|
Article Audio:
|
TOWN OF FLORIDA — Neighbors fear conditions set by the Florida Planning Board in order to address concerns over the use of an existing barn on McDougall Road as a wedding venue, approved last week, will fall short of protecting the rural farming community.
“When all but one of the neighbors show up and say this is going to be a problem, I’m glad the board heard that and tried to mitigate it, but I think ultimately it should not have been approved,” said Tom Nelson, a nearby resident and co-owner and operator of Dellavale Farm. “It’s not a bad idea, it’s just a bad spot to do it.”
The Planning Board last Monday approved the special use permit for John and Grace Kimber to establish a wedding and event venue in an existing 2,200-square-foot barn on their active 35-acre farm, where the family also lives, at 526 McDougall Road.
The space will be rented exclusively to Joe Goode, owner of Complete Weddings and Events Albany, to host special occasions booked in advance. John Kimber, in a letter to the Planning Board, described Goode as a trusted friend capable of managing all aspects of event planning.
“I have selected Joe in order that we might always know what to expect, and to keep control over every aspect of what happens at each event/wedding,” John Kimber wrote.
The plans have faced an onslaught of criticism from surrounding neighbors worried boisterous celebrations will upend the quiet of the rural area and concerned that guest traffic will create hazards on narrow roads traveled by agricultural equipment.
The proposal has garnered limited support from some townspeople pointing to the increasing popularity of rustic wedding venues and the supplemental income from events as helping maintain the farm for agricultural use.
However, Nelson pointed out the Kimbers are not farmers and instead rent their land out to another local farmer. There will be less farmland available at the property when a 1.5-acre grass field is used for event parking.
“It’s been portrayed as saving farming and I think this is far from it. This is going to make it harder for us to farm,” Nelson said. “Increasingly, we’re being pushed out of areas that we can farm.”
MITIGATION EFFORTS
The Planning Board sought to manage concerns by setting wide-ranging conditions on event operations. The venue will be limited to hosting three events per month from May 1 through Oct. 31. Start times at 8 a.m. will accommodate preparations, with events required to end by 10 p.m. Occasions featuring alcohol supplied by licensed vendors will be required to cut off drink service at 9 p.m.
“I’m trying to meet a middle ground,” board Chairman Stephen Viele said. “I don’t want to blast off on something and then the residents are miserable in that area … I’m erring on the side of caution with conditions.”
Guests will be prohibited from parking on the road and parking attendants will be required at events in order to guide vehicles onsite and to help direct traffic leaving the site after dark. Temporary barriers along the parking area will be set 10 feet from the property line, in order to prevent guests from entering neighboring land.
Attendance will be capped at the barn’s maximum occupancy which will be set by the town building inspector. Event tents may be used to provide separate spaces for ceremonies and receptions, but can’t be used to accommodate overflow guests.
Live music is prohibited at the venue, but no restrictions were placed on the volume of recorded music, and the town does not have a noise ordinance. Both John Kimber and Goode previously said they do not want to cause disturbances for neighbors.
A third-party sound study prepared for the applicants found music played inside the barn at expected levels of 89.9 decibels registered at 50.6 decibels or lower at surrounding homes within 600 feet, which was only slightly louder than existing ambient sound at around 45 decibels.
MIXED REACTIONS
Benjamin Neidl, attorney for the Kimbers, said the applicants felt the conditions were fair and were pleased with the outcome following approval.
“Several were already things we had planned to adhere to anyway and the rest were, we thought, within reason,” Neidl said. “We appreciate that the board heard us.”
Yet, Rebecca Countermine said the board failed to address concerns over safety from increased traffic traveling to and from the venue through the intersection of McDougall Road and Route 160.
“I just felt like it was a meeting where the board forgot how to ask questions and just kind of pushed it through,” Countermine said. “I felt like they were cowering because of a lawsuit or something.”
Similarly, Amanda Aucompaugh is most concerned about potential accidents on narrow McDougall Road, which without any lines or streetlight can be difficult for even longtime residents to navigate in the dark. Those worries are intensified by the potential for inebriated wedding guests to get behind the wheel.
“I really don’t think it’s safe,” Aucompaugh said. “I’m very nervous for people.”
Both Countermine and Aucompaugh are concerned about noise, each living across the street and two houses down from the venue. They have not seen the results of the recently completed sound study and aren’t sure what to expect until events begin.
“It’s a lot different in the wintertime versus summer, because when it’s cold nobody has their windows open,” Countermine added.
FARMING CONCERNS
Nelson worries the conditions will not protect farmers from the complaints or even litigation from wedding parties bothered by the noise, dust and odors common to agriculture.
“My major concern is being able to continue without nuisance complaints,” Nelson said. “We make 100% of our living farming. It’s not a hobby for us and we’re in an agricultural-zoned area within an agricultural district, which is supposed to protect us from intrusions.”
Existing right to farm laws within the town bolster overall protections for farmland to continue operating as it already does, Town Attorney Michael Crowe said.
“If somebody was going to come in and propose a use in the middle of farmland that would prevent the neighbors from farming their property, obviously, that wouldn’t fly,” Crowe said.
But Crowe acknowledged that wouldn’t necessarily prevent someone from filing a lawsuit against farmers.
“It doesn’t mean the litigation has any basis in law,” he said. “There isn’t anything that I see that would invite litigation.”
ENFORCEABILITY
Additional conditions enable the special use permit to be revoked if the set stipulations are not followed. Complaints would be investigated by the zoning enforcer and referred to the Planning Board of adjudication. The measure initially sparked concern from some board members.
“My biggest issue is regulating this,” Deputy Chairman Nicholas Armour said. “I don’t know how they’re going to enforce it.”
Zoning Enforcer Gerald Podolec reassured the board he would rapidly investigate any complaints from residents received by phone or email. Crowe said the board would then need to consider any violations individually as they arise.
Still, Aucompaugh questioned how the town can legally enforce any of the conditions without ordinances backing them up.
“It can’t be revoked merely because there are complaints,” Neidl said. “The board has to hear my client’s side of the story, too. There are built-in protections in New York state law.”
The applicants can also return to the board seeking relief and amendment of the conditions in the future.
BOARD ACTIVITIES
The Planning Board granted the project conditional approval by a vote of 6-1. Only Charles Saul voted against issuing the permit, citing concerns over changing narratives from the applicants during the nearly yearlong review process.
After previously criticizing the event venue for potentially disturbing neighbors, board member John Hutchison abstained from voting on the project. He did not provide a reason for abstaining and declined comment afterwards. First alternate Jayme King voted in his place.
Hutchison decided on his own to abstain in order to avoid appearing biased after getting heated while voicing his concerns to the applicants at last month’s meeting, according to Viele.
It’s unclear if the issue was discussed by the board with the town attorney when they met in an area of the “Old” Town Hall outside of public view immediately before last Monday’s meeting.
Both Crowe and Viele declined to say what was discussed during the conversation covered by attorney-client privilege. The private conversation involving the full board and its attorney did not violate state Open Meetings Law if the subject matter was solely limited to legal advice.
LEGAL RECOURSE
The barn wedding venue was previously the subject of legal action after the Planning Board last May determined the use was not accounted for in town code and referred the project to the Zoning Board of Appeals to seek a variance, which was denied the same month.
Neidl subsequently filed an Article 78 proceeding in state Supreme Court, appealing the referral to the ZBA because the Planning Board does not have that authority. An interpretation from the town’s zoning enforcer should have been sought to determine whether the use is allowed in the agricultural district or a variance was required.
Attorneys for the town and Kimbers agreed to halt the appeal and follow the proper procedure. Podolec found the proposal “consistent” with other special permitted uses allowed in the town’s agricultural district, comparing wedding activities to those held at churches or country clubs. That determination issued late last year led the application back to the Planning Board.
However, Nelson, who is also a member of the ZBA, believes the original interpretations of both land use boards were correct. He does not believe town regulations allow the wedding venue within the agricultural zoning district.
“I don’t think this is over yet. I think you’re going to see the town have to deal with more lawsuits over the decisions,” Nelson said. “I think everybody is still kind of letting dust settle and looking at their options.”
The statute of limitations to dispute the zoning enforcer’s interpretation has already passed. A 30-day statute of limitations applies to filing an Article 78 proceeding challenging the special use permit issued by the Planning Board.
John Kimber did not respond to a request for comment for this story.
Reach Ashley Onyon at [email protected] or @AshleyOnyon on Twitter.
Categories: Email Newsletter, Fulton Montgomery Schoharie, News
