there is a a
legal memorandum from the Department of Agriculture that talks about it and it says the same thing. says, "If you're going to do agurism, the agurism can't be bigger than the farm." And that's what's going on here. They got the they've got the the uh the tail wagging
the dog. You can't have a big complex in a little farm. That's not how it works. All right. Um the the other thing I want to talk about is Mr. Cody Mr. Cody said they can't do any
of this. I mean, now Mr. Um, Mr. Quinnland is saying they can't use the major building. Good. I agree. They can't use the major building. But, um, Mr. Cody had said you can't do anything. That was never appealed. He wrote to them asking for an opinion. But understand,
a building inspector is not obligated under statute or rule to even respond. So, he doesn't have to respond. What he did respond, what Mr. Cody did respond and says, "You can't use this building. Go away." So I mean he in essence that's supportive even though he didn't address
the other issues in detail that is supportive. You can't use this go away. And I just um don't see um how we get around these things. It it appears that um well I guess what we we should at
least ask them are numbers. Ask them for numbers, you know, like what percentage of stuff that is grown on that property ends up in in the wine? What percentage
ends up in the beer? Well, and don't forget the food trucks. I did one of these in Hadley with a farmer with 400 acres and I had to show the percentage of food that my guy grew that went into each and every food truck. You can't
just bring in food trucks to a farm and say it's a farm. Those food trucks have to have food from the farm. They're just they're just blatantly ignoring these rules that are in the statute. Um so I think I think Mr. Cody was right and I
ask you to beg your uh your select board to please pay Mr. Costa money to go in and force it. It's still a valid order. It says nothing can be done. I'm not certain why people are doing anything but Mr. Quinnland was absolutely right.
This cannot go forward. Um the language says that there can be no industry. I've set forth exactly the way your bylaws end up defining industry and it basically means any business just like this. They can't this they got a special permit to make their farm building
bigger for farm not to have a restaurant, nightclub, brewery there. Um to me I it just seems absolutely clear that um I can't see how they can go forward based upon what they're saying. None of the grounds given by brother
counsel hold up when you read the statutes or read the case law. I'm sorry but thank you. Thank you. Do you have any questions? Any questions now? No. Right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Are there any other uh opponents who wish to speak? Um I'll do Mr. Joyce first, but I just want to ask that please cover points that were not addressed already. Thank you.
I know they mentioned the station order. We just hating that name. But all the names of the people that get signed really Mr. Cody begin the brought the White House in 2020 this
year which is true. They can't hear you. Can you still Okay. Okay. Hear me now. Okay. They purchased the U property from the Fish Cherro family in 2020.
They applied for the first wine license in 2022. They were already manufacturing wine in 2020. There was no grapes grow, but they're manufacturing wine. Here's the copy of their bottle with their name
right on it. In addition to that, in 2021, they went and got a business license for the wine. In 2021, they continue to make wine, manufacturing it from grapes from
California. They're not from their property. They're manufacturing the wine from California produce. They're not coming because nothing was even grown then. It takes five to seven years as was referenced to
for even the grapes to mature to be harvested. They make wine and they don't they haven't done that. Uh also what then um the ABCC
we got proof here that the wine all comes from the grapes come from California. ABC inspectors stated that and they have a tenant license for the beer from the drunken rabbit self.
Also, and I'll just give this to you. Uh the license they have is the chapter 1381 19B license. That's what was issued by the town. That is for a farmer- winery license.
And you can't have a farmer- winery license if you're not producing. As was already stated, minimum of 25% must come from that property. 25% from other farms in Massachusetts. Then you can do the other 50% elsewhere. What they're doing,
as I stated, and if you want this stuff, you can have it. They're manufacturing the wine. They're not producing it from their product. And if you look at the ABC's licenses, they got the wrong license.
They have a winery license. I'll just give you this. This is 19B is 19. It's okay. You have a manufacturing license. All right. Thank you, Mr. Joyce. Uh, we'll accept the submitts without objection. Do you want me to?
No, that's fine. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Your name? Mike. You say your name. My name is Joe Bra White. I live at 49 East Street. I grew up at 43 Street and
the first 5 years of my life were at 16 East Street. It was my grandparents farm, Mary and Clarence Bray. They sold it to the Polskis in the late60s. Anyway, that's it's always been a residential and agricultural
uh street. East Street has been my grandparents had a dairy farm and chickens at their farm and they were there from 1902 I believe to 196 I think it was 68 or nine that my grandmother
sold it. It since this wine house has been there. East Street's a busy street anyway. There's lots of traffic on the street. Since they've been there, the traffic is more and more and more. I'm a quarter of a mile up the street. I can hear the
music. So, I can can't imagine what the people that are closer go through. Um, I guess that's all I wanted to say. Thank you. Mr. Damaraki.
chair. Preferential treatment. Uh Rich Draki, Bachelor Street. Uh first of all, I'm opposed 100% for to the ZBA for their approval of this permit. I think it should be turned
down for the following reasons. The prior building inspector issued a cease and desist order against the winery. the owner of the winery had 30 days to appeal it. They did not appeal it. So, because they did not appeal it
during the appeal period, they could have every permit that's ever issued, it doesn't matter. They did not appeal the project uh from the building inspector. In 2010,
Tom Fitzgerald approached both a planning board and a ZVA to get site plan approval of his property. He was he he uh had, as you're all aware, he had a dog kennel. Now, the planning board,
it's interesting that the owner of the winery is the chairman of the planning board. Now this is what the planning board said in 2010. They said for the construction of a
garden storage building for the storage of farm equipment. So that's what the prior owner said. That's why he wanted that building for the storage of farm equipment. Period. Then Mr. Fitzgerald went to the planet
to the ZVA and they said they hand wrote provided that no business services or industry be conducted there from or there too. So I think you have
to look at the at the intent of what the owner of the property was trying to do. He didn't he didn't want the neighbors to be upset. He didn't want any loud noise. He didn't want any traffic. He
wanted it quiet for whatever went in that building, which I think is important. Okay. I just wanted to comment on the 2-year rule that the uh attorney already went over and it's 3.34 of the Gramby bylaws. It
says you can't use non-conforming use if the new use, in this case it's a bar, a restaurant, a nightclub, uh an outdoor entertainment place is substantially more
detrimental to the neighborhood than the previous use which it is. So my last comment is uh the Chunky Jim Chi is not a farmer. Okay? It should not be classified as
agriculture under any circumstances and we have all the proof. We have the percentages if you want them. So he is not a farmer. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to
speak on the topic? Mr. Carrier Jeremy Carrier to Phillip Circle. First of all, I'd like to start this evening by saying this town has failed us. Many many people on the select board
administrator going down has failed us. The planning board has failed us. Anyone who supported the Wine House to this point has failed the community around the Wine House. the people that aren't attending
the Wine House to enjoy their favality of drinking and the music and playing cornhole and enjoying their food trucks, which this town never ever had allowed and now is just overrun with. My purpose
of talking tonight, is to ask this board to please stop failing the community, stop failing this town. We need to stop looking at the name of the person that has applied for this and his position on the planning
board. We need to stop looking at shirts that can say the wine house cuz my neighborhood should probably just come up neighborhoods for a peaceful community and start wearing those around town. or in another word, please don't fail us.
Because as I look around this room tonight and see the joke of seeing shirts that support the White House, I just want to say that I personally moved my family from a road and area that was noisy because of planes,
because of increased plane activity that was going to happen in the area proposed to a beautiful quiet development, an area that was residential that if I woke up in the morning to a
true agricultural development. It was maybe smelling cow plop in the morning and that was a beautiful thing. Hearing the roosters at 5 in the morning was a beautiful thing. Hearing cows out in the middle of the
field at 5 in the evening as the sun's going down in the fall. Beautiful thing. Now we hear music. I don't want to hear his music. I don't want to hear all loud laughter with amusement.
When we've approached people in town, we've posted things, things have been on Facebook, we get, "Oh, just chill out. Go have some drink." Do you think I'd want to support what we want shut downs? None of us in the community think this
should have happened to begin with. It definitely shouldn't have happened in the building that it's in now as it's already been discussed. The fact that the building inspectors have not brought that up at each inspection makes me also consider was the original occupancy permits ever even issued when
it was done. Tense placed in PL order guaranteed not permitted 100%. Go ahead and prove me wrong. Show me all the permits. This just needs to stop. A lot of my
neighbors are afraid to talk. I work for the town. I've been on the ZBA for years. I was chair of the ZBA and I know that we shouldn't be approving things that do not truly benefit the neighborhoods that they're put in.
This has been a long drawn out battle already. If this was to go through further, you were to say yes on any of this, it's just going to continue. We can hide behind an LLC, but we all know it's Jim Trunky and we know it's going to become like a nightclub. The
traffic's going to increase. The size is going to increase. What they do is just going to be hidden underneath whatever title they want to call it. But this isn't agricultural and this isn't right. So, please take your time with this and
make the right decision and turn it down. I thank you for your time. Thank you. Is there anyone else like to speak? Yes, ma'am. Can be away. I'm sorry. It can be either way. Yeah, I speak to you before again. In
other words, I don't have to be the same as everybody that's been Go ahead. What's your name? My name is Barbara Berthium. I live at 32 East Street. Been there 10 years this month. I didn't grow up here like a lot of people did, but I grew up in a small town in central Mass. And so, we are
direct neighbors. you know, there's a field in between, but I can see everything from our house and I I am really appalled. I can't speak to the zoning. I'm not a lawyer or any of those issues. What I can speak to as a
neighbor though and my whole life, one of the things that was important, I grew up in a small town, too, that you try to get along with your neighbors. Now, I can cite a dozen other problems that are going on there that nobody has seemed to mention or cared about, but the music,
we go out in our yard and listen to it. We we like it. And it's not that loud. I mean, it's there's things like fireworks that some people don't mind shooting off all night on the 4th of July almost across from us. Nobody cares about that. And I want to address the traffic. All
right. 10 years I've seen the traffic. I'm And I do want to also say I don't know any of these people personally. I'm speaking just as a neighbor and what I've observed. The traffic on East Street has been terrible since we've lived there the last 10 years. And I can tell you that
one of the worst problems are the huge trucks that fly by. They could not stop if a child or anybody was in the road. That's how fast they go. And I'm outside a lot cuz I retired and I'm around and I'm outside in my yard. We spend a lot
of time taking care of it. I love the people that shop at uh at Cumbies and go by and throw their trash out the window. I pick up trash every day in my yard. Well, that's part of it. The other things that we've done, my I live with my son and daughter-in-law and
granddaughters. We have an in-law and he's gone. But behind us is a cow pasture. Do you know how many times the cows got loose because the fences weren't good? This is a while ago. Lenny passed away, my son and I would be out
there trying to get them back in cuz, you know, we were helping. We cared about where we lived and we cared about the people and we helped them. So, I do a lot of things that aren't required. The people across the street from us, I don't really know who lives there, but I met the man who owns it, but there
there's nobody in that house right now. Those big trash barrels blow over. So, instead of leaving them, I go out and pick them up. So, I'm just saying that it just seems to me like there's a lot of negativity. And I disagree. I mean, there's other things going on. People
parked in that field and they're shooting guns. I don't think they're real guns, but I mean, there's lots of other noises that are going on. Someone else is riding a dart bike up and down the road where they've built next to us on the Laflean property. So, I guess my point is simply that I, like I said, I
can't address the zoning issues, but I can I'm addressing it as a neighbor, and I have no relationship or knowledge or of anybody that lives there. I have friends over on um Jennifer in that area from walking over there. But I just
thought at least I should say that what I've observed and I, like I said, I've observed plenty and there's lots of other issues going on. But I will say one of the biggest issues right now is the traffic is terrible. It's so fast and a lot of them are big trucks and I
don't think that just started. I've seen it for the last 10 years. So very good. Well, thank you for your comments. Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else would like to speak? Miss name please and address for the carrier to Philip Circle. Um my biggest concern
is the noise. Um, like my husband said, and you know, people who say they don't hear the noise are, I don't know, tonedeaf or something. I mean, I hate to, you know, but it's just very loud. People screaming. I can I can go out in my garden. I can hear the the I can hear
the songs. So, that's, you know, pretty loud. I have a son that works nights. He wants to sleep. He can't sleep because the noise is too loud. Um, so that's the biggest concern. Um, other neighbors can hear. I have a friend who lives on South Street. They can hear the noise, the
music. And uh so that's, you know, the biggest concern is the loud noise. The music is way too loud. I don't know how anybody can enjoy it sitting there at the winery, but when we can hear it miles away, you know, how can it be enjoyable?
I've had a lot of heard a lot of complaints about other people who are afraid to speak up about it, but they're, you know, don't like the the loud noise. Thank you for your comments. Okay. You're welcome. There's a hand over here. Yes, ma'am.
Your name and address, please. Teresa Har Street. I'm sorry, I didn't get the last name. Richihara. It's I C H I H A R A. Okay. Okay. And I would like to read with the woman who spoke earlier that the traffic
is terrible. It's been terrible. We've been in that house 30 years and it's no different. It's always been bad. And as far as the music, I think they have good taste. I enjoy the music and um they're done at 8:00, so I really never have a problem with it. And we live right next
door, so we're the closest people and we enjoy it. So, thank you. Just so you know, all the neighbors don't disagree. Is there anyone else? Yes, ma'am. Yes. My name is Cindy Bad. I would like to ask Chairman Peter if he would
explain your name. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. All the questions should go through the chairman. Yes, please. Be directed to individual people. Please come up. Uh first, um your name and address. Cindy Wlette, 109 Taylor Street.
And uh please address your comments to the chair. I would like to know if the attorney, Peter, I couldn't hear his last name, could explain in detail what was the grandfathered law of 2010.
[Music] We can get that information for you when he comes back up to the podium. You the 2010 grandfather. I can't hear it now. I said uh we'll have him answer that question when he comes back to the podium. So he's going to speak again
before you vote. I didn't. So he's going to explain that what he meant by a grandfather law in 2010. Yes, I can ask for it. So as far as I know, this meeting here
is supposed to be for an appeal. And I want to confirm that what this pro the property wasn't it bought with a deed restriction in 2020? If you're referring to the building
permit uh for the uh utility building. Yes, deed restriction. And what was the deed restriction? What did it say on it? Business services or industry be uh used for that building? Okay. So, that was known when it was purchased.
So, I'm concerned on if that was known and deed restrictions are supposed to be primary, how is this business even existing? Mr. chairman three. Yes. Agriculture is not considered a
business or industry. When you look at the the 2010 letter was business or industry. Industry is the manufacturing of products and then business. I went up there was like 30 different items of business. I think the main thing is the
the then ZBA planning board didn't want a garage put there. You know, a dog kennel is a business. You know, everybody can say it was a business. There's a question of whether the non-performing use applies or not, but
to me, I think what our our goal here, I hear a lot about the entertainment license, but it has nothing to do with the ZBA. I hear a lot about the wine license, which is nothing to do with the ZBA. Our question is, everybody calls it a winery. Is a winery agriculture?
Well, that's that's the narrow focus focus to me. And I think we need to debate all the other stuff, the noise and everything else. This is the wrong board. You got to go to the boards that issue those licenses. So what is your role then tonight
if this if it's an appeal for a change of to me? I said what my role is I feel is whether the winery is agricultural related. It was agriculture. Everything else is different boards. That was made very clear. The select is
this the you know, but when the property was bought, it was not a farm. It was for one building. But when the property was bought, it was not a farm. Correct. Well, this is uh we're not going to go into the deliberations about those topics, but our specific goal right now
or our challenge right now is to address the petitioner's uh request to uh reverse the building inspector's uh special permit uh portion of the building together with the uh site plan review comments I believe is part of the
the uh answer. Is that not correct, Mr. Trump? Yes, that's correct. And say that about the special permit again. Okay. Okay. The special permit is what you referred to as the 2010 restriction placed on the the deed regarding the use of that structure. Mhm. But isn't there two separate
entities? It's a deed which is legal and supposed to be not to be confused with a deed. It's a restriction on the property use. So I thought there were two different things. I thought one was a deed which passes from property owner to property owner. This is this is not a deed. This is a
restriction of the use of the property. Well, actually, Mr. Chairman, it's a restriction of the use of one building. One building. Correct. Not the property. That's But that that agriculture is not business or
it's not industry. So, anyone you have any other comments? Um, so who is supposed to be addressing legal procedures the the courts regarding application processes, things that are missing,
things that were not disclosed? I don't understand your question. Can you rephrase it? Yes. So for instance, when you apply for licenses like the TDB, the tobacco trade and bureau license, which is the federal license, you are
supposed to disclose your legal right for the business. Hi, Mr. Chairman for you. I think you're getting into the weeds and that's something that's why there's attorneys. That's why there's lots of That's what I'm asking. So the attorneys and judges
if they want to if somebody wants to pursue it that's their prerogative that's but that's not the question before us correct so you're just going to make a decision if you're giving a special permit
not and and are you are you taking into consideration regarding the current bylaws of our town? Absolutely. That's what we base our decision on. So, we do have a bylaw that says no bars in residential zones.
What we're going to discuss. Yes. And this is a residential zone, right? It is residential. Yes. Pirates, residential, single family. Yes. Yep. Anything else? Yes. So, on behalf of everyone that's
here to support um enforcing bylaws, I'd like to thank people and I do believe the residents of Graanby have the right if they live in a residential zoned area to have the residential zoned property
protected. So, thank you for listening to me. You're welcome. Thank you. All right. Uh seeing no other uh comments, uh I would like to ask special counsel a couple of clarification questions. Sure.
The comments made by Mr. Mclofflin regarding um the do amendment in terms of the statements made regarding revenue and so forth, were those accurate statements? So um through you, Mr. Chairman. So it's
it's it's a bit more complicated than that in terms of whether they're accurate accurate statements. Uh let's talk a bit about the Dober amendment. It's only one of the several arguments that the the applicant has advanced, but let's talk about the Dober amendment and what protections it it provides. Um
you've heard many references from uh several residents uh in attendance tonight uh to the zoning bylaw and the residential designation of of this property. It's in the RS district uh and the permissions and prohibitions in your bylaw for um non-residential uses. And
you've also heard references to a special permit that issued back in 2010 that is in the chain of title to this property that restricts at least with respect to what is now referred as the tasting room restricts the use of that building specifically prohibiting any business or industry within the
building. Well, uh, and I don't want to speak for the applicant, but my understanding of the applicant's argument is that, uh, number one, the bylaw's restrictions to residential use of this property being in the RS district, and number two, the 2010
special permits restriction on no business or industrial use of this particular building of the property don't apply to the property. don't apply to the building because the agricultural exemption found in chapter 48 section 3 known as a do amendment uh supersedes
your local requirements. And there's some truth to that. There's no question that chapter 48 section 3 and the do amendment provides protection statewide in all 351 cities and towns to religious uses, educational uses, agricultural uses, and a few other uses that are
referenced in the statute. And with respect to agricultural uses in particular, what that statute says is that no zoning bylaw in any city or town or ordinance uh shall prohibit, unreasonably restrict or require a
special permit for an agricultural use. So that seems simple enough. You can't prohibit it. You can't unreasonably restrict it. And you can't place it on a discretionary special permit. In other words, you have to allow it subject to maybe some reasonable restriction if in
fact it's agricultural. And now I'm going to get to the answer to your question, which is are the statements made concerning revenue accurate uh in terms of the the impact of of of revenue? Well, I said it's more complicated than that because even in instances where you have a principal
commercial agricultural use of a property, and I'm not saying that this property is, that's for you to decide. But even in an instance where you have a principal commercial agricultural use of a property, you're also permitted as a land owner or operator to have accessory
uses. Uses that are accessory to that agricultural use. And those accessory uses can also fall under what we refer to as the agricultural umbrella. Okay. Well, what's an accessory use? And how significant can an accessory use be? And when an accessory use becomes so large
that it begins to be a significant use of the site, when does and you heard uh council for some of the neighbors use the the old adage the tail wagging the dog. It's one I like to use a lot too and I'm talking about the agricultural exemption. When does the tail begin to
wag the dog where you have an accessory use that has become so significant that it tends to sort of trump the principal agricultural use? In those instances, it's not accessory anymore. it's now effectively become a principal use of the site. And when conversely, when do you have a use that while it may be
secondary to the principal to the principal agricultural use? When do you have a use that is not sufficiently enough related enough to the agricultural use that it even qualifies as an accessory use? I knew this question would arise and so I pulled my favorite case. It's a case that was decided in the land court a couple of
years ago and uh it's a case decided by Judge Vy um who's one of the most particular of the land court judges and he addressed this very issue. It was a case that involved agricultural use on Nantucket and he was addressing this concept of accessory use because it became the the the very topic in the
case. And so I'm going to read you a couple passages because I think they're important to understand. Okay, what qualifies as accessory because I don't think there's any question here that this tasting room operation, whatever it may be, however it's described, uh, is not agriculture itself. Nobody's farming inside the tasting room building. It's
not being used as a greenhouse, it's being used for events of some sort. Whether those events are wine or uh entertainment, whether there are food trucks outside, uh whatever it may be, it's being used for something that is not itself agriculture it would seem, but the applicant is arguing that it is
accessory and therefore tied into the agricultural use. And so the question for you if you're addressing this issue is well, is it in fact accessory? So here's what here's what the court said about these terms. Uh the court said that accessory uses have to be two things, customary and incidental.
customary and incidental. And so then it described judge may describe what what's meant by these words. He said the word incidental incorporates two concepts. It means that the use must not be the primary use of the property but rather one which is subordinate and minor in significance.
Incidental when used to define an accessory use must also incorporate the concept of a reasonable relationship with the primary use. It is not enough that the use be subordinate. It must must also be attendant. to ignore this latter aspect of the word incidental would be to permit any use which is not
primary no matter how unrelated it might be to the primary use. So that's the definition of incidental. Then you have this concept of customary. What's customary? Well, the court said the word customarily is even more difficult to apply. Although it's used in many ordinances as a modifier of the term
incidental, it should be applied as a separate and distinct test. Courts have often held that the use of the word customary places a duty on the board or the court to determine whether it is usual to maintain the use in question in connection with the primary use of the land. And examining the use in question
is it is it is not enough to determine that it is incidental in the two meanings of that word as discussed above. The use must further be scrutinized to determine whether it has commonly, habitually, and by long practice been established as reasonably associated with the primary use. So when
you talk about revenue, revenue is one test to determine whether the tail is wagging the dog. You can look at the amount of gener uh revenue that may be generated on a site in connection with the true agricultural use, whether it's farming or a vineyard or haying the
land, whatever it might be. How much revenue is generated by that? And then compare that to the revenue that might be generated by the use that the owner or operator is saying is accessory, customary, incidental. Compare that revenue generation and say which
operation is generating more. If it's the farming operation, the true agricultural operation, and there's a relationship between the two, then maybe the accessory use is indeed accessory. But that's only one test. You can also look at the portion of the site that is dedicated to the farming or agricultural
use and compare that in terms of land area, buildings, whatever it might be. You can compare that to the portion of the site or the number of buildings or space within a building that is used by the accessory use. So there's not a single test for determining when the tail wags the dog. Again, to use that
adage, it's really a totality of the circumstances that the board has to look at, much as a court would in determining, okay, is this use in fact accessory to agriculture? Thank you. Um, I have another question
regarding uh the comment made by Mr. Lup Mclofflin. He referred to the order that was issued by Cody D uh Damian Cody for the uh cease and dis desist order. He's uh asserting that the claim or the order
is still valid. Do you have an opinion on that? Uh I I do. Um and it's a complicated one always. So uh for background and I think most in attendance probably know this already. There was a letter that issued, I had it
here, June 25th of 2024 by Jamie uh Damen Cody, the former building commissioner for the town. And what that letter said, it was referred to as a stop order or a cease and desist order. And it said that the property was zoned RS with no known overlay district to
consider. that the property had been determined that it was being used for commercial purposes open to the public, including things like live music entertainment, food service, outdoor entertainment, and that the zone does not permit these types of uses as of right. And in fact, that there was no
special permit or other avenue for uh the owner operator to seek relief to continue the conducting of of these operations. Uh it did not speak specifically to agriculture. didn't make a determination as to agriculture. It simply stated more generically that this
was a uh non-residential use occurring in a residential zoning district and therefore needed to stop. Um I agree with the statements made by attorney Mclofflin that that was not appealed. Um and I don't think in fact I think that uh that that uh Mr. Durning attorney Durning uh concedes that that was not
appealed within the 30-day appeal period that would typically follow. Uh well, what does that mean? Well, it can be argued that that means that the owner operator of the site has forfeited his or her right to then challenge that determination on the merits and that determination stands. And I think that
that's a strong argument. Um, what complicates this situation is that Mr. Cody is no longer with the town in the capacity as building commissioner. Uh, Mr. Quinland is. Uh, Mr. Quinland issued a further letter, the missing information letter as it's been referred
to tonight, dated May 31st. I think all the board members have a copy of it. Um I I'm not going to characterize that letter because I don't think it's my role to do so, whether that was in response to something that uh the applicant uh or the owner operator of the property may have submitted or not.
Um I will say that I I disagree uh that somehow the appeal incorporates um uh Mr. Quinland's inaction or lack of action or his silence is somehow can somehow be challenged. The law is clear in Massachusetts that um municipal estoppel as as it's referred to this
doctrine that municipalities uh can somehow be prohibited from enforcing their bylaws by virtue of some action or inaction that a town official took. It's not a recognized doctrine in Massachusetts. The law is quite clear in Massachusetts. If a zoning violation exists, even if a former building uh
inspector or commissioner determined otherwise, it can be enforced. And I think the reverse is also true that building officials, either the same building official or a subsequent building official, can change his or her mind. I'm not saying that that's necessarily what Mr. Quinland is doing. I don't know for sure. I'm reading this
May 31st, 2025 missing information letter, those which is really what's before you tonight. That's what's been appealed to you. And there are five paragraphs. Each one is about one sentence. Uh one of them is two sentences. Uh, as I read this, three of these five paragraphs, three of these
five sentences are not zoning related. They're relating to building code issues, uh, board of health issues, um, a request that the engineer meet on site. Those are not before you tonight, I don't believe, in my opinion, um, because you don't have the jurisdiction to consider matters that are not zoning
related matters. Your jurisdiction typically as a zoning board is you issue variances, you issue special permits, and you act on administrative appeals, which is what you have tonight. The latter of those three things, the most confusing of the three because there are no guidelines in your bylaw as to when
you rule in favor and when you oppose an administrative appeal. You're effectively acting as a panel of judges uh hearing the evidence before you and making a determination based upon the facts and the application of law. But the two items that are before you are two determinations that Mr. Quinnland
made number one that after reviewing the permit submitted for a change of use he reminds the applicant that site plan review by the planning board is required. Now does that is that a reversal of course by him with respect to the determination that had been made
by Mr. Cody uh a year earlier that this use was prohibited. I guess you could say maybe it is. Why would he then be saying that site plane review is required? Um but maybe it's not. Maybe he's not conceding that. Maybe he understood that Mr. Cody's letter had issued and and and stood had not been
appealed. Uh he doesn't say and he's I don't believe he's here to to answer that question. So you have to take this at face value. The second uh paragraph that I think is an issue here is the last paragraph. We've discussed it already tonight and that's that there is this uh restriction in the chain of title. Specifically, it's a a site plan
approval and a special permit both that issued back in 2010. uh notices of both those decisions had this requirement that the building that was then being authorized, what has now become the tasting room, but at the time was simply a storage shed, would not be used for business or industry. Uh and again, I
think that that sort of ties into this agricultural use question. So, um one last statement, when I discussed this matter in advance of tonight's public hearing with the chairman, um the thought at first was that because there's nothing referenced in the letter from Mr. for Quintland dated May 31st of
2025 as it relates to agricultural use that maybe the question of agricultural use could be avoided. Maybe that wasn't properly before this board. Um maybe it's not if there's a procedural basis for you to not hear this appeal. There have been some procedural grounds cited by by by both council tonight with with
opposite opinions on whether it allows this board to proceed further. But if we get beyond the procedure and we get to the substance of this this letter, I don't know how you answer these questions. I don't know how you determine whether Mr. Quinnland was right in saying site plan review is
required and uh the special permit says no no business or industry without first determining whether the agricultural exemption in state statute applies to this property because I think that that informs your ruling on those two questions. So I've I've come a bit of
full circle as I've discussed the matter with the chairman. I've seen the submitts made both by the applicant and by council for some of the neighbors. Uh and I do think that you probably have to address the issue of agricultural use in order to appropriately determine whether uh the determination made by your
building commissioner was correct. Thank you. Does the u any members of the board have any questions for attorney? With that said, I'd like to hold on. Uh I would like to uh turn the
floor back to uh Mr. During and to address some of the comments made and then I have some questions for Isn't that chair more comfy? I should have followed your advice. Mr. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to come back up and I
appreciate the the dialogue and the comments from the public and the observations from Mr. Costa. I think that puts us at a at a good point and that
we do believe and it is our position procedurally that the appeal is appropriate for both the missing information letter and the issues raised in our prior appeal. And I and I think
where where we get there while I think I would agree with Mr. Costa um that you know it's not some type of municipal estoppel necessarily but the building we did make a request for a
written determination from the building commissioner and he either said nothing or he provided the May 31st letter. Either way, I believe we would be entitled under the zoning act to seek an administrative appeal of that
determination. Um, in addition, based on the the close and I think proper analysis that attorney Costa gave in this very limited missing information letter, you it can be read to understand
that um, Commissioner Quinnland is not saluting or not necessarily adopting the cease and desist letter. Um and and in that circumstance for a property owner seeking to get a a resolution of this
open question coming to the ZBA is is the avenue that we have for addressing that. So I do believe that that information is before you. As we said earlier and as we've said in our submitt, I also think that
part and parcel of the discussion of the 2010 special permit necessarily involves an understanding that the the property uh was in uh commercial use and agricultural use at the time. Um, and
just to refute some of the comments that went before about the prior history of the property just being residential. In the affidavit that we provided from Mrs. Fitzgerald, paragraph 20, she concludes the approval
that 2010 approval was granted and there was never any question that the request was being made to support the commercial and agricultural activities at the property. Um, others were saying that that the Fitzgerald's occupancy was
strictly residential. I think the record is very clear that that is not the case. Um, I also appreciate Mr. Costa's um exploration of the the intricacies of the Dober amendment. I agree with him that it is a tricky
area. One one important clarification that I want to provide though because there's a lot of question about you know dog wagging the tail or this or that or the robust entertainment use. One thing that is important for the
board members to understand is that while the entertainment is an enhancement of the experience bringing folks to u the winery to sample wine and beer, the entertainment itself is not a
revenue generating activity. There are not sales of tickets for a DJ set or for the jazz combo playing. Those um those amenities are there to enliven the
mood and the experience, but the commercial activity that's taking place is the is the sale of the wine products. Yes, there are food trucks uh providing that atmosphere as well. I understand that's a consideration, but the the
notion that was made earlier that um whether or not the state should have issued just a winery permit or a farm winery permit that they did issue a farm winery permit I think um speaks important. Uh making wine and beer is
not farming was said. Uh it's not any type of agricultural activity. I I disagree. Taking the the fruits of agriculture and making it into a product for sale is all in that chain. Um and and supports each other.
I think those are the the main points that I wanted to get to. And Mr. Chair, you said you had some questions. Yes. Getting back to the the revenue portion of the activity at the White House. Uh am I understanding correctly that the only revenue generated from
that is the sale of wine? There are there's sale of wine. There's sale of beer. I think they have shakurerie boards that are also sold inside the um wine house tasting room. So it's a very limited non beverage menu
that's there. Is there uh does your client have any uh rough numbers in terms of the percentage regarding the product of the actual farm whether it's the hang or the orchard or whatever it may be versus the revenue generated by the the uh feasting room. I do not have
that strict percentage that I can provide to you today. The information that I provided earlier was that at at least 200 gallons of uh wine grapes are being made into wine grapes from the property are being made into wine and
the expected revenue from that is around 30 to 45,000. The the hops and the beer product are are going in soon. But I I don't have the precise historic percentages to provide to you today. I don't I'm just trying to get some basic measure of this
um in terms of the uh first part of the application are your your questions uh regarding uh the special permit. Yes. Uh um actually before I come to the special permit let's talk about the
uh restrictions about the site plan approval uh in the fact that um uh not assuming one way or the other whether this is a determination of agricultural use or not uh because I have certainly some severe concerns regarding that
because that is not u um part of your request in terms of your your u uh petition. against for the board. Uh and uh as we all know that that it would have been certainly a lot
easier to decide this had Mr. Trump appealed that decision back when uh the commissioner made that determination. But notwithstanding that um my concern is in terms of site plan approval is
that is it your contention that um no uh portion of the of the uh planning board uh restrictions on the use of the property would apply. So we have been working with the uh building commissioner and have gone
through the the building permit process um worked with the board of health. We have tried to address um the concerns. I did state in the letter that we believe that uh for if it would be a plan
special permit that that would go too far. Um if it is just site plan review by the planning board, perhaps we could be amendable to that. But to the extent it's requiring uh greater or further review that could
go to the use itself, which we would believe would be protected under agriculture, I think that's where we would draw that line. Um well, I would agree with you that the uh site plan approval portion of it or at least some portion of the guidelines regarding that
would be appropriate. Certainly um I don't think that the it's be before us to grant a special permit um because that's strictly obviously prohibited by the over amendment right but that's not being asked of us as I
understand it right um the other question is regarding u getting to the site plan approval process and my understanding um that the memorandum sent to Mr. Trumpky
regarding missing items so-called um is more of a more of a informal u inquiry in terms of trying to move this project along as opposed to some type of u determination that you can't
do this or do that or anything like that. I think it's very informal and in particular I think that the change of use is referring to the building permit application which is under you know 780 CMR uh changing it from a storage to uh
use of bay 2 which has nothing to do with zoning. Yeah. And it's specifically uh building uh permit question alone and and Mr. Mr. Chairman, we concluded that process and I included uh the the letter of approval for that change of
use that that was all uh addressed and concluded in August. Okay. Because my reading of the of the zoning bylaws, it basically states, and I'm paraphrasing, that any issuance of a building permit requires the uh site plan approval process in whatever form
that may be appropriate in this case. Um, do you have any other uh comments regarding some of the comments that u Mr. Mclofflin had made regarding the other points? Um, I believe that I addressed the
principal ones that I wanted to review. Uh, I I I would reiterate again um and I think the Fitzgerald affidavit supports that in terms of the continuing commercial nature of the property. Uh, I did want to stress because many of
his points went to uh the entertainment use it seemed to imply that as revenue generating and I wanted to confirm that that was not the case. U and I guess I will just draw attention to and and I think Mr. Chairman your
your comments went to this as well about you know Mr. Mclofflin characterized the the letter from Mr. Cody as essentially go away but actually in both that initial um uh letter from 2024 and in Mr. Quinland's letter, they they both
include language that says you have a right of appeal, but hey, come talk to us. And, you know, as as an operator in the town trying to do the right thing, uh, Wine House did have conversations with both of them and and and with the
cease and desist letter, uh, and again the invitation to come come talk to me and see how we can work this out. it didn't seem like the sort of dam please was falling that for all time there was going to be this this binding determination made and so there there is
a nature of the the the way in which this has unfolded and I think some of Mr. Costa's comments went to this as well and the predicament that we find ourselves in uh is that we are trying to get to a resolution. We think that this zoning board of appeals
is the right forum for the determination of that core issue which I which I started and I believe which uh Mr. Costa just addressed to this board is the right place for this issue to be decided to determine is this uh tasting room a
use that is um accessory to the agricultural use of the property. We believe firmly that it is. We think that that is the issue that we want it decided and to come to the um to the board. Again, as I think as the fellow
board member mentioned that to the extent there are concerns about hours of operation or noise or potential nuisance, as I said at the top, those are addressed from licenses from other boards. But what we have before us and a
and a moment to uh get this on a square footing is that assessment by this board of appeals of a determination that this activity is sufficiently related to the agricultural uh work on the property
growing of hops growing of wine grapes and the sale of products from them. So I thank you for the opportunity. You're welcome. Could you um kindly restate the two uh points that you want the board to uh consider so we have it clear?
So I as I see it the the core question is whether Wine House is entitled to conduct its agricultural tasting room in the residential district. And to get that I recommended that there are three determinations or three findings that
the board could make. one that it is entitled to do so because of the prior non-conforming agricultural and commercial history of this property that it was well established that this was not simply a residential property that it could be engaged in commercial and
agricultural activity. The other finding I recommend that the board could make that this use is agricultural and is entitled to protection from zoning under general laws chapter 4A section 3. Lastly, I um feel strongly that the
town's right to farm bylaw has some significance and the way in which Graanby has decided to define agriculture to include these types of agurism or enrichment activities. I think that helps to bring the concern
that the ancillary or entertainment activities are really considered by the town of Graanby to be part and parcel of what is agriculture. Um and similarly I would just um add or close with Mr.
Costa's notion of what is customary. I think going to a a winery and sampling and tasting wine is or has become customary and that that can be understood to be in the ambit of what is agriculture as informed by the town's
right to farm bylaw I think is an important conclusion for uh this board to make. Um so your your summary doesn't quite agree with your application.
Okay. Um and my question then is let's see if I can communicate this. Okay, this is obviously this is a difficult uh completely difficult uh situation here. Your your comment is one of the comments
is referring to the missing information last paragraph regarding a special permit issued to the garage in storage um and to uh the issue regarding how business or industry is conducted from therein. So my question I guess is this.
How do you propose the the zoning board of appeals can change a prior ruling from a zoning board putting the that that restriction on that special permit? And how does that how did how do you do that without making a
determination on the doral amendment? So I I thank you for the invitation to expound on that further. I think as we've stated in our papers and before that the restriction in the 2010 special
permit goes specifically to business services and industry. And I think it's an entirely consistent for this board to find that the activity that is taking place on the property right now is neither of those things and that the the
tasting room activity is not business service is not industry is not in conflict with the 2010 special permit. And so those two things can coexist. I think it's appropriately you could go I would recommend you could go further to
affirmatively find that that activity is agriculture but I think you can conclude that the 2010 special permit does not bar this activity because it is not business service or industry and and therefore that could be a conclusion on
this application that the building commissioner's concern about the extent to which the 2010 special permit would be a prohibition is not a prohibition because it's limited to business services and industry. You could you could just conclude that and I think
that would be appropriate. I do think it is possible for you to go further and affirmatively find that uh this activity is agriculture but the perhaps those are two different questions. They are two different questions and my concern is
simply this is uh to make a determination uh of the do amendment regarding that that that question is contra it contradicts the original problem of not following up properly in the first
place. Um that's my concern. Uh second um you refer to industry and the comments were made that uh the activity of producing wine or beer or anything else in fact is manufacturing process and
that is under the industry portion of a bylaw. How do you address that? I I think it's a commercial agriculture. I think it is the uh the natural byproduct of an agricultural product. uh but
agricultural process uh putting that into a product to be sold. I think that is all in the chain of agriculture. I do not see that as industry as defined. I'm very comfortable with that conclusion. Do any members have any additional
questions for Mr. German? Mr. Chair, yeah, I mean I think there probably maybe a poor choice of words to use using manufacturing, but I went up I did a lot of aggra business. The definition of aggra business is business of growing, producing, processing and
distributing ar agricultural products. Okay, that's the definition. I read the intent. I read the whole I don't know if anybody else has read it, but I read the uh model right to farm bylaw that the commonwealth put out. And
again that's why I've kind of come to the conclusion our interpretation is very narrow here is the growing and producing of wine and agricultural use and is the tasting room a
you know I forget the fancy words they use the yeah you know in conjunction with that is that proper I didn't hear anybody complain about the great the grape vines, the grapes. I didn't hear anybody anybody complain about the farming
operations. I heard about the entertainment and traffic. I I I grew up on South Street, East Street. I mean, when I was a kid, there was no there was a stop line at five stop sign at five corners. Then there was a flashing light. Now there's a light. I mean, traffic has
increased all over town. Yeah. And I don't think it's a result of what is going on there. So I get back to what I'm saying is our interpretation is a very narrow view. Does this agriculture or not? I'm not condoning entertainment. I'm not saying
it should or should be there. That to me is the board of selectment that issues the entertainment license. But that's narrow. And so then we say get agricultural then the 2010 letter doesn't matter because agriculture is not a business
service and it's not industry. So I remember when this came out and that was the intent. They the they did not want to see an auto repair garage there. They didn't want to see you know any type of little machine shop or anything cuz they made they made the the recommendation
that it was grandfathered this area cuz a dog kennel is a business. So they have to look at the intent of the original ruling why they did it. I'd like you to save your comments for our deliberation period. All right. Well, I was kind of answering his question about the manufacturing kind of a tangent. Anyway,
um I think it also would be appropriate uh to have um Mr. Mclofflin comment if necessary on anything here. Yes, ma'am. In an effort to help us. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, first off, I I did want to say that I do agree
um when you are characterizing the statement of Mr. Quinnland pertaining to site plan review as it being unrelated to zoning per se. I think it's more akin to site plan review when you're doing it an amendment to a
commercial building. Uh it's he by that statement he is not saying that Mr. Cody's wrong or right. I agree with that. I I I do agree with that. Um, in regards to the 2010 talk about industry,
your bylaw says it doesn't define industry, but it says go to a particular dictionary, which I did. Okay? And when they use the word industry, they they're talking about any general business activity, commercial enterprise, and
trade or manufacturer in general. Okay? And So you can't be doing any of those things in this building. Uh general business activity, a nightclub, a bar, a restaurant, a brewery. It that's this isn't agriculture per se. It's it may be incidental to
agriculture, but it's not agriculture. It's industry by your definitions by your own board's definition. As for manufacturing, which comes under the scope of industry, the Massachusetts um Supreme Court addressed this a long
time ago, 1961, the Harvard Brewing case, where it said that um manufact um brewing is manufacturing malt beverages. It is manufacturing. So, in the same analogously would hold for wine. So you
can't I mean they can't use this building unless they get around this issue. Brother Council seems to be saying well I want to go back and argue that um we we can have these three ways around it. Um as I've said prior I don't
want to beat it too badly but this can't work as a prior nonconformity because it's not the same nonconformity. It's different and your bylaws don't give you the right to change to a new nonconformity at all. Now, number two, the the Dover Amendment, as you can see,
um, and Attorney Costa, I've worked with him many times, and I think he gave a very good, um, talk to you about the Dover Amendment, and it seems hard to try to address these things without looking at some numbers. I mean, I think if you look at the numbers, they're
going to be making a lot more money from beer and wine um than they are from the hang of the crops, you know, the hang of a few fields. In which case, you got to start to say this is the the tail wagging the dog. This isn't the do
amendment. They can't get around it because of that. Um, as for the um the issue pertaining to um the right to farm, you don't define agri business. By the way, you should take a look. You do have farm business in your zoning
bylaws. If you want to have a farm business, you can do more than just farming. You can have a farm business, but it says 50% of what you're selling 50 must come from the ground. Come from your farm. They're nowhere near. I doubt they're nowhere. I
don't know. They haven't give us the numbers of how much of their grapes actually go into this wine. They haven't given us the numbers of their barley that goes into this beer. Those are factors that you would have to consider. But and and lastly, the thing about the
right to farm, it says this doesn't trump zoning. So, you've got a special permit bylaw. You've got special permits. The right to farm can't touch it. It's just aspirational. uh nothing more than that. I don't see um I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that this
doesn't necessarily state that um Mr. Quinnland is over trying to overturn Mr. Cody. I agree with that and but I also agree that um I can't see any way around this. Maybe if they came here with some numbers, but right now I can't see how
what they presented and it's their obligation. They're the ones who are doing the appeal. They have the burden of proof. If they haven't given you you these numbers, you can deny it. You should deny it. I can't see how you couldn't deny it based upon the evidence they've given you. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I I got one. Yes. So, if I had honey bees and I made honey to sell, that'd be manufacturing, not a farm. Um, no. I don't think it would be. I don't think it would be. Okay. Because cuz my friends have honey bees.
grapes making so taking grapes and making wine is manufacturing but taking raw honey and making honey to sell right is not manu I just want to be what your thoughts are I don't think so let me tell you this unless there's a Supreme Court case that
says that Supreme Court case that says making beer is manufacturing it's main functions but anyway thank you sir okay thank you any other question thank you Mr. All right. Um, someone over there, Mr. Chairman, I
don't know if we done or I think we are ready to move along here. Um, do you have any further comments before we close this public hearing? Um, not necessarily. Certainly, I'm happy to um to address any questions
that board members may have, but I can also do that once the public hearing has been closed, so long as there's no new information. So, um, I'm available, but my my role is more reactive than proactive, responding to questions that board members have. Happy to provide, uh, as much or as little guidance as you'd like.
Thank you. All right. That being, if we were to request information from the applicant further and we close tonight's hearing, we cannot obtain that information or can we? You you cannot. So you have you have um
an option always when a public hearing process has been commenced to continue it from time to time. Uh with more complex projects that's that's fairly common. Um you have to continue the hearing to a date time and place certain um and that provides opportunities for um all parties uh to submit additional
information for the board to hear new information at a future session. Once you close the public hearing you're procluded from doing that. So you wouldn't have that opportunity. So my advice would be in that instance, if you feel you need more information to make a substantive decision, you should ask for that information. And unless you're told
by applicant or residents, neighbors that they're not going to provide it, if they if they accept your invitation, my recommendation would be that you continue the public hearing to a future date to allow that information to come before you if you believe you need it, if you believe it's relevant to the questions before you.
All right. Then uh that being said, does the any member have any additional questions or concerns that they want to ask of the um I do not though. You I do not. I do not. All right. Then the chair will entertain a motion to close the public hearing
portion of this. Hold on a minute. Chair, I do think that the board should be looking at some numbers and percentages to make a better accurate uh judgment, but that's just my perview on that.
Um, so Mr. Costa, uh, given the question raised here, is that something that we should uh not close the public hearing for and continue? I if if the board believes, I mean, the board acts through its majority, so you've got one member who made that request. the other members can can take that into consideration and support that
request for additional information. And if you want to support that request, then you would uh ask the applicant to grant a continuence. You you do do have a limited time frame within which to act on an application for an administrative appeal. Um unlike some other areas of the law like special permits, that time
frame, that that clock, so to speak, starts to tick on the moment that the application has been submitted. You're already um quite a ways into that time frame. Um, so you would just want to be certain that you get an appropriate extension from the applicant um to do that. But but yes, if that's the the board's uh um desire, then yes, you
would ask for a for the applicant to grant a continuence and extension of applicable deadlines. And you would want to be specific about what information you're expecting be produced so you can make the most of your of your uh continued public hearing. Then let me go. I uh I have to agree
with you. I think I'd like to see some numbers to see what the balance is or the what the usage of the property is for. And also I'd like to take and continue so I can read this. I didn't get this packet of information till 7:30 this morning.
Okay. Okay. So I mean I think it's only fair to everyone not just the people in general. Well, let us let us um uh pull the board here regarding uh requesting additional time to obtain uh revenue numbers or other supporting
documentation regarding the the um supporting the the u agricultural accessory use. Mhm. Is that something you're in favor of wrong? Yeah. Mr. Johnson? No. No.
No. No. Um I'm going to say yes because I asked the question originally and of the uh of the witness. So then in that case I'm going to ask the uh petitioner uh to
grant a extension uh so that we can obtain that information. Um is there anything else we need to ask of the petitioner? No. Well, I mean, I think what the what I would recommend the board do is determine the date to which it will continue the public hearing and then
however many days exist between now and then, extend the whatever the time frame may be, which doesn't end today, extend it by that number of days to so you're on equal footing as you are at tonight's meeting. But we you would first have to determine when you'd continue the public hearing before we can make that calculation.
Three, Mr. Chairman, isn't there a timeline that has to be set within like 14 or 21 days or something? Well, that's sort of my point. So the deadline is you have 100 days as a board from the date of submittal of the application to uh vote and then an additional 14
days beyond those 100 days to file your decision with the town clerk's office. Um you're not at day 100 now. I would have to do the calculation, but you're you're you're over you're you're just at about 65 days. Okay. So we got um so so you're you're over 65 days. Um,
and so my recommendation would be that you determine when your continued public hearing is going to be and then extend the deadline by at least as many days as exists between today and that date if not longer if you require additional time to craft the decision. Let's uh let me ask a question of the
petitioner first that are you amendable to uh extending the deadline so that we can obtain that information? Yeah, we can read. Okay. Um, how long do you think it would take you
to compile that information? I would say a minimum of two weeks. Two weeks. Mr. Cer, are we required to do a time and date certain at this point? You are. You have to choose a time and date as well as a location certain for the continuence. And if for whatever
reason the applicant hasn't submitted the information, you always have the ability to convene that meeting uh and immediately continue it to a future date. But you do need to choose a date and time certain for the benefit of the public because they won't receive further notice. They got a notice of today's public hearing in the mail. If
there are a butters that qualify as a butters or a butters to a butters within 300 ft, they won't get further notice of the continuation, which is why you have to announce the date and time and location tonight. All right. And in that case, I suggest everybody pull their calendars out if they can.
Mr. Costa, um, what would you recommend we seek for documentation from the applicant uh, for the percentage of Sure. farm versus winery. Sure. Um so as I mentioned the two most
commonly cited tests are uh land or building area com a comparison between the portion of the property or the buildings in the property dedicated to agricultural true agricultural use versus uh the portion of the land or buildings that are dedicated to
something that is non-aggricultural but is alleged to be accessory to the agriculture. So I think to the extent that the applicant is able to provide those calculations uh I do recall just because uh I've been involved for a number of months now that there was there was at least a diagram that had
been submitted in one of the earlier letters by attorney Durning I think sent to uh if not the building department then maybe the select board uh that had shown portions of the site that were dedicated but you know calculations to a company that would be helpful uh and then of course the revenue test that's been cited to what revenue is generated
and um I I think that you know we need to be clear Um my recommendation to the board would be to ask the applicant to be clear. Um when we talk about revenue, revenue related to the the the the hanging of the fields, revenue that
might be related to um other true agricultural uses and some specificity as to what those other agricultural uses are. Revenue associated with the tasting room and then what aspect of the tasting room. Because in my mind there's a difference between um for example the sale of wine from the tasting room which
might be from grapes grown on site or manufactured on site and compare that to a shakurerie board for example that is not being created through anything that has been manufactured or sourced on site. So I think the the more specificity you have the better position you're in to have to to be able to
perform that calculation to determinate to determine what the principal use is what the accessory use is and whether that relationship exists. Uh, Mr. Go ahead. Chair, could I have one more suggestion that I think another calculation that would be helpful if you see the amount of
materials that were grown on site that actually go into the elements, the things that are sold on percentage of like when we're when you're drinking wine, is there 0% there with grapes in there or is there 20%.
Something along that I think what else would be helpful. Are the um suggestions in terms of the breakout of the data clear to you? Yeah, I don't necessarily agree with I didn't think you would, but uh we will we will work to address
them. All right. Uh may I propose um the date of October 22nd at 5:00 p.m. And everyone check their calendars to see if they're available on that date. 22nd.
22nd. I'm good. They may not be good. May be out of town. You be out of town. How long is that good for you? Yeah. Are you out of town the whole week? 22 34. Yeah.
Then um let's also consider the 20th. Does that work for you? No, I can't win here. Legis meetings. How about the 29th? How does that work for everybody? October 29th. I can make that happen. It works.
I'm not available, Mr. Chair. Okay. October 27th. The only day I'm available the week of the 27th would be on the 20 evening of the 28th. Um I do have availability the following
Monday and Tuesday, the 3rd and the 4th or anytime the week after. I realize we're getting a ways out as we as we get into mid November, but unfortunately it's special town meeting season, so it's busy. No doubt. November 3rd works for me.
Can you run quick numbers on where we're at currently with the time frame? Um, I can't. Sure. Do you have any suggestions there? Uh, I have a conflict on the third. Most
of the others I could probably by straight out something. November 5th. We're going to have to pick a day here that works in Yeah. Well, November 5th works for me.
Works for me. Dakota. Was I the only one not in for the 20th? Um, no, I'm not either. Okay. But I'm also not in for the fifth.
Okay. I'm open for suggestions here. So the the challenge, if I could, Mr. Chair, with this is um the applicant uh should also be afforded the opportunity to um request a a continuation with a
full board. I mean, part of the challenge of administrative appeal is it requires a super majority vote, meaning four or five members. Uh so if you lose a member, then effectively you're putting an applicant in the position where they need a m they need a unanimous vote of the remaining members, and that's tough to do. So I think it is important that all board members be present.
Appreciate that. Yes. Thank you. Did we already do October 23rd? Shoot that one out there. I am available on that thing. You are or not? I am. I think Rob was gone. Okay, we got one. You're out. It's on. No, he's out on the entire week. Oh, that's right.
Yeah. And the 27th was a nogo, right? You guys get more of a life than I got. We're we're doing our best, Mr. Tropy. Are you guys hardressed as an applicant for the twoe deadline or time frame
needed? Well, we got to be careful. We got to be outside. We can't be outside of that 100 114 days. Well, you're through through you, Mr. Chair. You're you're going to get an extension. So, I just did the quick math. And part of the challenge here is the letter that was submitted by attorney Durning was submitted on uh
June 30th, and that was the letter that purported to be the appeal. uh it was not in included with that letter was not the traditional application form that is submitted to the board. So are we calculating the 100 days from the date of submittal of that letter or the later submittal of the form which only came in
a couple of weeks ago? If we calculated from the original letter which as your attorney I'm going to tell you be cautious and do that you're at day 99 today. Okay. So so so regardless you're going to seek an extension and the law is clear. If the applicant ascends to the extension,
uh, then that extension is valid so long as it's in writing and it gets filed with your county clerk's office and you would want to do that tomorrow. Um, but we can the applicant can extend by 10 days. The applicant can extend by 110 days. Okay. So, we're not going to get into a
So, I don't know if we should just how's So, like December 17th, I mean I mean that's way far ahead. I mean, seems like we shot the hell out of October and November already. Uh, just to pick up on the point of Mr. Costa re regarding the June 30th
submitt, uh, which, um, uh, is a point that the board will make a finding on that, uh, regarding the timeliness of that application. However, I think the more significant point is is the, as he pointed out, as attorney
pointed out is the official application is dated 9:24. Great. And that's why through you, Mr. Chair, I'm not I'm not conceding that we're at day 99. I'm just saying to be cautious. We should act as if we are. I I might suggest I mean, I know that it's a ways
ahead, but the applicant indicated typically when I hear an applicant suggest that it requires maybe a couple of weeks to submit additional information. You're going to want to all process that information once it's been received. You're going to want to provide that information. It's a public record uh to the neighbors and to the neighbors council who's going to want to process it. I wouldn't be surprised if
we have more correspondents accompanying that, both from Attorney Durning and from Attorney Mclofflin. So, if it's going to take two weeks just to get that information, you probably want to push this out 3 to four weeks anyway to allow that process to play out. So, we could go out to the week of November 10th. Uh, I can do it the 10th, I can do it the
11th, I can do it the 12th. Um, we could even go to the following week if there's availability. That's a a full four weeks from now, but I can do November 10th. I can do November 10th. 10 works for me.
Do we have a winner? I can do 90 days. Is that good, Mr. Trumpy? Is that good for you? That is good for me. Then uh we will uh recess this meeting
until November the 10th at 5:00 p.m. And Mr. Chair just want a confirmation from the applicant that the applicant will grant an extension of the deadline at least through um I would say 72 hours beyond the meeting on the 10th to provide opportunity to then file whatever needs to be filed. So that
would be uh 3 days. So through the um through the 13th of November uh 14th of November, excuse me. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, do we need to make a vote have a vote on that that we're continuing it or just you do need to vote the continuum? I wanted to jump in before the vote just
to get that on the record. We heard we heard yes, so that's okay. Um I would suggest that the chair uh provide something uh in writing to the applicant tomorrow to allow that to be filed with the town clerk to confirm the extension's been granted. Well, that with that being said, I make a motion to continue this hearing
November 10th at 5:00 p.m. at the current building. One question. I did not understand what C was saying. Is the order going to be that the submission of all the numbers comes in before the hearing so that people get a chance to see it before the
hearing? Yes, he said that would date and some kind of up to the chair. So I'll yeah modify your motion chair draw that motion and I'll uh so today is the 7th
um the 25th that's it's 2 and 1/2 weeks but there's weekends and stuff and our November 10th does that give enough time to get everything the 25th to the 10th I believe two weeks okay so my motion is to uh continue this
hearing November 10th at 5:00 p.m. I believe this is what one library lane correct and that the requested materials be received um by October
the data here October looks like October 27th 25th is it that could we make that the 28th 28th yeah I don't think one day is going to make a difference
and that is agreeable with with you, Mr. Trumpy. [Music] Yes. All right. Is there a second to that motion? Do we outline what we're looking for now or later? So, if the board wants to provide
additional detail, I mean, I think that we we did sort of work through it and the applicant heard it, but if there's additional detail, the more the better in terms of what you're anticipating receiving by that deadline. Is there a second? I'll second. Is there any further discussion
hearing? None. All those in favor, please say I. I. I. I. Motion carries unanimously. The reconvene meeting will be November 10th, uh, 2025 at 5:00 p.m. in this building.
All right. Then we're in recess. Thank you all for joining us this evening.