While members of the Natural Resources Committee have spent the last six months focusing most of their attention on one major objective – to challenge the County’s NSCARP proposal – the Planning & Zoning Committee has worked on at least six projects. The P&Z Committee, co-chaired by Charlee Schanzer and Bill Smith, reviews applications for Use Permits within Dry Creek Valley that have been submitted to the County. After careful review of a proposal, the Committee either decides to take no action, or, if it feels that the proposal might have serious negative impacts on the Valley, it brings the project to the attention of the DCVA Board of Directors. The full Board listens to the Committee’s recommendation and then votes on whether or not to take action. Action begins by discussing DCVA concerns with the applicant; then writing a letter to planning officials at PRMD; or finally appearing at a public hearing to challenge one or more aspects of the applicant’s proposal.  Here are reports by Schanzer on DCVA challenges to two use permits that were appealed all the way up to the County Board of Supervisors. --  Editor

Pech Merle Winery/Tasting Room Application

In July of 2008 Ruby Dog LLC (Bruce Lawton) applied for a use permit for a 40,000 case winery on a 15-acre parcel of land at 4543 Dry Creek Road purchased in late 2007.   The land has no vineyards on it, but 2.5 acres of grapes may be planted in the future. The applicant also sought permission to conduct 30 Special Events for 200 attendees as well as industry-wide events.

The P&Z Committee met with the applicant and asked that he scale back the project. When this effort failed, Ed Wilson, Bill Smith, and Jason Passalacqua spoke in opposition to the project when it was heard before the Board of Zoning Adjustments (BZA) on February 26, 2009.

After the BZA gave conditional approval to this project, a neighboring property owner, Walt Dieden, appealed the decision to the Board of Supervisors.  The DCVA and the Winegrowers of Dry Creek Valley joined in the appeal.  Speaking in opposition to the proposed winery at the hearing on April 14, 2009 were the appellant Dieden, Charlee Schanzer and Bill Smith, co-chairs of DCVA Planning and Zoning Committee, Jason Passalacqua, Vice-President of the Winegrowers of Dry Creek Valley, and Richard Rued a longtime Dry Creek grower and resident.  The basis of the opposition was that the site was too small for such a large operation, that the lack of vineyards made the enterprise more commercial than agricultural, that it would amount to a detrimental concentration of wineries/tasting rooms within a small radius (Pech Merle would be the 8^th winery and the 9^th tasting room within ½ mile radius), and that allowance of 30 Special Events was excessive.

The decision of the Board of Supervisors given by Paul Kelley was to allow the winery and tasting room with the following modifications:  The permit would only be granted for 30,000 cases, and the number of special events would be reduced from 30 to 15, 10 events with 100 attendees and 5 events with 200 attendees, as well as all industry-wide events.

-- Charlee Schanzer

Michel-Schlumberger Use Permit Application

In 2005 the winery sought a Use Permit for public tasting and 15 special events.  The DCVA did not file any objection to the project at that time. The Board of Zoning Adjustments conditionally approved the request on May 22, 2008.  A neighbor filed an appeal of that decision on the basis of potential environmental impacts and neighborhood compatibility.  The appellant pointed out the inconsistency between the number of events described in the application (15) and the number of events advertised on the winery’s website, close to 50.

Michel-Schlumberger revised the application to include 46 special events as well as the industry-wide events.  At that time the DCVA filed an objection based in part on the contention that 46 special events for a 25,000 case winery would be excessive and create an unmanageable precedent.  The winery then sought and was granted a continuance.

The applicant again modified their request seeking only 10 events, 5 with 50 attendees and 5 with 200 attendees.  The winery relied on PRMD’s pronouncement that any gathering under 35 people was not to be considered a “special event,” and thus all other events previously sought did not need to be permitted.

The hearing before the Board of Supervisors was held on April 28, 2009.  At that hearing the DCVA, through Charlee Schanzer, co-chair of Planning and Zoning argued that there was no legal foundation for allowing limitless events as long as only 34 people attended.

Staff was relying on a BZA resolution of the determination of permit requirements for transient use of residential properties for event purposes, which the DCVA contended was not applicable to wineries.

The Board of Supervisors granted the use permit for a public tasting room and 10 special events.  No public tasting room can be operational until the winery makes the necessary road improvements, which involves purchasing road easements from owners along Wine Creek Road.

-- Charlee Schanzer