If a proposed regulation amendment in Orange had any particular problem, it was with sitting. The amendment was denied by the Orange Plan and Zoning Commission following a public hearing on Aug. 2.
{{more}}
Plan and Zoning Chair Walter “Beau” Clarke IV commended Attorney Brian Stone of the Pellegrino Law Firm for drafting a regulation that met the commissions initial concerns. But during the public hearing, Clarke just couldn’t shake a feeling that the overall proposal for a winery farm at 403 Derby Ave. was out of scope for a residential neighborhood.
“You go to this because it is a destination,” Clarke said. “You don’t go to a farm stand because it is a destination.” He noted that people don’t cook and consume the food they buy at a farm, while still at the farm.
The proposed winery has been under fire since it first came to public attention, for fears that the Landino family who own the property were looking to create a banquet hall similar to the one they own in Hamden. While the Landinos never claimed to want another banquet hall, they have since scaled back the size of the proposed operation.
Clarke said he was told the fire marshal approved the property for a maximum occupancy of 132 people. That includes all tasting areas, staff, an office and the production areas.
“The site can handle whatever the commission chooses, it’s just a matter of defining that number,” said Alan Shepard, a professional engineer with Nowakowski O’Bymachow & Kane out of Shelton.
Shepard said his plans were aimed at 120 people, but the septic system and other aspects of the property could easily handle more than twice that number.
However, whatever the capacity is set at, it could see people coming and going all-day long, much to the chagrin of neighbors.
As is, farms are permitted to sell the products they grow and make. A winery offering a tasting room, however, requires staff and accommodates people who want to sit and relax throughout the day and evening.
Clarke said he is uncomfortable with a destination location existing in a residential neighborhood.
One consistent fear of neighbors is that food service at the winery would increase the draw and create an event space in their backyards. Under Stone’s proposal, the property would not have been allowed to maintain a commercial kitchen.
“Mrs. Landino could plant peach trees on the property and pick the peaches there, but she would need to take them back to Hamden to turn them into preserves,” Stone said.
Alessandro Gomez called the proposed regulations a possible Trojan horse, fearing that they would open the doors for the winery farm to grow into something larger. He also questioned the ability of the town to enforce occupancy, saying he didn’t want to constantly be calling the police to go count patrons.
“We know the original plans of the owners were far more ambitious,” Gomez said.
Bruce Lindsey, said he likes the concept of a winery but was concerned about so many people potentially coming and going for 10 hours a day on a weekend.
“If it’s a farm, if it’s a winery, and it stays small, I’m for it,” Lindsey said.
If the amended regulation is approved, it would apply across all of Orange.
“Would you be comfortable with this use throughout town? And my answer is no,” said Clarke.
The vote to deny the amendment passed with one abstention. With no amended regulation, the commission had to deny a request for a special use permit for the proposed farm winery.