Neighbors urge Amherst County to revoke 3 Oaks Manor special exception, cite noise and threats

Whitney Gregory, a Kimberly Subdivision resident, told the Amherst County Board of Supervisors during the public-comment period that 3 Oaks Manor and its operator, Alexis Fisher, have repeatedly violated the conditions of special exception permit 2024-154 and urged the board to revoke the permit.

“...special exception permit 2024‑154 for Alexis Fisher and the accessory structure beside her residence called 3 Oaks Manor on 5 acres in the center of our neighborhood be revoked due to false and misleading information being provided to the board and for negatively affecting the safety and welfare of our neighborhood,” Gregory said. She told the board Fisher had promised “no DJs, no amplified music” and that county staff had warned the board that failure to honor those statements could lead to revocation.

Neighbors described repeated late-night amplified music, DJs and after‑parties they said were louder and more frequent than represented to the county when the permit was granted. John Leadingham said he had an audio recording of a voicemail message from the venue operator that he said threatened louder sound as retaliation: “...I will purposely have every DJ, every subwoofer, and every loud bass speaker that I can possibly have, and I will surround my greenhouse with it so no one can hear any single gun,” Leadingham quoted from the voicemail he provided to the board.

Other residents described alleged harassment and safety incidents they said involved the venue operator and her household. Jim Vasquez said the neighbors had experienced threats and alleged vehicular assaults that were now in court: “There was an assault. First, the husband and then the wife,” Vasquez said, adding he expected an assault hearing in district court on July 1.

At the close of public comment the board chair clarified that although residents raised the 3 Oaks Manor permit, the case “is not up for us for discussion today” because it was not on the agenda. No formal board action on the permit was taken during the meeting.

Why this matters: Neighbors said the venue’s operation has altered the character and safety of an established residential area, and they asked elected supervisors to use zoning tools to protect the community. Board members did not debate or vote on the permit at the meeting; residents were told the board would not discuss it because it was not an agenda item.

The residents said they had contacted law enforcement and county staff, and some reported that deputies had limited enforcement options once the permit was issued. A number of speakers asked the board to reopen or rescind special exception permit 2024‑154 so stricter, enforceable conditions could be imposed.

Board response and next steps: The board did not take up the matter in the meeting and provided no timetable for further action. Several residents said civil or criminal court dates involving venue representatives were pending; the board did not comment on those cases.

Clarifying details available from public comment: residents cited more than 20 events at the venue and estimated revenue of about $5,000 per event; they said the venue advertised paid events, used amplified sound and flashing lights, and that at least one emergency protective order had been granted in related proceedings. A copy of the voicemail quoted by residents was offered to the board during public comment.

The public-comment speakers who raised the issue emphasized they were not opposed to “progress” but argued the venue is inconsistent with zoning and neighborhood character and asked for revocation or reapplication with enforceable conditions.