In July, opponents of Beard Mountain Winery forced postponement of public hearing for event venue to this upcoming Tuesday night

Beard Mountain Winery wants to build a 26,000 square foot event venue at their location in Greene County but several neighbors are doing what they can to prevent the Board of Supervisors from giving approval. (paragraph corrected at 2:04 p.m.)

On July 9, the five members of the Board voted to postpone a public hearing on the matter and then voted on another motion to ensure that any kitchen at any farm winery in the county is restricted in what it can provide.

On Tuesday, Supervisors were to have held a public hearing for the winery’s request for a special use permit to build a building in excess of 4,000 square feet. On June 26, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) upheld a determination that their use as a farm winery is appropriate which allows for structures up to that size.

One of the appellants in that BZA case was Victor Rosenburg, a neighbor who felt in that case that the determination should have been denied. He spoke at the public comment period at the Board of Supervisors meeting on July 9 to raise another concern.

“I have I guess a serious concern as to whether the beer and winery SUP on tonight’s agenda was properly advertised,” Rosenberg said.

Under Virginia law, public hearings are required for certain items before elected officials make a decision. These have to be advertised in a newspaper of record and can be viewed on a website maintained by the Virginia Press Association called Public Notice. 

Another of the unsuccessful appellants to the BZA argued that because the Board of Supervisors deferred their public hearing on the matter on May 28, they need to advertise it a second time. Kennon Copeland quoted what Assistant County Attorney Kelley Kemp said that night.

“Ms. Kemp then said ‘since we are not holding the public hearing, we are going to have to properly advertise for it,’” Copeland said. 

On May 28, Copeland, Rosenberg, and others asked Supervisors to defer the public hearing until after the BZA had heard their complaint on June 26. On July 9, Kemp noted that the motion clearly indicated that the public hearing would be deferred that day and no further public notice was required. 

“You all discussed it and set it to a date certain, therefore anyone that was here to speak one way or the other would have notice of it and then it was again posted on the agenda,” Kemp said. 

However, At-Large Supervisor Francis McGuigan said he did not think the county had not done enough to meet the legal requirement. 

“Although it was referred to that a date certain in some way absolves the county from adequately advertising, nobody can find a citing for that in state code,” McGuigan said .

Kemp said it was up to the Board of Supervisors if they wanted to defer the public hearing a second time and also suggested the Board hear from the applicant and then make a decision after a second public hearing. 

“They have been twice and I think they would probably at least like a chance to be heard but if you’re concerned you can certainly tell staff to advertise it and do it next month as well,” Kemp said. “It doesn’t hurt to do it twice.” 

At this point, Rosenburg was given the chance to make the case that Supervisors had to postpone the public hearing again. 

“I’m sure you folks realize that it is a jurisdictional issue meaning that if it’s not properly advertised, then whatever takes place is null and void and the case law supports that,” Rosenburg said. 

There was then a back and forth between Rosenburg and County Administrator Cathy Schafrik as Rosenburg pressed to know what would allow the county to proceed. 

“What was the authority for that statement?” Rosenburg asked. “This was your email.”

“My email about the requirements to advertise?” Schafrik asked.

“Why it was not necessary to advertise,” Rosenburg said. 

“Because it was too a date certain,” Schafrik asked.

“That’s not what she said,” Rosenburg said. 

Kemp stepped in.

“Ms. Schafrik, I don’t know that we should engage in a legal discussion at this point,” Kemp said.

“I don’t want a technicality to render our decision cloudy in any way,” said Stanardsville District Supervisor Steve Catalano.

“I have to agree with that one hundred percent,” said Midway District Supervisor Marie Durrer. 

“So if there’s any interpretation whatsoever I would rather to defer to advertise,” Catalano said. 

And that’s what Supervisors decided to do, meaning the applicants, supporters, and opponents will have to show up a third time at a date to be determined later, after it has been formally advertised again. 

At this point, people left the meeting but Supervisors would later indirectly take up the matter. Supervisor McGuigan wanted to direct staff to come up with regulations to be very strict against the use of kitchens at farm wineries. 

“Our ordinance says that kitchens and catering activities related to the use of farm wineries are allowed,” McGuigan said. “Picnics and other self-provided food are available for purchase at farm wineries. A kitchen can produce finger foods, soups and appetizers. And the finest final part of our ordinance says that restaurants are strictly prohibited.” 

McGuigan said he wanted clarification to ensure a catering kitchen that cannot support full meals for individual diners at a farm winery. He offered up a resolution on the spot. 

“It’s just a resolution just stating that we are taking away the discretion on that issue,” McGuigan said. 

McGuigan said this is consistent with King Family Vineyards in Albemarle County where people can buy food to snack on, but the kitchen is strictly for outside caterers. Kemp told him that the Board’s by-laws require resolutions to be submitted in advance, and the board would first have to suspend those rules to move his motion forward. 

Supervisors did that unanimously and then unanimously voted to direct staff to ensure that catering kitchens are not used to allow restaurants at farm wineries. The Board then adjourned. 

Before you go: The time to write and research of this article is covered by paid subscribers to Charlottesville Community Engagement. In fact, this particular installment is from the July 11, 2024 edition of the newsletter. Due to operator error, it was not uploaded to this archive site until now. The Greene Board of Supervisors will hold the public hearing on August 27, 2024 as will be profiled in the Week Ahead newsletter that will be published on August 25. To ensure this research can be sustained, please consider becoming a paid subscriber or contributing monthly through Patreon.