The winery, referred to as Winehouse, was scrutinized for its agricultural practices, particularly the sourcing of grapes for wine production. Only a small percentage of the grapes used were grown on-site, with the majority imported from California. This raised questions about the winery’s compliance with Massachusetts laws, which require a certain percentage of agricultural products to originate from the property to qualify for agricultural exemptions.

A key argument highlighted the complexities of determining whether the tasting room was an accessory to agricultural use. A motion was made to classify the tasting room as ancillary to the agricultural use, which was unanimously passed.

Further complicating the matter was a cease and desist order issued in 2024, which had not been appealed. Questions arose about the enforceability of this order and whether subsequent communications had nullified it. The board was tasked with deciding whether the 2024 order or a more recent 2025 letter from the building inspector should guide their actions.

The board also considered whether a site plan review was necessary for the tasting room. The building inspector had determined that it was required, but this decision was challenged. A vote to overrule the inspector’s determination failed to achieve a supermajority, meaning the site plan review was upheld. The board discussed the possibility of a lightened review process under the Dover Amendment, which provides protections for agricultural uses.

Public comments added another layer to the discussion. Supporters of the Winehouse argued that it contributed positively to the community, both economically and culturally, by drawing visitors and providing entertainment. Some residents expressed concerns about noise, but others countered that the music was not disruptive.

The discussion also touched on the legal complexities of agricultural use under Massachusetts law. The board had to navigate the nuances of state statutes versus local bylaws, with state law typically taking precedence. The board was reminded that the agricultural exemption under state law could supersede the restrictions imposed by the 2010 special permit.

These procedural complexities underscored the challenges faced by the board in making informed decisions about the winery’s operations.