GRANBY — The Zoning Board of Appeals will decide whether a Granby winery’s location in a residential neighborhood is permitted by laws protecting agriculture or violated the property’s special permit prohibiting “business and industry.”
Wine Haus at 16 East St. appeared before the board on Oct. 7 to appeal a “Missing Information” building inspector Tom Quinlan. The letter asks about a 2010 special permit attached to the Tasting Room building that stipulates “no business or industry” be conducted in the building.
“Agriculture is not considered a business or industry.” ZBA member Bill Johnson said. “Our question is, everybody calls it a winery. Is a winery agriculture?”
For over a year, Granby residents in streets around the winery have submitted noise complaints, cited traffic concerns and questioned the legality of the Wine Haus. Last spring, then-Building Commissioner Damian Cote issued a cease and desist order on the winery for violating residential zoning restrictions.
“This town has failed us.” resident Jeremy Carriere told the ZBA. “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.”
The zoning disputes came to Quinlan’s attention when the winery applied for a change of use permit to add doors, cabinets and cabinet partitions in the tasting room.
Before it was a winery, the building on East Street was used as a storage shed for Thomas Fitzgerald’s farming equipment. The building was briefly used as a dog kennel and dog breeding operation before Wine Haus owner Jim Trompke bought the building in 2020.
The attorney representing the Wine Haus, Peter Durning of Verill Law, said at the Oct. 7 ZBA meeting that the winery is permitted by the town’s right to farm bylaw or the Dover Amendment, which limits zoning restrictions on religious, educational and agricultural institutions.
“While Wine Haus 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,” Durning said. “Wine Haus’s farming operation produced 200 gallons of grape juice and expects that it will produce more as the vines mature further. That 200 gallons will produce roughly $30,000 to $45,000 in revenue.”
Hops for brewing beer and hay also grow in the fields, Durning said. Granby’s right to farm bylaw includes agrotourism in its definition of agriculture. Durning stressed that wine tasting falls under agrotourism and is therefore bypasses zoning restrictions.
Attonery John McLaughlin of Green Miles Lipton, who spoke for abutter Raymond Morrissette, argued that the right to farm bylaw and Dover Amendment only applies to farms that grow crops or raise livestock. The majority of the Wine Haus’s business, he said, comes from the fermentation and sale of alcohol.
“If you’re claiming protection from the Dover Amendment, the use on the property has to be predominantly agriculture,” McLaughlin said. “If they’re making much more money from the restaurant, from the bar, from the entertainment compared to haying a few fields, then they’re not substantially agricultural.”
The definition of agriculture, McLaughlin said, has extended beyond strictly cultivating crops or livestock. However, Massachusetts General Law specifies that for a farm to bypass zoning restrictions, 25% of the agricultural products must come from the farm, and another 25% must come from other Massachusetts farms. He claims the wine uses a large percentage of California grapes, and the beer is sourced from the Drunken Rabbit Brewing in South Hadley.
Special Town Council Adam Costa explained that the Dover Amendment allows “accessory uses” of an agricultural property. However, the principal use of the property must be agriculture, which is up to the ZBA to decide.
“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?” Costa said. “In those instances, it’s not accessory anymore. it’s now effectively become a principal use of the site.”
Costa cited Ward v. Town of Nantucket, where Massachusetts Land Court Judge Michael Vhay ruled that an accessory use must be both “incidental” and “customary.” Incidental uses are subordinate, but related, to the intended use. The case defines customary as a use that has long been associated with the primary use.
“I don’t think there’s any question here that this tasting room operation 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,” Costa said. “But the applicant is arguing that it is accessory and therefore tied into the agricultural use.”
Ultimately, the ZBA requested the Wine Haus provide more information on its revenue sources to help decide if the primary use of the building is agriculture. The hearing is continued to Nov. 4.