The primary focus of the meeting was an administrative appeal by Single Source Services LLC, the owner of the winery, challenging a determination that its operations violated zoning ordinances. Attorney Peter Durning, representing Single Source, presented arguments that the winery’s agritourism activities, such as wine and beer production from locally grown grapes and hops, should be considered part of agricultural use under state law. He emphasized the historical commercial use of the property, which had included horse breeding and dog kennels, arguing that the current agritourism operations were consistent with past uses and supported by the town’s right-to-farm bylaw.

Durning outlined how the winery contributes economically by producing grape juice and wine, asserting the necessity of agritourism for sustaining agricultural ventures. He contested any restrictive interpretations of past permits, urging the board to recognize the significance of agritourism in supporting local agriculture.

Counterarguments were presented by Mr. McLofflin, representing nearby residents. He raised procedural issues, suggesting that the appeal may not have been filed timely with the town clerk, potentially invalidating it. McLofflin challenged the characterization of the winery’s operations as agricultural, arguing that wine and beer production did not fit traditional farming definitions. He expressed concerns about the impact on the neighborhood, citing increased noise and traffic, and questioned whether the winery’s activities were more detrimental than previous uses.

The legality of the winery’s operations was further scrutinized, with attention on a 2010 special permit restricting business and industrial uses on the property. The board deliberated whether the winery’s tasting room qualified as an accessory agricultural use or if it crossed into prohibited commercial territory. A cease and desist order issued by a former building commissioner added complexity to the proceedings, with debates over whether the current operations aligned with past approvals and zoning restrictions.

Residents voiced strong opinions on the winery’s impact. Some, like Joe Bra White, noted increased noise and traffic disrupting the neighborhood’s residential character, while others, like Teresa Richihara, expressed enjoyment of the winery’s music, highlighting the division within the community. The board faced the challenge of interpreting zoning laws and agricultural definitions amidst these differing perspectives.

As the meeting progressed, there was a consensus on the need for more detailed information about the winery’s operations, particularly revenue figures from agricultural products versus entertainment activities. The board recognized the importance of these details in determining whether the winery’s agritourism activities were subordinate to agricultural use or if they constituted a primary commercial function.

The board’s decision to continue the public hearing aimed to facilitate a examination of the issues.