A proposal to build a large event space at a future Greene County winery has outraged some of those who live nearby and claim the building would damage the character of the countryside and congest surrounding roadways.
So far opponents of the project have successfully slowed it down, filing a lawsuit and delaying two public hearings as they argue that the 26,000-square-foot event venue at the planned Beard Mountain Vineyards would not only increase traffic and noise pollution, but is also illegal.
“It’s out of character with the area, it’s out of character with the county, and it’s probably unconstitutional because it’s not meeting state laws,” Linda Copeland, who lives near the property, told The Daily Progress.
Copeland is among the project opponents who are fighting hard to keep Beard Mountain Vineyards from building two structures on the 173-acre property located 3 1/2 miles west of Stanardsville. The ongoing dispute in Greene County represents a broader tension: The county wants to increase economic development and tourism, but some residents worry development will forever change the bucolic place they call home.
“It’s another case of urbanization of rural areas,” Copeland said. “Greene County is in need of more businesses but not this particular proposed one.”
The property is owned by the Beard family, which has run a wedding planning business in Charlottesville for 10 years. The Beards have applied for a permit that would enable them to construct two buildings on the property: a 26,000-square-foot building that would host weddings and other events as well as a 20,000-square-foot wine production building.
“The idea is to create a small village with rustic stone buildings,” Ben Rose, a consultant representing the project, told the county’s planning commission in April. “Something different from the typical barn you would see for weddings.”
The event building would be located at the center of the property, more than 1,200 feet from the nearest residential lot, a significantly greater distance than is required by Greene County’s zoning code. Buffers would be added so that neighboring properties would only see the tops of buildings and rows of grapevines. So far, 5 acres of grapes have been planted on the property; the owners plan to ultimately plant 30.
At the April planning commission meeting, deputy zoning administrator Stephanie Golon said that according to county zoning laws, the property owners are allowed by right to have a large number of people on the premises.
“They could today have 400 people stand in the middle of their farm and have amplified music until 10 p.m. by right,” Golon told the commission. “What they’re requesting is to have a structure that actually contains the noise and the music and the people and provides an aesthetically pleasing structure in our rural area.”
Opponents have argued that the entrance on Dyke Road is located on a curve and would present a traffic and safety hazard when vehicles enter or exit the property. And while the property owners commissioned a traffic impact study, neighbors who attended the planning commission meeting were unconvinced.
“Nobody has talked about access to this site. It’s dangerous. It’s downright dangerous,” resident Bill Zutt said during public comment. “There’s a severe grade there and a blind curve to the right.”
“The so-called independent impact study isn’t one that was done independently. It was done by the very entity that’s recommending your approval of this project. I don’t think we should give it any credence,” Zutt continued.
Earlier in the meeting, Golon said that the Virginia Department of Transportation did not have any concerns with the request and pointed out that, because the property is considered a farm winery, the owners are legally entitled to host events with up to 400 attendees and 200 vehicle trips per day, regardless of whether the buildings are constructed on the property.
“Again, the traffic will have no greater impact. They will not be allowed any additional cars than what’s allowed by right. At the site plan process, VDOT will review this particular entrance if it needs a turn lane,” Golon said.
Zoning administrator Jim Frydl told The Daily Progress that VDOT would need to review the site plan.
“VDOT regulates traffic and entrance design when a site plan is submitted,” Frydl wrote in an email. “Any applicant must meet all VDOT access and design standards before their plan can be approved.”
During the meeting, Golon referenced the county’s comprehensive plan, a document designed to guide long-term goals for a locality. The applicant’s proposal, Golon said, aligns with that plan.
“Create an environment through tourism that promotes economic vitality, generating new opportunities for business, more employment and increase local tax revenues,” Golon read from the plan. “Encourage travelers on major thoroughfares to stop and frequent local businesses.”
Kennon Copeland, Linda Copeland’s husband, expressed concern about how much economic growth the Beard’s wedding business would actually generate for the county.
“There’s no economic analysis that allows the county to say is this beneficial to approve such a building given they’ve been in the business for a number of years,” Copeland said during public comment. “I would think they could come up with an economic analysis. I suggest they have, but they’re not sharing it.”
Beard Mountain Vineyards did not respond to emails from The Daily Progress. But at the planning commission meeting, Rose said the business is planning to create 10 permanent jobs at the winery, and dozens of seasonal workers will be needed to harvest grapes. According to Rose, Virginia wineries host an average of 50 visitors per day; he hopes those visitors would also visit local businesses in Stanardsville.
“We don’t have a projection on annual revenue. We hope it’s high,” said Rose.
Regardless, there are still concerns that the buildings and the business itself would urbanize the county.
“Hundreds of cars. Hundreds of partygoers,” Zutt said. “Does that sound like rural character to you?”
In a 2-1 vote, the planning commission recommended the Greene County Board of Supervisors approve the project on two conditions: additional fencing around the site, so that visitors do not wander into neighboring properties, and the preservation of vegetation buffer zones around the site.
Commissioner Mark Kelpe was the dissenting vote. He echoed the opinion of opponents who say that if the winery wants to host weddings, it should simply erect large tents instead of construct buildings.
“It’s out of character for the area I think,” Kelpe said. “It’s run by an out-of-county business. I don’t think that’s the spirit of agritourism.”
Ron Williams, who heads the commission, owns a property adjacent to the winery. At the meeting, he told the audience that the proposal has been a big point of discussion for him and his neighbors. He said that the conditions agreed to by the applicant addressed the major concerns he had heard from his neighbors, and he said the proposal aligned with the county’s comprehensive plan.
“Being in compliance with the comprehensive plan, low-impact rural uses that have net-positive financial benefit to county. I don’t know how much that is, but it should be more positive than simply the land property tax that it was before,” Williams said, referring to the money the business could generate for the county.
Williams also said that the property being used as a winery and wedding venue could be a better use of the land than a housing development, which would be allowed without a permit.
“There’s a by-right ability to subdivide it and develop it into more homes,” Williams said. “It’s pretty easy to argue that 39 new homes on this parcel of land is a pretty high impact in terms of land disturbance: taking out trees, putting burden on emergency services and school system. And it doesn’t necessarily produce a huge tax base to pay for itself.”
Opponents of the project argue that the county erred when it originally determined the property is a farm winery. They say that the county used an outdated definition of “farm winery” that has since been repealed by the state. In an effort to reset the whole process, opponents asked the county’s board of zoning appeals reconsider the determination that the property is a farm winery. While members of the board did raise some concerns about how the original decision was reached, they voted unanimously to uphold it.
In response, Copeland and others have filed a lawsuit against the county arguing that the county violated state law.
Amid all these issues, the Greene County Board of Supervisors has twice chosen not to hold a public hearing on the project: two hearings were scheduled, but opponents argued that the first should not be held before the appeal hearing and then the second had not been properly advertised.
“I don’t want a technicality to render our decision cloudy in any way,” Supervisor Steve Catalano said at the most recent meeting, as his colleagues agreed to delay the hearing.
None of the supervisors returned a request for comment from The Daily Progress except for Tim Goolsby who declined to comment.
Linda Copeland insists that she does not have a problem with a farm winery being in the area — she just does not want one with large buildings.
“If this does in fact go through, it’ll be precedent and can be utilized to erode lot by lot this designation of being rural,” Copeland said. “This is a very large event center that is masquerading as a farm winery. That’s what they’re trying to do.”
Source: www.dailyprogress.com