Residents Urge Cuts to 132‑Seat Clinton Vineyards Farm‑Restaurant Over Traffic and Safety Fears

Clinton — Neighbors pressing the Planning Board on a proposal to expand Clinton Vineyards into a farm restaurant told the board on Wednesday night that a 132‑seat operation and occasional weddings would overwhelm narrow, rural roads and pose a liability risk to the town.

The application’s applicant (speaker identified in the hearing record as Speaker 2) described proposed hours of operation (Wednesdays–Sundays, midday through early evening), a maximum seasonal capacity of 132 patrons (about 90 in winter) and on‑site sparkling wine production. The applicant said current production is “1,200 cases right now” and that they expect to grow to “about 4,500 to 5,000.” The applicant also said the business uses reservations and that “we can reduce the seats” if needed, suggesting “80 is a possibility.”

Why it matters: Residents said the combination of occasional concentrated events, weekend visitation and narrow local roads would change the character and safety of the area. Multiple speakers described near misses involving farm equipment, trucks and pedestrians, and queried whether the planners’ trip assumptions account for visitors diverted by GPS and the regional Dutchess County Wine Trail.

During the hearing, resident Judah Kraussar (Meadowland Farm) detailed four blind‑spot locations on Schulzville Road and warned that “the existing safety situation on the road has to be taken into account” rather than relying only on incremental trip counts. Kraussar asked the board how a 132‑seat capacity squares with the applicant’s stated trip estimates and recommended cutting the capacity “dramatically.”

A traffic memo submitted to the board reported a Saturday peak‑hour scenario that the traffic consultant summarized as “roughly 44 trips for a 132 seats” classification; board members asked the consultant to re‑run the analysis for multiple land‑use categories and a range of capacities so they could compare permutations rather than rely on a single model.

Several commenters questioned whether the proposal qualifies as a farm restaurant under ag‑use rules. One resident, Ira Vasco, told the board the application appears incomplete and said applicants must prove a high proportion of on‑farm production to qualify under ag law (he cited “over 52%” as a reference figure discussed in prior meetings). Board members acknowledged overlapping local law and ag provisions and asked the applicant to clarify supply and menu sourcing as part of follow‑up materials.

Other public commenters urged limits on special events and clearer enforcement: Britney Geraci (Geraci Farm) recounted near‑misses during local events and said a 100‑plus car operation would “completely change the area,” and Bruce Groovetti said the project “reads like a commercial establishment” and urged legal review of whether the proposal meets accessory farm‑use standards.

Board direction and next steps: The board did not make a decision. Members requested additional traffic‑study permutations (the chair suggested running scenarios starting at 20, 40 and up to 140 seats), asked the highway superintendent to testify on roadway safety at the next session, and left the public record open for written comment. The board asked the applicant to consider reducing capacity and to provide any health‑department approvals or related documentation. The board invited the applicant to return in early March (March 3 was suggested).

Quotable: Traffic consultant (unnamed in the record) on the memo’s peak‑hour trips: “44 trips for a 132 seats.” Resident Judah Kraussar on scale and enforcement: “I think the size needs to be cut dramatically.” Applicant on production: “1,200 cases right now … [and] about 4,500 to 5,000.”

What remains unresolved: The transcript record shows disagreement about whether the application meets ag‑use thresholds and whether the traffic memo adequately models narrow side roads and event peaks. The board requested more detailed traffic permutations and a highway superintendent briefing before further action.

The hearing remains open; the Planning Board set no final vote and asked the applicant to return with supplemental materials and for the public to submit additional written comments prior to the next meeting.