Share this:

Petitioners purchased two acres of property for the purpose of operating a “farm winery” which was originally located three miles away in a neighboring town.  The Town building inspector denied the application for site plan approval, because part of the proposed operation was considered a “retail business,” which was not one of the allowed uses within the zoning district.  The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) agreed the proposed use did not qualify as an agricultural use under the Town of New Paltz Zoning Code which defines agriculture as “all agriculture operations and activities related to the growing or raising of crops, livestock or livestock products, and agricultural products, as such terms are defined in or governed by the Agriculture and Markets Law of the State of New York on lands qualified under Ulster County and NYS law for an agricultural exemption by the Assessor of the Town of New Paltz.”

Petitioners alleged that the ZBA’s decision was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion.  The trial court held the ZBA’s decision was neither irrational, unreasonable, nor inconsistent, the petitioner’s argument was “directly contradicted” by the statutory definitions, and the land which was to be used for retail and production would not qualify for agricultural exemption.  On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department held the Supreme Court correctly determined the ZBA’s decision to apply the agricultural definition was proper.  The Court pointed to the evidence that, at the time of the application for site approval, the property consisted of single family dwelling, no vines, grapes or other crops planted, and no plans to lease additional land for planting vines.  In addition, petitioner’s proposal, which included “production, manufacturing, bottling, storage and distribution of wines, as well as the operation of a retail wine-tasting facility and picnic areas open to the general public” constituted as a retail use, barred by the zoning ordinance.  The ZBA’s decision upholding the denial of petitioner’s application was not irrational arbitrary or capricious and judgment for respondent was affirmed without costs.

In the Matter of Rivendell Winery v. Linda Donovan, 2010 WL 2401706 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept. 7/17/10)

The decision can be accessed at: http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/decisions/2010/507867.pdf 

For more information see: http://www.rivendellwine.com/lawsuittoc.htm