GRANBY — Despite complaints from neighbors about noise and business operations of the Wine Haus, the town recently determined that the winery can continue to operate on East Street under a 1950 state law that exempts certain land uses from local zoning regulations.
For over a year, residents have complained to the Select Board about the Wine Haus, specifically the loud music that comes from the business. In June 2024, former Building Commissioner Damian Cote served the winery a cease-and-desist order claiming it could not operate in a residential zone. Several residents also mentioned a 2010 special permit prohibiting any “business or industry” in the building the Wine Haus currently uses as its tasting room.
In the most recent development, the Wine Haus appealed a “Missing Information” letter issued by the building inspector Tom Quinlan. The letter inquired into the authority of the 2010 special permit.
At its Nov. 7 meeting, the Zoning Board of Appeals sided with the Wine Haus and ruled that a Massachusetts law called the Dover Amendment protects the tasting room from local bylaw restrictions.
“The 2010 special permit says you cannot use the property for business or industry,” Special Town Counsel Adam Costa said. “If it’s agricultural business or agricultural industry, it renders the restrictions in that permit moot because the Dover Amendment supersedes all that.”
The amendment was adopted in 1950 to protect religious and educational institutions from local zoning bylaws. Eventually, other uses like agriculture were added. However, what qualifies as educational or agricultural is up for interpretation.
During the ZBA hearing on Oct. 7, Peter Durning of Verill Law argued the property is a farm that sells its product in the tasting room. Wine makes up 85% of sales from the tasting room, he told the ZBA on a Nov. 7 hearing. All other products like beer are secondary.
“There are promotions, there are innovative things that the Wine Haus staff comes up with to draw folks to the venue,” Durning said. “But the commercial activity, the revenue generating activity us the sale of wine at the tasting room.”
Attorney John McLaughlin of Green Miles Lipton, who spoke for abutter Raymond Morrissette, claimed the tasting room is a “bar” with no connection to the winery process. He reiterated his previous statement that agricultural protections only pertain to farms growing a majority of their product on premise or in state. Most of the grapes used in the wine are imported from California, he said.
“We don’t even get to the Dover Amendment because this is not primarily a commercial agricultural property,” he said. “You cannot ask for the protection of a farm when you’re not really a farm.”
“This decision is not easy because its muddy in terms of what really applies and what doesn’t apply here,” ZBA Chair Steven Nelly said.
Costa said the tasting room can only receive this protection if the board rules the primary use of the property is agriculture, and if the tasting room is an “accessory” agricultural use.
The board members initially requested revenue numbers from the farm to deduce its primary use. However, Durning said there is no revenue from the haying operation. The Long View Farm in Barstow harvests the hay in return for selling Wine Haus wine at farm stands. Instead, the board agreed the property is a farm based on the use of land.
“The pure facts are there is a 15-acre parcel, 11 acres is hay, 2 acres is grapes,” ZBA member Brian Johnson said. “So in 15 acres, 13 acres is farm-related.”
After lengthy discussion, the board also concluded the tasting room is an “accessory agricultural use” and not industry. Member Dakota Johnson said the storage of wine in the tasting room could qualify the building as an operational facility.
Nelly said he did not agree with Durning’s comparison of the tasting room to a farm stand, but believed the tasting room is related to the winery. Johnson added that resident complaints about the tasting relate to entertainment and food. Neither of which, he said, are the primary use of the tasting room.
“It seems to me that the debate about the tasting room was more of a [means to an end] to stop the entertainment,” he said. “That’s not what’s before this board.”
The Wine Haus is still subject to site plan review, the board ruled, but the Planning Board must keep the Dover Amendment in mind while making any adjustments to the site.