[00:00:05]
[1. CALL TO ORDER]
HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? MR. EVERETT? YEAH.[3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA]
IF WE HAVE THE AGENDA BEFORE US.DO WE NEED ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS? I DON'T SEE ANY.
I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE, UH, ATTEND BEFORE I SECOND MR. BOSTICK? AYE.
[4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
WE ALSO HAVE IN FRONT OF US THE MINUTES FROM THE JANUARY 18TH, 2023 REGULAR MEETING.WERE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS NOTED FOR THIS? CAN I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED? SO MOVED.
WHO WAS THE SECOND? I'M SORRY.
MR. EVERETT? A MR. YEAGER AYE.
FIVE MEMBERS PRESENT VOTING A DO
[5. CITIZEN COMMENTS]
WE HAVE CITIZEN SIGNED? WE HAVE ONE FOR THE CITIZEN COMMENTS.MS. MADAM CHAIR? WILLIAM THIBO.
BUT IF YOU WOULD GIVE ME ONE SECOND, SIR, SO THAT I COULD GET YOU.
MR. LEY, I BELIEVE HE'S THE LANDOWNER.
YEAH, HE WANTED TO SPEAK TO SOMETHING ELSE, UH, MR. JURY.
ON THE CITIZEN? NO, I DON'T, I JUST, I THOUGHT I HAD TO SIGN UP FOR THAT, SIR.
WHERE DID YOU WANNA SPEAK TO CITIZEN? I'M SORRY.
AND I PRAY I SAID THAT CORRECTLY.
GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE BOARD.
I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH ANY OF YOU OTHER THAN MR. ROBINSON AND MR. DREWRY, BUT, UM, I'M THE ACCOUNTED, UH, APPOINTED GENTY COUNTY CITIZENS ADVOCATE.
THIS WAS ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH JOEL MORRISEY'S OFFICE AND THUS FAR IT'S BEEN A, A STRUGGLE TO DO WHAT I WAS ASSIGNED TO DO, BUT, UM, I JUST WANT, WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW WHO I AM AND, AND, AND WHAT I'M ABOUT.
UM, I WAS INFORMED TONIGHT THAT, UH, THE NORMAL CITIZENS COMMENT AND PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THE LONGEST HAS BEEN, I KNOW WITH THE BOARD OF, UH, SUPERVISORS HAS BEEN THREE AND FIVE.
I FOUND OUT TONIGHT THAT IT'S BEEN CUT BACK TO THREE AND THREE FOR THIS BOARD AS WELL AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD.
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT THAT BE CHANGED TO THE SAME AS THE BO S3 AND FIVE BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH TIME FOR ANYBODY TO CONVEY THEIR, THEIR, WHAT THEIR THOUGHTS ARE, THEIR PROOF, THEIR EVIDENCE, OR ANYTHING TO THAT NATURE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.
THERE'S NO ONE ELSE SIGNED UP FOR CITIZEN COMMENT, THEN I'D LIKE TO CLOSE, UH, THAT PORTION OF THIS MEETING
[6. PUBLIC HEARING ZA-23-1]
THAT BRINGS US TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.SHALL I READ THE STATEMENT? YES, MA'AM.
WELL, I WOULD READ IT AFTER MR. ROBINSON DOES HIS PRESENTATION.
GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
I'M GONNA GIVE A STAFF PRESENTATION FOR APPEAL APPLICATION Z DASH 23 DASH ONE
[00:05:02]
FOR WHICH THE APPLICANT IS YOST LIVING TRUST CARE OF DAVID A YOST AND KAREN GIOS TRUSTEES AND THEIR AGENT JOHN P O'MALLEY, ESQUIRE.THE APPELLANT IS APPEALING A DETERMINATION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THAT A PROPOSED WINERY SLASH TASTING ROOM IS A PERMITTED USE ON PROPERTY AT 34 15 LEONARDS LANE IN SUTHERLAND, VIRGINIA, AND FURTHER IDENTIFIED IN THE, THE COUNTY'S RECORDS AS TAX PARCEL SEVEN 15 A.
THE EXISTING ZONING OF THE PROPERTY IS RR OR THE RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATIVE DISTRICT, WHICH PERMITS AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES IN CONNECTION WITH ILLEGAL NON-CONFORMING AGRICULTURAL USE, EXISTING AS OF NOVEMBER 16TH, 2010, AS ENUMERATED IN SECTION 22 DASH 84 OF THE COUNTY CODE.
SO THE PROPERTIES THAT WERE SUBJECT OF THE ZONING DETERMINATION INCLUDED FOUR PARCELS, WHICH ARE IDENTIFIED AS SEVEN DASH 14, SEVEN DASH 14, A SEVEN DASH 15, AND SEVEN DASH 15 A, WHICH TOGETHER COMPRISE WHAT IS OR WAS AT ONE TIME A CENTURY FARM THAT WAS KNOWN AS RIVERSIDE FARM HEREAFTER.
I'LL BE REFERRING TO IT AS THE FARM.
THE FARM WAS ACQUIRED BY TALT ENTERPRISES LLC ON AUGUST 23RD, 2019 FROM DORIS PRITT AND LINDA BARKER, WHO ARE HEIRS OF THE FORMER OWNER WILLIAM LEONARD.
AND ON THIS SCREEN YOU SHOULD SEE A MAP THAT SHOWS THE LOCATION OF THE FARM.
IT IS ESSENTIALLY BETWEEN LOCATED BETWEEN RIVER ROAD AND LAKE CHEIN AND ADJACENT TO THE, UH, RIVER ROADS FARM SUBDIVISION.
I'LL NOTE THAT THE FARM WAS UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP IN 1903.
UH, OVER THE OVER TIME, THERE WERE SOME VARIOUS, UH, REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS, UH, RELATING TO THE, UH, FORMATION OF LAKE CHEIN.
BUT AFTER THAT, THE FARM CAME UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP AGAIN IN 1971 AND HAS REMAINED UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP EVEN UNTIL THE PRESENT.
THE FARM IS ZONED, AS I MENTIONED, RR, WHICH IS THE RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATIVE DISTRICT.
AND IF YOU WERE TO SEE THE ZONING MAP, THE MAJORITY OF RR ZONING ENDING WHEATY COUNTY IS LOCATED ALONG LAKE CHESTER, GENERALLY WEST OF RIDGE ROAD AND NORTH OF RIVER ROAD AND EZINE ROAD.
THE RR ZONING DISTRICT WAS ORIGINALLY IDENTIFIED OR REFERRED TO AS THE, UH, A THREE DISTRICT, UH, AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATIVE DISTRICT.
WHEN THE COUNTY, UH, FIRST ADOPTED ZONING IN 1964, THE, UH, A THREE AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATIVE DISTRICT, UM, PERMITTED FOR THE USES AGRICULTURAL DAIRYING AND BEEF CATTLE AND HORSE RAISING AS USES BY RIGHT IN THAT DISTRICT.
IN JUNE OF 1993, THE A THREE DISTRICT WAS RENAMED TO BE REFERRED TO AS THE RR DISTRICT INSTEAD OF THE A THREE DISTRICT RR, AGAIN, BEING RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATIVE, NO CHANGES WERE MADE TO THE USES PERMITTED IN THE DISTRICT IN 1993.
HOWEVER, IN 1999, UH, THE USES AGRICULTURAL DAIRYING AND BEEF CATTLE WERE REMOVED AS BY RIGHT USES.
BECAUSE OF THAT, UM, CHANGE TO THOSE USES, ANY EXISTING, UH, AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS WOULD ESSENTIALLY BECAME LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USES.
AND WE DO HAVE COUNTY CODE THAT ADDRESSES LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USES, MORE SPECIFICALLY SECTION 22 DASH 2 46 STATES.
IF AT THE TIME OF AN ENACTMENT OF THE ORDINANCE FROM WHICH THIS CHAPTER DERIVES AUGUST, BEING AUGUST 5TH, 1964, AND ANY SUBSEQUENT ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS OF THIS CHAPTER, ANY LEGAL ACTIVITY WHICH IS BEING PURSUED OR ANY LOT OR STRUCTURE LEGALLY UTILIZED IN A MANNER OR FOR A PURPOSE, WHICH DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER, SUCH MANNER OF USE OR PURPOSE MAY BE CONTINUED AS HEARING PROVIDED AS LONG AS THE EXISTING OR MORE RESTRICTED USE CONTINUES.
SO TO CONTINUE ON IN 2010, THE COUNTY ADOPTED REGULATIONS IN ORDINANCE
[00:10:01]
TO ADDRESS, UH, AGRICULTURAL TOURISM, WHICH IS ALSO KNOWN AS AGRITOURISM FOR SHORT.UH, THE AGRITOURISM REGULATIONS ARE CAN OR CAN BE FOUND IN ARTICLE EIGHT OF THE COUNTY CODE.
THE REGULATIONS, UH, DESIGNATED AGRITOURISM AS A USE BY RIOT IN AGRICULTURALLY ZONE AREAS, WHICH INCLUDED THE A ONE AND A TWO DISTRICTS, UH, THAT'S AGRICULTURAL LIMITED IN AGRICULTURAL GENERAL.
THE COUNTY ALSO RECOGNIZED THAT BECAUSE OF, UH, SOME OF THE, SOME RESIDENTIAL ZONED AREAS COULD CONTAIN EXISTING AGRICULTURAL USES.
AGRITOURISM WAS ALSO, UM, IDENTIFIED AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE RR DISTRICT AND THE R ONE RESIDENTIAL LIMITED DISTRICT.
BUT THAT WAS ONLY IF IT WAS IN CONNECTION WITH A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING AGRICULTURAL USE EXISTING AS OF NOVEMBER 16TH, 2010.
AND THE PURPOSE FOR THAT DATE, UH, THE NOVEMBER 16TH, 2010, IS THE DATE THAT THE AGRITOURISM REGULATIONS WERE ADOPTED.
SO THAT IS WHY THAT DATE IS SPECIFIED.
AND JUST TO NOTE THAT THE AGRI AGRITOURISM REGULATIONS WERE RECENTLY AMENDED AND UPDATED IN 2021.
SO WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PARCEL SEVEN 14 A, UH, WHICH IS A THREE ACRE PARCEL, ALL OF THE PROPERTIES THAT WERE ACQUIRED BY TPAT ENTERPRISES LLC, UH, PARTICIPATE IN THE COUNTY'S LAND USE TAXATION PROGRAM, WHICH IS INDICATIVE OF AGRICULTURAL FOREST USE OF THE PROPERTY.
UH, SEVEN 14 AND SEVEN 15 HAVE BEEN ENROLLED, UH, BASED ON INFORMATION FROM THE COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE.
THEY'VE BEEN ENROLLED IN THE PROGRAM SINCE 1997 OR BEFORE.
UH, TAX PARCEL SEVEN 15 A WAS ENROLLED IN 2011, BUT WE NOTE THAT, UH, THE APPLICATION TO ENROLL WAS SUBMITTED IN THE PRIOR YEAR SO THAT THE TAXATION COULD BE BEGIN IN JANUARY OF THE FOLLOWING YEAR.
SO PRIOR TO 2018, THE FARM HAD BEEN USED TO FARM FOR VARIOUS CROPS, INCLUDING COTTON AND HAY OR PERENNIAL GRASS.
TEAPOT ENTERPRISES, LLC UM, BEGAN CONDUCTING VITICULTURE OR, UH, VINES, PLANTING VINES ON THE PROPERTY IN 2018.
THEN THEY OFFICIALLY ACQUIRED THE FARM IN 2019.
AND AFTER ACQUIRING THE FARM, THEY BEGAN OBTAINING PERMITS TO RENOVATE, UH, EXISTING HOMES ON SOME OF THE PARCELS.
UH, THE EXISTING HOMES ARE LOCATED ON TAX PARCEL 7 14 7 14, A BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER 19 524, EXCUSE ME, PERMIT NUMBER 19 DASH 4 46 WAS OBTAINED FOR 41 12 LEONARDS LANE PERMIT.
19 DASH 5 23 WAS OBTAINED FOR 41 0 8 LEONARDS LANE AND PERMIT 19 DASH 5 24 WAS OBTAINED FOR 41 14 LEONARDS LANE.
AND, UH, THE NUMBER IMPLIES THAT ALL OF THOSE PERMITS WERE OBTAINED IN THE YEAR 2019.
THEN FOLLOWING, UM, THOSE PERMITS, ANOTHER PERMIT WAS OBTAINED IN 2021, WHICH WAS IDENTIFIED AS PERMIT NUMBER 21 DASH 3 38, UH, TO REMODEL AN EXISTING BUILDING ON PARCEL SEVEN 15 A FOR WINERY.
THAT PERMIT WAS APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RRR DISTRICT PERMITTED USES, WHICH IDENTIFIES AGRI AGRITOURISM AS A PERMITTED USE.
THE TEAPOT ENTERPRISES LLC SUBMITTED A BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION RECENTLY IN DECEMBER OF 2022, PROPOSING, REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A WINERY AND TASTING ROOM ON PARCEL SEVEN 15, A ZONING APPROVAL OF THE BUSINESS LICENSE WAS GIVEN ON DECEMBER THE 13TH, AFTER WHICH THE COUNTY OR THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR PREPARED A ZONING DETERMINATION LETTER THAT IS DATED DECEMBER 15TH, 2022.
THIS LETTER IS, UM, INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.
THE LETTER WAS, UH, PREPARED UTILIZING RECORDS FROM THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FARM SERVICE AGENCY AND GOOGLE EARTH MAPS AERIAL IMAGERY BASE TO BASICALLY DETERMINE THAT AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY WAS OCCURRING ON THE PROPERTY IN 2010.
[00:15:01]
AND AGAIN, 2010 WAS THE YEAR THAT THE COUNTY ADOPTED AGRITOURISM REGULATIONS INTO THE ORDINANCE.BASED ON THE, UH, FARM SERVICE AGENCY RECORDS, MAXWELL W WATKINS PLANTED UPLAND COTTON IN MAY OF 2010.
THAT IS, UH, PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE AGRITOURISM REGULATIONS IN NOVEMBER OF 2010.
AND I'LL JUST BRIEFLY, UH, ON THIS SCREEN, SHOW YOU THE ATTACHMENTS THAT WERE INCLUDED WITH THE DETERMINATION LETTER.
THIS IS A FIELD REPORT FROM 2010.
THIS IS ANOTHER SECTION OF THE FIELD REPORT.
AND AGAIN, THIS FIELD REPORT JUST OUTLINES, UM, WHAT WAS PLANTED EN LIST, MR. MAXWELL WATKINS AS THE OPERATOR.
AND THIS IS A FIELD MAP SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE FIELDS ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THIS WAS THE GOOGLE EARTH MAPS AERIAL IMAGERY SHOWING THE EXISTING FIELDS IN 2010.
AGAIN, THESE EXHIBITS WERE INCLUDED WITH THE DETERMINATION LETTER.
SO IN RESPONSE TO THE APPELLANT'S, UM, GROUNDS FOR APPEAL, AS YOU SHOULD SEE IN THE APPLICATION, THERE WERE SIX GROUNDS FOR APPEAL.
I'LL GO THROUGH THESE QUICKLY JUST WITH STAFF COMMENTS, UH, IN RESPONSE TO THE GROUNDS FOR APPEAL.
SO THE FIRST GROUNDS FOR APPEAL STATED THAT VIRGINIA LAW EXPLICITLY STATES THAT LAND ZONE AGRICULTURAL DOES NOT INCLUDE LAND ZONE RESIDENTIAL CON CONSERVATION, SUCH THAT A FARM WINERY MAY NOT OPERATE ON LAND ZONE FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION, VIRGINIA CODE 4.1 DASH 100.
SO, UH, JUST UH, FOR YOUR KNOWLEDGE, UH, JUDGE JOSEPH MTFE JR.
UM, ISSUED AN OPINION RECENTLY FEBRUARY 27TH, 2023, THAT STATED, THE COURT FINDS THAT THE AUGUST 21ST, 2021 ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS DEFINING LAND ZONE AGRICULTURAL TO INCLUDE LAND ZONE RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATIVE RR DOES NOT VIOLATE THE LIMITING PROVISION OF VIRGINIA CODE SECTION 4.1 DASH 100.
INCLUDED IN THE FARM WINERY DEFINITION, THE SECOND GROUNDS FOUR APPEAL STATES THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR FAILED TO CITE ANY EVIDENCE THAT SHOWED WHAT AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES WERE TAKING PLACE ON THE DATE NOVEMBER 16TH, 2010.
RATHER, EACH OF THE USDA AND GOOGLE EARTH MAPS UTILIZE IN MAKING HIS DETERMINATION FAILED TO SHOW AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES ON THE SPECIFIC DATE REQUIRED BY SECTION 22 DASH 84 OF THE DENWOOD COUNTY CODE.
NO OTHER EVIDENCE WAS INCLUDED IN THE DETERMINATION SUCH THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS A PERMITTED USE BY RIGHT.
SO, STAFF COMMENTS PERTAINING TO THAT GROUNDS FOR APPEAL, UH, STAFF NOTES THAT THE FARM AND THE PROPERTIES IN THE FARM, UH, HAVE BEEN ENROLLED AND ARE STILL CURRENTLY ENROLLED IN THE LAND USE PROGRAM.
THEY'VE BEEN ENROLLED SINCE 1997 AND POSSIBLY BEFORE, WHICH INDICATE INDICATES ONGOING AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY INCLUSIVE OF THE DATE NOVEMBER 16TH, 2010.
AND AGAIN, AS I SHOWED YOU ON THE SCREEN, THE FARM SERVICE AGENCY RECORDS, UH, SHOW THAT MAXWELL WATKINS PLANTED UPLAND COTTON IN THE 2010 PRODUCTION YEAR GROUNDS FOR APPEAL.
NUMBER THREE, EVEN IF THE EVIDENCE CITED WERE SUFFICIENT TO SHOW AN AGRICULTURAL USE OF EACH OF THE LOTS AS OF NOVEMBER 16TH, 2010, THE PROPOSED WINERY SLASH TASTING ROOM IS NOT AN AGRITOURISM ACTIVITY IN CONNECTION WITH ILLEGAL NON-CONFORMING AGRICULTURAL USE EXISTING AS OF NOVEMBER 16TH, 2010.
NO EVIDENCE SHOWS THE GROWING OR FERMENTATION OF GRAPES, PRODUCTION OF WINE, OR ANY ACTIVITY THAT COULD BE TERMED IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OF CITED IN 2010 OF COTTON AND HAY FARMING.
SO IN RESPONSE TO THAT, STAFF NOTES THAT, UH, AGRICULTURE IS DEFINED IN THE COUNTY CODE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS BEING THE TILLING OF THE SOIL, THE RAISING OF CROPS, HORTICULTURE, FORESTRY AND GARDENING, INCLUDING THE KEEPING OF ANIMALS AND FOS AND INCLUDING ANY AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY OR BUSINESS SUCH AS FRUIT PACKING PLANTS, DAIRIES, OR SIMILAR USES.
THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURE IN THE COUNTY CODE.
UH, CHANGING THE CROP FROM COTTON OR PERENNIAL GRASS TO GRAPES WOULD STILL FALL UNDER THIS DEFINITION AND THEREFORE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AS A CHANGE OF USE GROUNDS FOR APPEAL.
[00:20:01]
ANY ILLEGAL NON-PERFORMING USE EXISTING AS OF NOVEMBER 16TH, 2010 WAS ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN TWO YEARS, AND THE CURRENT USE MUST CONFORM TO THE EXISTING ORDINANCE REGULATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 22 DASH 2 46 OF THE COUNTY CODE.UH, AGAIN, AS MENTIONED EARLIER, THE FARM HAS BEEN PARTICIPATING IN THE LAND USE PROGRAM.
UH, IT STILL PARTICIPATES TO THE PRESENT DAY.
UM, BASED ON THOSE RECORDS, UM, WE HAVE NOT FOUND EVIDENCE THAT THE AGRICULTURAL USE OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN ABANDONED FOR TWO YEARS OR MORE.
THE FIFTH GROUNDS FOR APPEAL STATES, THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DETERMINATION IS BASED ON CURRENT AND RECENTLY CHANGED LOT LINES AND NOT ON EXISTING LOT LINES.
AS OF NOVEMBER 16TH, 2010, UH, STAFF HAS BEEN UNABLE TO FIND ANY RECENT CHANGES TO THE LOT LINES.
UH, THE, THE INSTRUMENT NUMBER, UH, THAT STAFF HAS FOUND, WHICH IS IDENTIFIED AS 19 0 0 0 0 2 1 4 9, WHICH IS RECORDED WITH THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT BASED ON THAT INSTRUMENT NUMBER.
THE LAST PLAT OF RECORD IS A SURVEY TITLED COMPILED PLAT SHOWING THE ESTATE OF WM LEONARD LOCATED ON THE SOUTHERN SHORE OF LAKE CHESTERTON, SITUATED IN INE DISTRICT, DITA COUNTY, VIRGINIA, DATED AUGUST 12TH, 2012, AS PREPARED BY IRVING PRITCHET III LAND SURVEYOR.
STAFF WOULD ALSO ADD THAT THE CHANGES TO THE LOT LINES IS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE AGAIN, UH, THE TERMINATION WAS BASED ON THE FARM ITSELF AND THE, THE ENTIRE FARM AND NOT INDIVIDUAL TAX PARCELS.
LASTLY, THE, THE, UH, THE LAST GROUNDS FOR APPEAL THAT WAS, UH, IDENTIFIED IN THE APPLICATION STATED THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE TRUSTEES.
UH, STAFF NOTES THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN SECTION 22 DASH TWO IS SPECIFICALLY FOR PROMOTING THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.
THAT INCLUDES, UH, NON-CONFORMING USES, WHICH ARE OUTLINED IN CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE FOUR OF THE DEN WETA COUNTY CODE STAFF WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT, UM, CONSIDERATION HAS TO BE GIVEN TO SECTION 15.2 DASH 2311 C OF THE STATE CODE OF VIRGINIA, WHICH STATES THAT, UH, IN NO EVENT SHALL A WRITTEN ORDER REQUIREMENT DECISION OR DETERMINATION MADE BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OR OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE MODIFICATION OR REVERSAL AFTER 60 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED FROM THE DATE OF THE WRITTEN ORDER REQUIREMENT DECISION OR DETERMINATION.
SO THE DETERMINATION LETTER THAT WAS RECENTLY WRITTEN IN DECEMBER OF 2022 WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE PREVIOUS, UH, DECISIONS OF PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATORS AND THAT OF, UH, THAT WAS IDENTIFIED WITH THE APPROVAL AND ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT, UH, IN 2021, WHICH WAS NUMBER 21 DASH 3 38 FOR THE RENOVATION OF THE EXISTING BUILDING INTO THE WINERY.
THAT PERMIT, WHICH WAS SIGNED BY MR. MARK BASSETT, WHO WAS ACTING AS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AT THAT TIME, CLEARLY IDENTIFIED THE PROPERTY AS BEING RR AND IDENTIFIED THE USE AS AGRITOURISM.
THE, THAT ITSELF WAS A DECISION AND DETERMINATION BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.
AND AGAIN, THIS, THIS, THE DETERMINATION THAT YOU HAVE FROM DECEMBER 15TH IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT.
SO, TO UM, CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION, I'LL JUST NOTE THAT, UM, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS APPLICATION THIS EVENING, SECTION 15.2 DASH 2309 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA STATES THAT ONE OF THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF BOARDS OF ZONING APPEALS IS TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS FROM ANY ORDER REQUIREMENT, DECISION OR DETERMINATION MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER IN THE ADMINISTRATION OR ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ARTICLE OR OF ANY ORDINANCE ADOPTED PURSUANT THERETO.
THE CODE GOES ON TO STATE THAT THE DECISION ON SUCH APPEAL SHALL BE BASED ON THE BOARD'S JUDGMENT OF WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER WAS CORRECT.
THE DETERMINATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER SHALL BE PRESUMED TO BE CORRECT AT A HEARING ON AN APPEAL.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER SHALL EXPLAIN THE BASIS FOR HIS DETERMINATION AFTER WHICH THE APPELLANT HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO REBUT SUCH PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE
[00:25:01]
THE BOARD SHALL CONSIDER FOR APPLICABLE SHALL CONSIDER ANY APPLICABLE ORDINANCES, LAWS AND REGULATIONS IN MAKING ITS DECISION.FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, DETERMINATION MEANS ANY ORDER REQUIREMENT, DECISION OR DETERMINATION MADE BY ANY, BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.
ANY APPEAL OF A DETERMINATION TO THE BOARD SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THIS SECTION, NOT WITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW, GENERAL OR SPECIAL.
AND I WILL JUST NOTE IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE STAFF HAS PROVIDED, UM, SOME DETERMINATION FACTS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IN MAKING A DECISION.
SO THAT, THAT'S GONNA CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION.
I CAN ATTEMPT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE AT THIS TIME, AND I NOTE THAT THE APPELLANT IS PRESENT AS WELL AS THE OWNER.
UM, WHEN THIS CAME BEFORE UP EARLIER THROUGH TO GET THE APPROVAL FOR, UM, THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE PROPERTY IN THE BUILDINGS FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF A WINERY, UM, WAS, WAS ALL THIS NOT SETTLED THEN, OR, I'M TRYING TO GET SOME UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THIS COMBINES WITH THAT INITIAL APPROVAL, UH, FOR THE LAND, DEVELOPMENTAL LAND, UM, UPDATES AND, AND THE GROWTH OF THE, THE GREAT ARE YOU SPEAKING, UM, TO THE BUILDING PERMIT THAT WAS ISSUED IN 2021? I MEAN, BEFORE I THOUGHT THIS HAD GONE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS A PART OF THE AGRITOURISM AND, AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
HAD IT, HAD IT NOT DONE THAT BEFORE OR? SO THE, THIS PROJECT ITSELF HAS NOT GONE BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE AGRITOURISM ORDINANCE UPDATES WENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN 2021.
BUT BECAUSE AGRITOURISM IS PERMITTED, IT'S ESSENTIALLY PERMITTED BY RIGHT.
AND IT'S IN CONNECTION WITH A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING AGRICULTURAL USE.
SO BASED ON THAT, THE PERMITS WERE ISSUED, IT'S ESSENTIALLY CONSIDERED BY RIGHT, IF THERE'S AN EXISTING AGRICULTURAL USE.
SO THERE WAS NO, UM, PLANNING, COMMISSION REVIEW, OR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REVIEW REQUIRED FOR THE WINERY.
SO YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT ALL THE PERMITS HAVE BEEN ISSUED IN HIS CASE AND EVERYTHING HAS, UH, BEEN APPROVED BY THE COUNTY? THAT'S CORRECT.
ORDER SUPERVISORS, WHATEVER IN ORDER FOR HIM TO HAVE THE VINEYARD HERE UNTIL THIS ISSUE CAME UP.
BUT EVERYTHING ELSE WAS DONE BY, WITH PERMITS IN ORDER TO HAVE A, UH, VINEYARD THERE? THAT'S CORRECT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YOU GOOD? OKAY.
SO NOW WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, UH, THE STATEMENT TO READ MADAM CHAIR.
UM, THE APPLICANT, UH, GETS TO SPEAK MADAM CHAIR.
WELL, I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE WITH ME TODAY.
MR. CLERK, DO YOU WANT TO SET OUT THE PARAMETERS THE APPLICANT AND THE LANDOWNER GET THE, AND THE LANDOWNER, AND WITH THE LIMITATION OF 10 MINUTES, I ALSO HAVE A SERIES OF DOCUMENTS THAT I'D LIKE TO SUBMIT TO, TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE, THE BOARD.
UH, WOULD IT BE EASIER TO DO THAT SORT OF IN A GROUP AHEAD OF TIME OR HOW WOULD THE BOARD WANT, UH, THOSE TO BE INCLUDED FOR THEIR, DO YOU HAVE INDIVIDUAL COPIES OR, I DO HAVE INDIVIDUAL COPIES FOR EVERYBODY.
YOU, YOU CAN HAND THOSE TO ME AND I'LL HAND THOSE OUT.
[00:30:02]
AND I BELIEVE I SHOULD HAVE SOME EXTRA OF MOST OF THESE.OH, MY TIME STARTED WITH THE, UH, WITH HANDING OVER DOCUMENTS.
UH, WELL, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, UH, I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE MYSELF.
I REPRESENT THE APPELLANTS HERE.
MS. UH, MS. KAREN YOST AND MR. DAVID YOST.
UH, THEY ARE, UH, NEIGHBORING, UH, LANDOWNERS WHO, UH, AS, AS THE BOARD HAS POINTED OUT, UH, ONLY HAVE NOW BEEN ABLE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE THIS TYPE OF DETERMINATION.
UM, UH, I'LL START QUICKLY JUST BY, BY POINTING OUT THAT AGRITOURISM IS ONLY PERMITTED, UM, FOR RESIDENTIAL, UH, CONSERVATIVE ZONING ON AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING PERMITTED AGRICULTURAL USE.
SO THE ISSUE THEN BECOMES IS THERE AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING AGRICULTURAL USE, UM, UH, ON A PARCEL SEVEN DASH 15 A THAT MAY BE ALLOWED TO HAVE AGRITOURISM ACTIVITIES BE APPROVED FOR AGRI ACTIVITIES, UH, AS WAS THE SUBJECT THAT'S LETTER SUBMIT TO THIS, THIS BODY THAT THE FARM AS A WHOLE IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE CONSIDERATION.
THE APPROPRIATE CONSIDERATION IS TO DETERMINE WHERE EXACTLY THE NONCONFORMING USE WAS TAKING PLACE BECAUSE, UH, THERE IS LITTLE TO NO EVIDENCE AT ALL THAT SEVEN DASH 15 A HAS EVER HAD, UM, AGRICULTURAL USE ON IT.
CERTAINLY NONE CONSISTENT WITH A WINERY.
UM, AND THE VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT HAS ALSO MADE THAT CLEAR NON-CONFORMING USES ARE DISFAVOR UNDER VIRGINIA LAW.
WE DON'T EXPAND THEM AND IN, IN FACT, THE DINWOODY COUNTY CODE IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT.
WE DON'T, THERE'S A SPECIFIC PROVISION FOR WHEN WE, WE CAN EXPAND EXISTING NON-CONFORMING USES AND IT SOLELY RELATES TO EXISTING STRUCTURES, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EXISTING ACTIVITIES OR ACTIVITIES THAT WERE PRIOR, UH, UM, THAT WERE SAY EXISTING IN 2010.
UM, SO EXCUSE ME, MR. O'MALLEY, SIR, UH, CAN YOU TELL ME THAT PARCEL, THAT PART, I'M NOT SEEING THAT ON MY MAP.
THAT IS NON-CONFORMING PIECE, THE ONE YOU'RE SPEAKING OF? YES.
SO WHAT THE, THE ENTIRE ISSUE COMES DOWN TO A NON-CONFORMING USE.
SO BECAUSE EACH OF THESE PROPERTIES IS, IS ZONED AS A RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATIVE, UM, THE, THE PERMITTED USES ON THAT PROPERTY ARE SOLELY, UH, RESIDENTIAL AND, UH, A SERIES OF POTENTIAL BUSINESSES AND SUCH THAT ARE STRICTLY LIMITED TO THOSE THAT COULD BE IN THE HOME.
UH, ESSENTIALLY THE PURPOSE OF THIS, OF THE, THE ORDINANCE RELATES TO PRESERVATION, UH, OF LAKE CHEIN AND OTHER PROTECTED AREAS.
BUT WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IT, THERE IS A PROVISION FOR AGRITOURISM THAT IS ALLOWED.
AND SO THE FARM'S BEEN IN VIOLATION ALL THESE YEARS BECAUSE IT'S BEEN FARMING CROP LAND.
SO IT'S NOT IN VIOLATION IF AND ONLY IF, UM, AT THE TIME OF NOVEMBER 16TH, 2010, UM, IT HAD AN EXISTING AGRICULTURAL USE.
SO IF THERE'S A FARM, SO IN, IN A HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO, IF THERE'S A FARM THAT'S, THAT'S BEEN ACTIVELY FARMING SINCE NOVEMBER 16TH, 2010, WHEN THESE ORDINANCES FIRST CHANGED, THEN CERTAINLY THAT IS AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING USE TO WHICH AGRITOURISM ACTIVITIES IN CONNECTION WITH IT.
NOW THAT'S, THAT'S LANGUAGE THAT'S IMPORTANT, BUT IN CONNECTION WITH THAT EXISTING USE ARE ALLOWED.
THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT'S, THAT'S HOW THIS READS.
BUT, UH, HERE WHAT WE HAVE IS LIMITED AGRI AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES IN PARCELS THAT AREN'T SEVEN DASH 15 A.
UM, AND SO I, I'LL ADDRESS A COUPLE OF THE POINTS BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY THE, THE BEST USE OF OUR TIME HERE SINCE WE HAVE LIMITED TIME TO TRY TO GO THROUGH, UM, THE ARGUMENTS THAT THE, THE, UH, THE, THE BOARD STAFF JUST RAISED, UH, IN REFERENCE TO, UM, WHAT WAS RAISED AS ON THE APPEAL, UNLESS THERE WAS A FOLLOW UP QUESTION.
UM, SO THE FIRST POINT MADE WAS THAT, UH, VIRGINIA LAW EXPLICITLY STATES THAT LAND ZONED AGRICULTURAL DOES NOT INCLUDE LAND ZONED RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION, SUCH THAT A FARM, FARM WINERY MAY NOT OPERATE ON LAND ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION.
HERE WE HAVE, UH, A RESIDENTIAL
[00:35:01]
CONSERVATIVE ZONING CATEGORY.UH, THE COUNTY IS CORRECT THAT THIS CASE, THERE'S A PENDING CASE SITTING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT.
UH, A LETTER OPINION HAS COME OUT.
THAT CASE IS STILL IN THE BREAST OF THE COURT AND HAS NOT BEEN FINALIZED.
UH, AND THEREFORE THERE, THERE COULD BE NO APPEAL.
SO I WOULD PUT FORWARD THAT IT WOULD BE, UH, AN ERROR TO RELY SOLELY ON A PENDING CASE THAT HAS NOT BEEN RESOLVED, BUT, UH, THAT'S CERTAINLY NOT THE SOLE GROUNDS FOR WHY WE ARE HERE.
UM, THE SECOND POINT WAS THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR FAILED TO CITE ANY EVIDENCE THAT SHOWED WHAT AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES WERE TAKING PLACE ON THE DATE OF NOVEMBER 16TH, 2020 10, EXCUSE 2010.
UM, AND TO THAT POINT, THERE ARE A COUPLE ISSUES.
FIRST, THERE IS CLEARLY IN YOUR BOARD PACKET, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE RELATED DIRECTLY TO THAT SPECIFIC DATE OF NOVEMBER 16TH, 2010.
RATHER, THERE'S A SORT OF DERIVED ASSUMPTION THAT THERE WERE ACTIVITIES GOING ON ON SEVERAL OF THE PARCELS IN 2010, AND THEREFORE WE SHOULD CONSIDER THAT AS SUFFICIENT.
UM, AND MY RESPONSE TO THAT IS NON-CONFORMING USES ARE DISFAVORED UNDER LAW, AND WE SHOULDN'T, IT SHOULDN'T, IT SHOULD BE THE BURDEN OF THE NON-CONFORMING LAND USER TO SHOW THAT THEY FIT.
THAT'S THE, THE FRAMEWORK OF VIRGINIA LAW IS THAT THE, THE USER HAS TO BE THE ONE WHO PUTS FORWARD EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT.
UH, AND THAT'S NOT BEEN WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE.
SO ONE, THE BURDEN HAS TO BE ON THE, THE, THE LAND OWNER.
UM, AND THERE'S PLENTY OF SUPREME COURT OPINION THAT STATES THAT A PATENT VERSUS THE CITY OF GALAX IS ONE OPINION THAT SAYS IT.
BUT MOVING ON TO THAT, THE NON-CONFORMING ACTIVITY CAN'T BE EXPANDED, AND THIS IS WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD BECAUSE WE CAN'T EXPAND THE WHOLE LOT FOR ACTIVITIES THAT DIDN'T OCCUR ON THE WHOLE OF THE PARCEL.
UM, THE GENERAL RULE, ACCORDING TO VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT PROHIBITS INCREASING THE LAND AREA OF A NON-CONFORMING USE THE LAND AREA WITHIN A LOT.
THERE ARE SUPREME COURT OPINIONS THAT GO SO FAR AS TO SAY IF THERE IS A NON-CONFORMING USE IN A SINGLE BUILDING, YOU CAN'T EXPAND THE NON-CONFORMING USE ACROSS THAT BUILDING.
AND IN FACT, THIS COUNTY HAS, UH, IN RESPONSE TO THAT OPINION CREATED THE NON-CONFORMING USE PROVISION THAT ALLOWS FOR A NON-CONFORMING USE TO EXPAND ACROSS A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING, BUT NOT AN ACTIVITY AND NOT, CERTAINLY NOT ACROSS THE REST OF A PARCEL, UH, ACROSS THE ENTIRETY OF, OF A PIECE OF PROPERTY.
SO HERE THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IS A NON-CONFORMING ACTIVITY.
UM, SECTION 22 1 DEFINES A NON-CONFORMING ACTIVITY AS THE OTHERWISE LEGAL USE OF A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE OR OF A TRACT OF LAND.
NOT A PARCEL, NOT A FULL LOT, BUT A TRACT OF LAND THAT DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE USE AND REGULATIONS OF THIS CHAPTER AND THE DISTRICT IN WHICH IT'S LOCATED.
THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE HERE IN TERMS OF THE NON-CONFORMING AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY.
UM, AND SO THEN 22 DASH 2 46 D STATES THAT WHENEVER A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE LOT OR ACTIVITY HAS BEEN CHANGED TO A MORE LIMITED NON-CONFORMING USE, SUCH EXISTING USE MAY ONLY BE CHANGED TO AN EVEN MORE LIMITED USE.
IE WE DON'T EXPAND IN ANNUITY COUNTY ON NON-CONFORMING USES HERE WHAT WE'VE GOT IS PURPORTEDLY WE'VE GOT COTTON BEING PLANTED IN 2010 BASED ON THE USDA SURVEY COTTON BEING PLANTED IN, UH, IN LOT 15 AND IN LOT 14 I BELIEVE, BUT NOT IN 15 A.
THERE IS NO ARGUMENT THAT THERE WAS NOTHING PLANTED IN 15 A.
UM, AND SO WE, UH, UH, BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING THERE, IT CANNOT BE AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING USE AND WE CAN'T HAVE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN 15 A BECAUSE WE CAN'T EXPAND FROM 15 TO A DIFFERENT PART OF THE SAME LAW UNDER VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT.
UM, OUR THIRD POINT IS THAT EVEN IF THE EVIDENCE CITED WERE SUFFICIENT, UH, THE PROPOSED WINERY TASTING ROOM IS NOT AN AGRITOURISM ACTIVITY IN CONNECTION WITH ILLEGAL NONCONFORMING USE.
UM, THE, THE VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT HAS SAID THE LAW DOES NOT FAVOR NON-CONFORMING USES.
AND WE MUST LOOK AT THE CHARACTER OF THE USE MADE AT THE TIME OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE WAS ENACTED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PRESENT USE IS A CONTINUATION OF THE FORMER.
AT BEST, THE, THE STAFF HAS PUT FORWARD THAT THERE WAS HAY POTENTIALLY BASED ON, UH, GOOGLE MAP FROM TWO YEARS LATER, THAT IT LOOKS LIKE THERE MAY HAVE BEEN HAY ON THE PROPERTY, UM, BUT ONE THAT'S NOT AN APPROPRIATE PIECE OF EVIDENCE.
AND TWO, UH, YOU CAN'T, UH, LOOK TO THIS DIFFERENT CHARACTER.
THERE'S CERTAINLY GROWING GRAPES IN A WINERY IS WILDLY DIFFERENT FROM ALLOWING HAY TO GROW.
UM, THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY FARMING.
OUR FOURTH POINT ON 15 A ON SEVEN DASH 15 A, WE'VE GOT AFFIDAVITS.
[00:40:01]
THE COUNTY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THERE'S NO COTTON GROWN THERE.UM, IT WAS NOT EN LISTED IN THE COUNTY LAND USE PROGRAM UNTIL 2011.
UH, ATTACHMENT C IN THE BOARD PACKET SHOWS THAT THERE'S NO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY.
YOU CAN COMPARE, UH, C WITH THE HANDOUT THAT I'VE SHOWN YOU.
THAT'S A PRINTOUT THAT SHOWS CLEARLY, UH, WHERE 15 A'S BORDERS ARE 15 A'S BORDERS ARE ENTIRELY SEPARATE.
AND IF I MAY FINISH MY THOUGHT, I, I REALIZE I'VE RUN OUT TIME AND I DON'T WANNA, UH, OVERSTEP IF I MAY FINISH MY THOUGHT.
SO IF, IF YOU COMPARE THOSE TWO DOCUMENTS, YOU'LL SEE VERY CLEARLY 15 A HAD NO GROWING AGRICULTURE THERE.
UH, AND SO ESSENTIALLY THIS COMES DOWN TO CAN YOU EXTRAPOLATE ACROSS THE WHOLE PARCEL, UH, ACTIVITIES THAT, THAT WERE NOT ON THE WHOLE PARCEL AND VIRGINIA LAW IS CLEAR.
YOU CAN'T, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT WHERE THE NON-CONFORMING USE IS.
AND IN THIS CASE IT'S NOT ON SEVEN DASH 15 A, SO SEVEN DASH 15 A CAN'T PERMIT AGRITOURISM.
AND FOR THAT REASON, WE'D ASK THAT YOU, UH, THAT YOU OVERTURN THE, THE PRIOR, UH, UH, FINDING.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, WE ALSO WANT TO GIVE THE MR. ALT THE OPPORTUNITY.
THE MENT THE LANDOWNER GAVE FROM THE TOP.
ALRIGHT, SO MR. THIBAULT, WOULD YOU COME? HOW YOU DOING? I'M, UM, WILLIAM KIRK TEBOW.
I DO OWN THE PROPERTY THERE THROUGH THE LLC, MY WIFE AND I, AND I GOTTA TURN THIS THING ON REAL QUICK.
AND UM, WE'LL GO THROUGH REAL QUICK.
WHAT THE, IS THIS THING GONNA RUN FOR ME? THERE WE GO.
OH, THAT'S, UM, SO ONE OF THE THINGS I HAVE TO PULL YOUR PRESENTATION, I APOLOGIZE ABOUT THAT.
THIS PROPERTY'S BEEN IN AG FOR A LONG TIME AND UH, WE HAVE A COUPLE WITNESSES HERE THAT CAN TESTIFY TO THAT, THAT, UH, WHEN IT BECAME INTO THE LE LEONARD FAMILY WAS ACTUALLY, ACCORDING TO THIS DEED IN 1868, THE LEONARD'S FIRST PURCHASED THIS FARM.
AND AS FAR AS WE KNOW, WE HAVE THE TWO, UH, BOTH THE PREVIOUS LANDOWNERS IN HERE AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, WHEN DID LEONARD'S FARM BECOME LEONARD'S
DID MAXWELL FARM IT AFTER YOUR FATHER QUIT FARMING IT? YES.
WAS THERE ANY GAP IN THAT TIME? NO.
THOSE ARE BOTH THE PREVIOUS LANDOWNERS AS FAR AS WE GO.
UH, ALL WE DID WAS CHANGE THE CROP.
WE WENT FROM CORN THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY BEFORE THAT.
AND COTTON AND ALL THAT, FARMERS CHANGED THEIR CROPS.
WE HAVE TO, AND WE ALSO WENT TO DIRECT FARM TO TABLE TYPE ATMOSPHERE, WHICH IS WHAT THE FARM WINERY ACT IS ALL ABOUT.
OKAY? THE, UH, AND THAT'S WHAT WE DID HERE.
WE CHANGED TO THAT INSTEAD OF CORN.
AND HERE, I'LL GO THROUGH THIS QUICK 'CAUSE I KNOW THE TIME CLOCK RUNS FAST, BUT THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT, AT THE FARM ON SEVEN THREE 2010.
THAT'S WHEN THE GOOGLE SATELLITE GOES OVER.
NO, I CAN'T GET YOU A SATELLITE PICTURE RIGHT ON NOVEMBER 16TH, 2010.
BUT ANY COMMON MAN WILL UNDERSTAND FARMING IS NOT SOMETHING YOU JUST STOP OR START, IT'S A YEARLY THING.
IT'S MORE LIKE A FIVE YEAR THING.
IF WE WANT PLANTS, I HAVE TO WOOD 'EM TWO YEARS IN ADVANCE.
SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU JUST STOP AND START.
IF YOU LOOK ON THIS PICTURE, YOU CAN SEE, UH, THE PARCEL A 15 A, WHICH IS THE FRONT PART TOWARDS THE, TO THE LAKE.
AND YOU CAN SEE THAT DISTINCTIVELY IN HAY.
OKAY? IT'S NOT IN COTTON, IT IS IN HAY AT THAT POINT.
IT'S ALSO IN TIMBER, AND IT'S STILL IN TIMBER TO THIS DAY.
SO TIMBER IS PART OF AGRICULTURE, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER CROP, SO TO SAY IT'S JUST FARMING IS NOT CORRECT.
IT'S, IT'S ZONED AGRICULTURE BY GRANDFATHER RIGHTS BY CONTINUATION.
THAT GOES ALL THE WAY BACK PRIOR TO 1964 WHEN YOU PUT THE ZONING RULES IN THERE.
SO THAT'S WHERE WE STAND ON THAT.
UH, IF WE GO ON THROUGH HERE MORE, OH, COME ON, MOVE FOR ME.
[00:45:01]
HOW COME THAT THING'S NOT MOVING? WELL, UH, LET'S, ANYWAY, IF WE GO ONTO THE NEXT SLIDE, CAN YOU GET IT TO ADVANCE? I CAN INDEED.THIS IS THE SAME TRACK THAT THEY WERE LOOKING AT, UH, MAXWELL WATSON'S, HE TRACK, HE FARMED THIS LAND.
THE, THE DESIGNATION FOR THE FARM AS YOU LOOK THROUGH YOUR PACKAGE IS TEN SEVEN TEN FORTY SEVEN.
OKAY? AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, THAT YOU CAN SEE WHAT HE DID.
WE COULD PULL UP EVERY YEAR ON THAT IF WE WANTED TO, BUT WE'RE NOT GONNA WASTE YOUR TIME WITH THAT.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THERE WITH THOSE REPORTS.
OKAY? THERE IS, UM, THERE'S THE FARM BASICALLY ON 4 5 20 16.
AND THAT'S WHEN THE PLAINTIFF HAS, WAS BUILDING HIS HOUSE.
YOU CAN SEE UP THERE IN THE CORNER.
IT'S OBVIOUSLY, OBVIOUSLY A FARM AT THAT POINT, AND YOU CAN SEE ALL THE TIMBER AROUND IT.
AND EVEN SOME OF THAT LAND WAS IN HAY AT THAT TIME.
THAT THE ONE THAT HE'S QUESTIONING, WHICH IS THE SEVEN DASH 15 A, OKAY? HERE'S WHEN WE PLANTED VINES IN FIVE THREE 2018.
SO YOU CAN SEE THAT VERY DISTINCTIVELY.
AND WE KEPT PAY GOING IN THE REST OF IT BECAUSE I KNEW ABOUT THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE.
WE NEEDED TO KEEP IT ACTIVE AS A FARM.
SO, ALRIGHT, THIS THING'S PRETTY, SO, ALRIGHT, HERE'S WHEN WE STARTED THE TASTING ROOM IN, UH, MARCH 10TH, 2021.
AND, UH, YOU CAN SEE THAT BEING CONSTRUCTED DOWN THERE IN THE, IN THE SIDE.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S NO MORE THAN A MODERN DAY FRUIT STAND.
YOU SELL GRAPES, WE A BOTTLE AS WINE.
PEOPLE CAN ENJOY THE FRONT OF THE FRONT OF THE WATERFRONT.
ENJOY THAT WHERE THEY CAN HAVE A GLASS OF WINE.
IT'S OPEN TO THE PEOPLE, OKAY? IT'S NOT ONE PERSON USING IT.
WE HAD A MEETING JUNE 20TH, 2017 IS THE FIRST TIME I SAT DOWN WITH D WITTY COUNTY, MS. INGRAM AND THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AT THAT TIME, WHICH WAS, UH, UH, JAMIE SHIRLEY.
I BROUGHT THEM UP TO OUR OTHER OPERATION.
I SAID, THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO DO HERE IN LEONARD'S LANE.
AND THIS IS THE EMAIL SHE COME BACK WITH TO ME.
IF WE WOULD'VE BEEN TURNED DOWN BY DINWITTY COUNTY AT THAT TIME, WE WOULD'VE NEVER PURCHASED IT TWO YEARS LATER, WE WOULD'VE NEVER DONE IT.
I'D CHECKED INTO THAT, I MADE SURE THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE APPLIED TO THIS PROPERTY, OKAY? AND WE DID IT, WE DID IT AGAIN HERE WHEN WE SIGNED THE FORM AFFIDAVIT.
OKAY? THAT WAS THE FIRST THING.
WHY DIDN'T WE GO THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS? PROCESS BEGINNING WISE, BECAUSE YOU ARE EXEMPT AS A FARM STRUCTURE AND SALES A WINE ARE EXEMPT.
WE BROUGHT THE, UH, BUILDING INSPECTOR OUT.
WE LOOKED AT ALL THE BUILDINGS, WE LOOKED AT EVERYTHING THAT WAS THERE.
TO THIS DAY, I HAVEN'T BUILT A NEW BUILDING.
ALL WE DID WAS TEAR DOWN A BUNCH OF OLD ONES AND FIX UP.
I WENT THROUGH THAT WITH JERRY PERKINS.
I SAID, WHAT DO YOU WANT? 15 AFFIDAVITS OR YOU WANT ONE? HE SAID, JUST GIMME ONE THAT WAS SIGNED.
IT WAS APPROVED BY PLANNING TO ME.
THAT'S THE SECOND TIME THAT THE CLOCK WAS RUNNING IT.
IF ANYBODY HAD A COMPLAINT, THEY SHOULD HAVE COMPLAINED THEN.
OKAY, THE NEXT SLIDE HERE WE'LL GO INTO, OH, I DID ONE MY, THE NEXT SLIDE WE GO INTO THE PERMIT THAT WAS DONE ON 5 25 21, AND THAT'S THROUGH THE NEW ORDINANCE.
AND WE AGREED TO THAT, OKAY, WE WILL GIVE TO A BUILDING PERMIT.
OKAY? AND THAT WAS A LOT OF PRESSURE FROM OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THIS ROOM THAT WE WERE FORCED INTO A PERMIT.
OKAY? SO WE, WE COOPERATED, WE COOPERATED, THERE WAS HEARINGS HERE, EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS PROPERTY, TWO DIFFERENT BIG HEARINGS ON THE ZONING ON AG TOURISM.
AND WE COMPLIED WITH EVERYTHING THE COUNTY ASKED.
SO HERE YOU CAN SEE IT SIGNED OFF AGAIN, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THEIR TIME TO APPEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE PREVIOUS COUPLE.
NOT, OR MAYBE THIS ONE WAS 2021.
NOT NOW THAT THIS BUILDING IS ALREADY TO THIS PHASE.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND IF I'M CLICKING WRONG OR IT'S CLICKING WRONG.
SO HERE WE ARE NOW, WE ALREADY HAVE A CCO ON THAT BUILDING.
THAT WAS THE BUILDING WHEN WE STARTED TO THE LEFT.
IT'S ALREADY HAD EVENTS ON IT.
IT'S, IT'S ALREADY UP AND FUNCTIONING.
[00:50:01]
IS AS ACTUALLY QUITE AN ASSET TO THE COUNTY.IT'S JUST TWO PEOPLE THAT DON'T AGREE.
AND IT, IT'S, IT'S, THAT'S THE ISSUE GENTLEMEN.
UH, AS FAR AS WE'RE CONCERNED, WE THINK WE DID OUR DUE DILIGENCE.
WE THINK WE DID OUR HOMEWORK ON GETTING IT ALL APPROVED THROUGH THE COUNTY.
AND I HONESTLY TRULY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE HERE TONIGHT, BUT WE WILL GO THROUGH WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO MAKE IT RIGHT.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND I HOPE WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS.
NOW I'M SUPPOSED TO TURN IT OFF, RIGHT? YOU OKAY? OKAY.
OH, AT THIS POINT, MS. MADAM CHAIR, YOU CAN, UH, WE DO HAVE A PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO READ THE STATEMENT, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO DO THAT POINT OF ORDER, IF I MAY.
I I DO BELIEVE I GET A SHORT REBUTTAL TIME.
IS THAT ACCURATE? I, I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS.
UM, I BELIEVE IT LISTED UP TO THE, UH, IT, IT SAYS, I THINK IN VIRGINIA CODE THAT EACH PARTY GETS EQUAL TIME.
SO THAT'S KIND OF TO THE ZONING APPEAL.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THERE'LL BE A, A THREE MINUTE, UH, AFTERWARDS, BUT IF I HAVE TO RESERVE THAT TIME AHEAD OF TIME, I SUPPOSE THAT'S FAIR.
UM, CAN YOU CITE WHERE THAT COMES FROM? UH, I BELIEVE THAT'S IN THE, THE PROCEDURE THAT ARE LISTED ON THE, UH, TY COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS WEBSITE.
I'M GONNA LEAVE THAT UP TO THE BOARD.
YEAH, WE CAN GIVE YOU THREE MINUTES AFTER AT THE END, UH, AT THE END AFTER THE REMAINING SPEAKERS.
I'M FINALLY GONNA READ THIS, Y'ALL.
THIS PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT TIME IS PROVIDED FOR CITIZENS TO HAVE THE VIEWS HEARD.
YOUR COMMENTS DURING THIS TIME MUST BE CONFINED TO THE MATTER OR CASE LISTED ON THE AGENDA.
YOUR COMMENTS SHOULD NOT BE CUMULATIVE OR REPETITIVE.
YOU'RE ASKED TO ADDRESS THIS BOARD WITH DECORUM, OBSCENITY, AND VULGARITY ALONG WITH LOUD, BOISTEROUS, AND DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR SHALL BE AVOIDED.
ALSO, WORDS OR ACT TENDING ACTS TENDING TO INVOKE VIOLENCE OR DEEMED TO BE A BREACH OF PEACE SHALL BE AVOIDED.
AND PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS TIME IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD OR FOR A TIME FOR LONG DIALOGUE WITH THE BOARD MEMBERS OR STAFF.
MADAM CHAIR, THE FIRST PERSON I HAVE IS MICHAEL MULLEN HOWER.
AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, THREE MINUTES, RIGHT? YES.
UH, I WAS UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING I WOULD HAVE SEVEN TO 10 MINUTES.
ADDRESS DIFFERENT STATEMENTS THAT THE LANDOWNER JUST MADE THE PURPOSE OF.
UH, OUR, OUR, OUR COMPLAINT IS, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CRO WITH THE EVENT CENTER.
IT HAS TO DO WITH THE RUNOFF AND THE PESTICIDES THAT ARE USED FOR THOSE GRAPES.
WHAT HE DIDN'T MENTION IS IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IT LI LIMITS THE USE OF HIGH DENSITY PESTICIDE CROPS NEAR THE DRINKING WATER SOURCE.
SO THE, THE, THE, THE, HE, THE LANDOWNER HAS PUT ALL THIS TIME INTO THE BUILDINGS, BUT HE'S IGNORED THE SAFETY HAZARDS OF THE RESIDENTIAL AREA THAT I LIVE IN.
THERE'S NO, THERE IS NO CHEMICAL BUFFER.
THERE IS NO PROTECTION FROM WATER DURING HIGH DENSITY FARMING.
IT STATES IN THE, IN THE COUNTY CODE THAT YOU MUST HAVE A CONTAINMENT THAT TAKES ALL THAT RUNOFF INTO A HOLDING POND WHERE IT'S TESTED BEFORE IT'S RELEASED INTO OUR DRINKING WATER SYSTEM.
THAT'S WHAT HE ISN'T MENTIONING.
WHAT HE ISN'T MENTIONING IS THAT I'VE BEEN THERE FOR 30 YEARS.
I USED TO WORK AT THAT CAMPGROUND.
I CAN TELL YOU NOW THAT, UH, MR. GRAY, RICHARD GRAY WAS THE MANAGER OF THOSE CAMPGROUNDS AND HE WENT TO MR. LEONARD AFTER TWO YEARS OF FIGHTING THE SEPTIC SYSTEM AND ASKED MR. LEONARD TO HAVE THE SYSTEM REPLACED.
MR. LEONARD REPLIED, I CAN'T RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF THE RISING LIABILITY INSURANCE COSTS.
WH WHICH WAS ULTIMATELY THE DEMISE OF THE, OF THE CAMPGROUNDS BECAUSE INSUR INSURANCE JUST WENT THROUGH THE ROOF.
I I KNOW WHAT CROPS WERE THERE,
[00:55:01]
I KNOW WHERE THEY ENDED AND STARTED.AND RIGHT NOW HE HAS VINES PLANTED EXTENDED WAY PAST WHERE THE CROP LINE USED TO END.
SO I, I THINK WE'RE GETTING OUTTA CONTEXT HERE WITH BUILDING PERMITS AND, AND, AND THIS AND THAT, THIS ENTIRE PROCESS, THERE HAVE BEEN NO MEETINGS.
EVERY MEETING THAT MR. TIBBOTT HAD WITH THE BOS OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS CLOSED SESSION.
THERE HAS BEEN NO CUP CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
THERE HAS BEEN NO CITIZENS HEARING, NOBODY'S BROUGHT THAT UP.
THERE IS 162 PEOPLE LIVING ABUTTING THIS GRAPE FARM.
I CAN SHOW YOU FOOTAGE, VIDEO FOOTAGE OF THE DRIFT AND THE PLUME FROM HIM SPRAYING HIS CHEMICALS.
IT'S, IT'S, THIS IS JUST ABSURD.
WE'RE FOCUSING ON THE, THE PERMITS AND THE BUILDING AND THE HEALTH RISK OF THE CA OF THE COUNTY CITIZENS IS HOW HE'S IGNORING BEST FARM PRACTICES.
AND I'VE CONTACTED EVERYBODY I CAN AND NOBODY WILL COME OUT AND, AND, AND, AND TAKE ANY ACTION.
GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
UM, I'M A RESIDENT AT 3 5 3 2 CHEIN BOULEVARD, MYSELF AND MY HUSBAND BARON.
UM, WE HAVE ONLY LIVED IN OUR HOME FOR TWO YEARS, UH, THIS MONTH, VERY HAPPILY IN SUTHERLAND.
AND, UM, OUR PROPERTY BORDERS, UM, MR. T BOLT'S, UH, VINEYARD, UM, AND I AM ONLY HERE, AGAIN, WE'VE ONLY BEEN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR TWO YEARS, BUT I JUST WANNA EXPRESS THAT WE HAVE ENJOYED A VERY POSITIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH, UM, THE TALT FAMILY AND THE BUSINESS.
UM, WE DID INSTALL A DOCK LAST SUMMER AND UM, WE DID HAVE TO GAIN PERMISSION, UH, FROM THE T BOLTS TO BE ABLE TO PUT THAT DOCK IN.
UM, WE HAD MR. TALT, UM, HIS SON, WHO IS ALSO VERY ACTIVE IN THEIR BUSINESS, UH, AS WELL AS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE APPOMATTOX, UH, WATER AUTHORITY, UM, ALL SITTING AT OUR KITCHEN TABLE, UM, TO KIND OF TALK THROUGH THE PLANS OF WHAT WE WERE PLANNING TO DO.
UM, WE HAD A, A VERY CIVIL, UH, VERY, VERY GOOD, UH, CONVERSATION, UH, FOR SEVERAL HOURS THAT DAY.
UM, WE AGAIN, UM, OUR, OUR BUTTED UP RIGHT NEXT TO AND BORDER THEIR PROPERTY.
UM, WE HAVE NOT HAD ANY ISSUE AT ALL WITH ANY, UM, CHEMICAL SENSE.
ANY, UM, RUNOFF, ANY CONCERNS OF THAT NATURE WHATSOEVER.
UM, THERE HAVE NOT BEEN ANY NOISE ISSUES EVEN DURING THE BUILDING, UM, OF, OF THE BUILDING THERE.
UM, SO WE HAVE ENJOYED A, A VERY POSITIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM THUS FAR.
SO I JUST WANTED TO, UM, TO ADD THAT FOR THE RECORD THIS EVENING.
MAY I ASK, UH, WHAT, WHAT TYPE OF WATER YOU HAVE? DO YOU HAVE WELL, OR IS THERE A CENTRAL WATER? WHAT TYPE OF WATER DO YOU HAVE FOR YOUR HOME? UH, WE ARE NOT ON CITY WATER.
YES, WE ARE NOT ON WELL WATER.
IT'S, IT'S NOT CITY WATER, BUT IT'S A COMMUNITY.
MY NAME IS ASHLEY LINZ AND I AM ON 2 0 6 8 0 RIVER ROAD.
MY PROPERTY IS 50% SURROUNDED BY THE WINERY ON TWO SIDES.
HOPEFULLY TODAY SINCE I GOT A LETTER ABOUT THIS MEETING, FINALLY SOMEONE HAS REACHED OUT.
UM, AND I WON'T BE LAUGHED AT LAST TIME I WROTE A LETTER I GOT, I WAS STANDING IN MY YARD ENGULFED BY SOMETHING, BURNED MY EYES AND I WAS TOLD, YOU SHOULD BE LUCKY.
THEY'RE FERTILIZING YOUR YARD.
WHAT IF SOMEONE THREW SOMETHING IN YOUR EYES AND IT BURNED AND THEY JUST LAUGHED AT YOU? WHAT IF MY 2-YEAR-OLD AND 3-YEAR-OLD HAD BEEN OUT THERE WHEN I WAS OUT THERE? I'M HERE TO SAY NO TO THIS.
THE WINERY IS FINE, BUT RULES NEED TO BE FOLLOWED.
I LOVE DENWITTY AND I SUPPORT DENWITTY
[01:00:01]
IN AGRICULTURAL, BUT THIS IS GOING TOO FAR.I MOVED INTO MY HOUSE KNOWING IT WAS OUR RI SAW THE FARMING BEING DONE, BUT ZONING RULES WERE FOLLOWED AND RESPECT WAS DONE LAST TIME.
I WAS ALSO TOLD, WELL, YOU'RE NOT A FARMER AND YOU'RE RIGHT, I HAVE HORSES AND KIDS, BUT I'M A NURSE, SO HOW CAN I IGNORE THINGS LIKE POSITIVE PESTICIDES BEING, UH, SHOWN, FUNGICIDES SHOWING UP? HAVE YOU EVER HAD TO WATCH SOMEONE DIE FROM POISON OR TELL A FAMILY MEMBER YOUR LOVED ONE'S NO LONGER HERE? YOU MIGHT GET THAT CHANCE WHEN THIS HAPPENS IN NEIGHBORHOODS AND PEOPLE START COMING TO YOU A COUPLE YEARS LATER.
I'M A RESPECTFUL DIGNITY RESIDENT AND WHEN I ADDED ONTO MY PROPERTY, I GOT PERMITS RIGHT AWAY.
I DIDN'T START AND THEN SAY, OH, I'M GONNA GET ONE THAT TASTING ROOM THAT WAS BEING BUILT BEFORE THAT PERMIT.
AND I WASN'T EVEN ALLOWED TO PUT A BARN ON MY HOUSE UNTIL I GOT A PERMIT.
FINDING LOOPHOLES AND CURRENT ZONING RULES DOES NOT MAKE THIS OKAY TO KEEP HAPPENING.
AND THE FACT THAT THERE, YOU GUYS HAVE THE POWER TO HAVE SETBACKS AND BUFFERS, BUT DON'T SPEAK VOLUMES.
THIS IS NOT OUR FIRST TIME TRYING TO APPEAL.
WE'VE SHOWN UP MULTIPLE TIMES AND WRITTEN LETTERS.
I HAD TO TAKE TIME OFF OF WORK AND NOT BEING WITH MY KIDS TODAY TO BE HERE BECAUSE NO ONE WANTS TO LISTEN.
DON'T FORGET THE OTHER ISSUES LIKE ROAD ACCESS.
DRUNK DRIVERS NOW ARE GONNA BE ON THIS ROAD.
OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SAID THIS MULTIPLE TIMES AT OTHER MEETINGS.
EVEN ON THE APPLICATION IN ONE OF THESE ATTACHMENTS, IT HAS QUESTIONS.
HOME OCCUPATION, APPLICANTS ONLY, BUT THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL AREA.
THEY EVEN LIVE ON THIS PROPERTY.
AND THERE'S QUESTIONS LIKE ADDITIONAL, WELL ADDITIONAL PARKING BE REQUIRED, VOLUME OF TRAFFIC GENERATED, AND THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE.
NUMBER 13, WILL THE EQUIPMENT OR PROCESS OF BUSINESS CREATE EXCESSIVE VIBRATION, GLARE, FUMES, OR ODORS? AND IT DOES.
I, DROPPING AN AGRICULTURAL SITE IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESIDENTIAL AREA IS INSANE.
AND I DON'T CARE IF YOU'RE A MOTHER, A FARMER, WHOEVER YOU ARE, SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE AND I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS.
DEBRA AND I LIVE AT 36 0 8 CHEAN BOULEVARD.
OUR PROPERTY BACKS RIGHT UP TO RIVERSIDE VINES, MR. TEBOW'S PROPERTY.
UM, WHEN WE WERE THINKING ABOUT BUYING OUR PROPERTY FOUR YEARS AGO, IT WAS AN ADDED BENEFIT THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE, THIS PROPERTY BEHIND US WAS GOING TO BE A VINEYARD AND A, AND, AND A WINERY.
UM, AND THAT IT WAS NOT GOING TO BE TURNED INTO A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT OR AN APARTMENT COMPLEX.
UM, I CAN'T IMAGINE MR. TEBOW SPENDING A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF MONEY ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT HAVING APPROVAL FROM THE COUNTY FOR THE BUSINESS PLAN THAT HE WAS GOING TO PURSUE.
THEN WE GOT HIT WITH A PANDEMIC, SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES AND LACK OF WORKERS THAT HAS CAUSED IT TO BE SLOW, GOING TO GET HIS BUSINESS OPERATING.
NOW AFTER ALMOST FOUR YEARS LATER, THE COUNTY WANTS TO RECONSIDER THEIR AGREEMENT.
WHAT KIND OF CONFIDENCE DOES THAT INSTILL IN OTHER BUSINESSES THAT MAY CONSIDER DINWITTY COUNTY FOR THEIR OPERATIONS? I PERSONALLY WOULD TAKE DINWITTY OUT OF THE RUNNING IF I WERE GOING TO START A BUSINESS IF THIS IS NOT APPROVED.
ALSO, HAVING THIS TYPE OF TOURISM BUSINESS IN OUR COUNTY IS GREAT FOR OTHER BUSINESSES.
THIS IS NOT A BAR, IT'S A WINERY AND IT BRINGS A WHOLE DIFFERENT CLIENTELE.
AND I FOR ONE, ALONG WITH MANY OF MY NEIGHBORS WHO DO BACK UP TO, UH, THE WINERY, ARE EXCITED TO GET THIS OPPORTUNITY FINALLY OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
HOTTER OR HOLDER? GOOD EVENING MADAM CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
I LIVE AT, UH, 37 0 3 CHESON BOULEVARD AND I WAS AT THE LAST MEETING.
I THOUGHT EVERYTHING WAS RESOLVED.
UM, I KNOW THERE'S APPEAL BROUGHT UP, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THE EVIDENCE HAS CLEARLY BEEN SHOWN THAT WHAT YOU GUYS, UH, DID, UM, WAS RIGHT.
[01:05:01]
UM, I TOO AM EXCITED TO GET THE WINERY OPEN.IT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR, YOU KNOW, WAY TOO LONG AND IT'S JUST STAGNANT.
I THINK IT WOULD HELP NOT ONLY OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT THE WHOLE COMMUNITY.
UM, ONE THING THAT NEEDS TO BE POINTED OUT TOO IS MOST OF THE MEMBERS THAT ARE DRINKING THE WATER AROUND THIS FARM ARE ON A, A COMMUNITY.
WELL, THAT WAS PUT IN YEARS AGO BECAUSE OF UM, SOME STUFF AT THE LAKE.
I'M SURE IT'S ON YOUR RECORDS.
IT HAD RADIA RATE ON IN THE WATER.
SO A COMMUNITY WELL WAS BUILT THAT WATER IS ACTUALLY, UM, REVERSE OSMOSIS.
UH, WHEN WE BOUGHT OUR HOUSE, WE HAD IT TESTED AND THE INSPECTOR COULDN'T BELIEVE HOW CLEAN THE WATER WAS.
SO I DON'T THINK THE DRINKING WATER OR THE WATER THAT WE BATHE IN OR WASH OUR HANDS IN IS AN ISSUE FROM THE RUNOFF.
AND THIS COMMUNITY IS THIS, THIS LAND HAS BEEN FARMED FOR AGES IT SEEMS LIKE.
AND THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN USE OF FERTILIZER.
I MEAN, FARMERS HAVE TO FERTILIZE.
UM, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS MOVE FORWARD.
I'M ACTUALLY THE ATTORNEY FOR THE LAND RIVER, SO YOU CAN SKIP IT.
AND I APOLOGIZE I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T GET YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS THE FIRST TIME.
MADAM CHAIR, HAVE WE ENDED THE PUBLIC HEARING? I'M SORRY.
MADAME CHAIR, THERE IS NO ONE ELSE, UM, LEFT TO SPEAK THEN.
I'M GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
MADAM CHAIR, JUST, JUST ONE CLARIFICATION.
UM, BOB SPEAKING, I DID LIKE A VIRGINIA CODE AND IT STATES, UM, THAT UH, IT EQUAL TIME HAD TO BE GIVEN TO THE APPLICANT FAULT AND LANDO SO TO SPEAK, SO THAT NOT, UH, AND I DIDN'T MEAN TO BE DEBATING WHETHER YOU GOT A REBUTTAL OR NOT, BUT IT'S IN THE CODE AND EVERYTHING.
SO I ASSUME Y'ALL ARE GIVING HIM THREE MINUTES.
SO I'LL GIVE YOU THREE MINUTES.
YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES AND THANK YOU.
MUCH APPRECIATED AND I APPRECIATED, MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THE PROCEDURE CORRECT.
UM, WILLIAM TIBBOTT SAID THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN AG AGRICULTURE FOR A LONG TIME, AND THAT, THAT HE PLANTED GRAPES IN 2018 IS NOT UP FOR DEBATE.
UM, BUT IT ALSO ISN'T WHAT'S RELEVANT TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS AN APPROPRIATE ACTION BY THE ADMINISTRATOR.
WE'VE GOT AFFIDAVITS FROM TWO NEIGHBORS THAT SAY THAT AS OF 2012, THERE WAS NO AGRICULTURAL USE, AT LEAST IN THE RELEVANT PLOT, WHICH IS SEVEN DASH 15 A.
UM, HE SAYS HE CHANGED THE CROP AND THEN ALL HE DID WAS CHANGE THE CROP AND HE POINTS TO, UH, TIMBER AND SAYS IT'S BASICALLY THE SAME.
BUT WE HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CHARACTER OF NON-CONFORMING USE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF YOUR NON-CONFORMING USE AND HAVE IT BE A CONTINUED SAME USE.
SO IF WE GO FROM TIMBER TO, TO RAISING CATTLE, IT'S A DECIDEDLY DIFFERENT USE OF YOUR PROPERTY AND IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH YOUR PRIOR NON-CONFORMING USE.
HERE WE DON'T HAVE A CONSISTENT NON-CONFORMING USE AND FRANKLY, BEFORE HE MADE THE CHANGE, THERE WAS NO PROBLEM WITH CHEMICALS.
WE DIDN'T HEAR ANY NEIGHBOR COMPLAINING ABOUT IT.
AND SINCE THEN, UH, AT LEAST THE, THE YOAST HAVE BEEN WILLING TO, TO PUT FORWARD THAT THEY'VE HAD THREE DIFFERENT POSITIVE TESTS FOR FUNGICIDES AND PESTICIDES BYPRODUCTS FROM MAY TO JUNE OF LAST YEAR.
UM, WE TALKED ABOUT THE, THE BUILDINGS BEING RENOVATED, BUT RENOVATING BUILDINGS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH A NON-CONFORMING USE STAYS CONSISTENT WITH A NON-CONFORMING USE.
YOU'RE ALLOWED TO, TO KEEP THE BUILDING THE SAME, AS LONG AS YOU'RE KEEPING IT THE SAME FOR THE SAME USE, THAT'S FINE.
IT'S WHEN YOU CREATE A NEW USE THAT YOU GET A PROBLEM.
UM, AND, AND WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THOSE PICTURES, I, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU, BUT DID YOU THINK THOSE TWO BUILDINGS LOOKED LIKE THEY WERE FOR THE SAME PURPOSE THAT THEY WERE FOR THE SAME USE? BECAUSE IT'S HARD TO LOOK AT THAT AND NOT SAY THAT THIS IS A CHANGE IN THE CHARACTER OF THE USE OF THIS PROPERTY.
THE LEGACY OF THIS LAND WAS UNIFIED IN 1971.
THAT WAS THE LAST TIME THAT THE PROPERTIES ALL CAME UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP.
AND YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU A PROPERTY CARD THAT NOTES THAT THE USE OF THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL WAS AN ABANDONED CAMPGROUND.
AND THAT STAYED ABANDONED FROM 2002 UNTIL FRANKLY, UNTIL THIS LAST BUILDING RENOVATION AND BEGAN TO BE USED BY THE TIBBLES.
BECAUSE OF THAT, THERE WAS NO AGRICULTURE ON SEVEN DASH 15 A AND BASED ON THE SUPREME COURT'S OPINION, YOU CAN'T EXPAND THE NON-CONFORMING USE IN THIS WAY NOW WITHOUT A PERMIT.
[01:10:01]
A PROCESS THAT'S APPROPRIATE HERE, THEY HAVEN'T DONE THAT.THEY'VE TRIED TO DO EVERYTHING AS A MATTER OF RIGHT.
AND THEY DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT.
SO WE'D ASK THAT YOU OVERTURN THE PRIOR RULING.
JUST, JUST A COUPLE QUICK NOTES ON THAT.
IF WE GO TO THAT STANDARD THAT MR. MALLEY'S TALKING ABOUT, YOU'RE GONNA TIE THE HANDS OF EVERY FARMER IN THIS WHOLE STATE.
YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO BUILD A NEW BARN.
YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO CHANGE YOUR CROP.
YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO GO FROM COWS TO SHEEP OR CHICKENS TO A DIFFERENT BREED OR FROM LAYING TO MEAT CHICKENS.
I MEAN, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, HE'S LIMITING IT TO A POINT WHERE YOU A FARM COULD NOT OPERATE ANYMORE.
AS FAR AS THE PESTICIDE USE AND ALL THAT, IT'S PRETTY MUCH IRRELEVANT TO THIS, BUT IT IS A CONCERN OF OURS.
I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, THE BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WAY WE FARM AND THE WAY YOU WOULD FARM FOR SOYBEAN OR CORN OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT IS EVERYTHING THEY PUT IN, THEY PUT IN THE GROUND.
OKAY? SO THEY GO ALONG AND THEY SPRAY IT ALL WITH SOMETHING TO KILL THE WHATEVER'S GROWING.
AND THEN THEY PUT IN A ROUND READY, A ROUNDUP READY CROP AND THAT'S HOW IT'S DONE.
EVERYTHING THAT WE ARE USING, YOU CAN BUY AT LOWE'S OR HOME DEPOT OR ANY ONE OF THEM.
WHY IT LOOKS A LITTLE BIT BAD IS BECAUSE IT IS SPRAYED.
A LOT OF IT IS GOING RIGHT FROM THE SPRAYER TO THE PLANT.
A LOT OF OUR FERTILIZATION IS NOT DONE IN THE GROUND.
THEIR WATER HAS BEEN TESTED RIGHT THERE AT THE YATES.
IT CAME OUT CLEAN AS A WHISTLE.
THERE IS NO CONTAMINANTS THAT THEY'RE MAKING UP.
YES, THERE'S BEEN THREE ACCUSED DRIFTING ONTO THEIR PROPERTY, ALL OF ALL OF WHICH WERE OBJECTS THAT COULD BE BLOWN INTO THE YARD OR MOVED VERY EASILY.
NONE OF THE FIXED ITEMS IN THEIR YARD HAS BEEN TESTED POSITIVE.
THEY CAN COME TEST AT ANY TIME.
WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO STOP THE DRIFT AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO THAT BETTER FOR THIS YOUNG LADY HERE.
I DO UNDERSTAND WHAT WENT ON AND IT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT WE EVEN SPRAYED.
OKAY? SO THE FIELD WAS LIMED BY ANOTHER COMPANY AND UH, AND THERE AND THERE WAS SOME, THERE'S NOTICEABLY SMELL.
MOST OF WHAT WE USED AS A FUNGICIDE IS GONNA BE SULFUR BASED.
SO IT DOES SMELL, BUT AS FAR AS HARMING YOU, YES IT WILL BURN YOUR EYES IF YOU GET IT IN YOUR EYES, BUT MOST OF THE TIME WE'RE SPRAYING VERY EARLY IN THE MORNING WITH VERY MINIMUM WIND SPEED TO MITIGATE THAT.
SO WE'RE DOING THE BEST WE CAN WITH THAT, BUT IT IS A FARMING ISSUE.
BUT I CAN GUARANTEE YOU WHAT THEY'RE GETTING NOW IS 10 TIMES BETTER THAN WHAT THEY WERE GETTING BEFORE AS FAR AS FARMING AND AS FAR AS THE LAND GOES ON, ON THE UH, SEVEN OR THE SEVEN DASH 15 A THAT WAS BEING USED, THE FARM WHEN IT WAS, UH, AN ORCHARD OR A UH, CAMPGROUND, IT WAS ALSO A FARM.
IT'S, YOU DON'T PUT ALL YOUR EGGS IN ONE BASKET.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY MORE REBUTTALS, I GUESS I WOULD TELL YOU.
Y'ALL HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO.
ANYBODY? EVERYBODY GOOD CHAIR.
OUR LAWYERS REPRESENTED THE LAW, BUT WE'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO WHAT HAPPENS TO US.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY, WE HAD A LANDOWNER SPEAK FOR THE LANDOWNERS.
HE'S OUR REPRESENTATIVE, BUT THERE ARE, THERE ARE THINGS THAT WERE, THAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BEING A RESIDENT IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA.
I CAN'T, I CAN'T HEAR WHAT SHE'S SAYING IF SHE NEEDS TO MADAM SHE COME TO THE MIC, MADAM CHAIR.
BOTH SIDES HAVE ATTORNEYS AND WHO THEY'RE REPRESENTING, THE APPELLANT AND THE LANDOWNER.
I JUST FOREWARN YOU IF YOU ALLOW THIS, I'M GONNA SET TELL YOU, YOU HAVE TO GIVE THE OPPOSING SIDE
[01:15:02]
SAME AMOUNT OF MINUTES.ARE WE READY? READY FOR A MOTION.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ADOPTS THE FOLLOW RESOLUTION, WHEREAS THE CODE OF VIRGINIA, SPECIFICALLY 15 DASH 2.2 DASH 2309, STATES THAT THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS SHALL HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS FROM ANY ORDER REQUIREMENT, DECISION OR DETERMINATION MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER IN ADMINISTRATION OR ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ARTICLE OR OF ANY ORDINANCE ADOPTED PER SWAMP THERETO AND BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE BOARD DETERMINE AS TRUE THE FACTUAL STATEMENTS NUMBER ONE THROUGH NINE AND RATIONALE SET FORTH BY THE STAFF REPORT AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT
MR. YEAGER A AND MS. SHEETS, AYE.
FIVE MEMBERS PRESENT VOTING AYE.
ZA TWO THREE DASH ONE HAS BEEN APPROVED TRUE BY THE BORDER ZONING PEOPLE.
WAS THERE ANY OLD BUSINESS THAT NEEDED TO BE ADDRESSED? I NO OLD BUILD, NO OLD BUSINESS, MADAM CHAIR.
IS THERE ANY NEW BUSINESS THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED? NO NEW BUSINESS, MADAM CHAIR.
[9. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS]
THERE ANY BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS? I JUST LIKE TO THINK I WANT FOR COMING OUT TONIGHT AND BEING ABLE TO HEAR YOUR SIDE.SO I, I HOPE THERE CAN BE SOME TYPE OF AGREEMENT OR COMPROMISE OR, OR SOMETHING.
I KNOW THAT RIGHT NOW DOESN'T SEEM POSSIBLE, BUT, UM, HOPEFULLY THAT THERE DI COUNTY IS IN NEED OF BUSINESSES, SO WE HOPE THAT, UM, THINGS CAN WORK OUT.
I, I'M, I'M A FARM AND I LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT, YOU KNOW, I I WOULD LIKE TO SELL ALL MY ROAD FRONTAGE AND MAKE LOTS AND UH, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE BUY LOTS AND BUILD HOMES THERE, BUT WHEN YOU MOVE INTO AGRICULTURAL AREA, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT FARMERS GOTTA DO THINGS AND IF YOU DECIDE TO MOVE OUT INTO AN AGRICULTURE AREA, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU KIND OF, UH, GOT A GIVE AND TAKE A LITTLE BIT.
THAT'S THE ONLY COMMENT I'D LIKE TO MAKE.
MME. CHAPMAN, MY HEART GOES OUT TO THIS YOUNG LADY THAT ADDRESSED THIS.
UM, I REALLY APPRECIATE HER COMING FORWARD.
I'M A FARMER ALSO AND, UH, I'M SORRY FOR THE INCIDENT THAT WAS HAD, BUT I, I'M SURE THAT MR. TBO IS GOING TO TRY TO CORRECT THAT TO THE BEST OF HIS ABILITY AND, UH, IT TOOK A LOT OUTTA YOU TO COME FORWARD AND ADDRESS YOUR THOUGHTS TO THIS BOARD.
UM, IN FARMING WE SPRAY A LOT OF CHEMICALS.
I WOULD RATHER HAVE THE GRAPES NEAR ME THAN I WOULD A CORN FIELD WHEN THEY SPRAYED THE COTTON WITH THE BOLL WEEVILS.
I'M NOT INTO THAT, I'M INTO CATTLE.
I SPRAYED MY CATTLE WITH A CHEMICAL TO KILL THE BUGS AND I PUT A MASK ON.
I WAS GOING TO ASK MR. TEBOW WHAT HE SPRAYED.
DID IT RECOMMEND A MASK? AND IT
[01:20:01]
PROBABLY DIDN'T.IF YOU CAN GET IT OVER THE COUNTER, I THINK I REALLY THINK THAT THAT WAS A, A REALLY UNIQUE INCIDENT THAT HAD HAPPENED TO YOU AT THAT TIME AND I HOPE IT NEVER DOES AGAIN.
AND I HOPE MR. TEBOW WILL MAKE SURE I KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE.
YOU DON'T LIVE WHERE THE TREES AROUND YOU LIVE IN THE NEXT HOUSE.
THE TREES WHERE THE TREES AROUND AND I LIKE THAT THE PRIVACY AND UH, I KNOW EXACTLY WHERE YOU LIVE, BUT UH, MY HEART GOES OUT TO YOU.
BUT THIS IS A FARMING COUNTY AND THE REVENUE OF THIS COUNTY IS PERTAINING TO FARMING.
I CAN'T THINK OF A BEST PLACE TO HAVE A VINEYARD THAN ON THAT ROAD.
GRAPES DON'T TALK BACK TO YOU.
IT'S NOT LIKE A SUBDIVISION THERE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE CONTEND WITH SMALL HOUSES THAT YOU KNOW THEY COULD BE OUT THERE AND YOU HAVE A VERY NICE PLACE WHERE YOU LIVE.
THE ATTORNEY WAS TALKING ABOUT THE LAND USE THIS COUNTY IF YOU ARE RAISING TREES.
IT'S CALLED IN THIS COUNTY A TREE FARM.
THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTY THAT BUYS 50 ACRES OF LAND, A HUNDRED ACRES OF LAND, AND ALL THEY DO IS RAISE TREES.
IT'S REFERRED TO AS A TREE FARM.
I CANNOT AND I CANNOT GET PAST THAT.
THIS 15 A IS A REAL ISSUE OF WHY WE ARE HERE.
UM, I KNOW IT'S ALL WOODED, BUT I WOULD DESCRIBE IT AS A TREE FARM.
BUT THESE ARE MY REMARKS TO YOU AND TO YOU ONLY AND I DO APPRECIATE YOU COMING FORWARD TODAY.
[10. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS]
DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR? UM, I'LL JUST STATE THAT AT THIS TIME WE DO NOT HAVE ANY OTHER APPLICATIONS IN THE OFFICE AWAITING TO BE HEARD.SO AT THIS PRESENT MOMENT, WE DO NOT HAVE A FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULED.
UM, SHOULD WE RECEIVE ANY APPLICATIONS, WE WILL BE REACHING OUT TO YOU AS OUR NORMAL PRACTICE.
WE WILL CONTACT YOU IF WE DO RECEIVE ANY OTHER APPLICATIONS, THEN I'M GONNA ADJOURN THIS MEETING.
UH, I MADAM CHAIR, I NEED A MOTION.