Neighbors urge Amherst supervisors to revoke 3 Oaks Manor special exception amid repeated noise and permit complaints
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
Residents from Kimberly Road and surrounding lots told the Amherst County Board of Supervisors that the Fishers’ 3 Oaks Manor wedding venue has repeatedly violated permit conditions, produced late-night music and driven up public-safety calls; supervisors said revocation is possible but must follow ordinance procedures and public hearings.
Residents living near 3 Oaks Manor told the Amherst County Board of Supervisors on Nov. 18 that the special‑exception permit that allowed the Fishers to operate a wedding venue in a residential area has produced sustained noise, traffic and safety problems.
More than a half‑dozen neighbors — including Mr. Freshour, Joanna Panzarino and Whitney Gregory — said the venue has used public‑address systems, hosted loud DJs after the 10 p.m. cutoff and allowed nonresident vehicles to use a privately maintained road. Gregory, who identified herself as a District 3 resident, told the board that the neighborhood has made repeated complaints and that ‘‘social media tries to rewrite the story as if none of it happened, but we know better.’’
Speakers also raised other allegations: Jacqueline Campbell told the board a judge found Mr. Fisher in breach of contract and that a state licensing unit had cited him for two contractors‑code violations and ordered fines and remedial training. Jim Vasquez and others pointed to what they called procedural defects in the Fishers’ application, including a missing co‑owner signature.
Supervisors acknowledged the complaints and discussed the legal pathway for revocation. Mr. Wade and Mr. Adams both said they support pursuing revocation, and staff told the board the zoning ordinance includes a formal revocation procedure that would require a motion, resolution and subsequent public hearings before the planning commission and the board.
The board did not revoke the permit at the Nov. 18 meeting. County staff said the next steps would include gathering the factual record, preparing a resolution outlining grounds for revocation and returning the item to the board with public‑hearing opportunities. Several supervisors also asked staff to review the county’s noise ordinance and enforcement mechanisms.
What happens next: Supervisors asked staff and the county attorney to prepare the procedural materials required for any revocation action and to return the matter to the board with clear findings and recommended next steps.