Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Winery Proposal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears winery and retail proposal at 5084 Chillicothe Road; applicant withdraws agricultural request
Summary
Applicant Harmon Insana sought agricultural classification and retail permission to make and sell wine at 5084 Chillicothe Road; board members and neighbors questioned whether the proposed operations would be agricultural or commercial, and the applicant withdrew the agricultural variance to refine the plan and consult planning commission.
The South Russell Village Board of Zoning Appeals heard a detailed proposal from Harmon (Mr.) Insana to operate winemaking and limited retail at 5084 Chillicothe Road but did not grant the agricultural use variance after extensive questions and neighborhood opposition. The applicant withdrew the agricultural variance request and said he will work with planning commission and return with a more detailed plan.
Insana told the board he has decades of experience in restaurants and wineries and runs a bonded winery in Cleveland. He described plans to make wine in the property's barn, sell bottles and limited retail agricultural products on site, cultivate grapevines and other produce on about one‑third of the 2.58‑acre parcel, and to employ adults with disabilities for some on‑site tasks. He said he hoped to offer tastings and keep hours limited (he mentioned 9:00 p.m.) and that he was not seeking a large event venue.
Board members, the village solicitor and multiple residents focused on whether the proposed activities fit South Russell's zoning definition of "agricultural." The board reviewed the zoning table (section 4.02) and confirmed agricultural use is allowed in R1A only for parcels of five acres or larger; smaller parcels need a variance. The solicitor explained that a variance to treat the parcel as agricultural would allow producing and selling wine made from grapes grown on the property, but would not permit manufacturing wine from grapes or juice brought in from off‑site because that activity is not agricultural under the village code. He told the applicant: "That would enable you to make wine from the grapes you grow on your property. It would not allow you to bring grapes in and make wine and sell that wine." (solicitor paraphrase recorded in hearing.)
Mr. Insana estimated long‑term production could range widely: he discussed producing dozens of cases from on‑site vines (he estimated roughly 30 cases from ~100 vines in several years) but also said he might bring in grapes or juice to support larger production; he offered a very broad estimate for total production capacity (he referenced figures up to several thousand gallons annually if grapes were brought in). Members probed bottling plans, restroom facilities, parking and drainage and asked whether any outside distribution partner would be used; Insana said distribution would be handled by himself and small partners and that he would not run heavy trucking operations.
Neighbors — including authors of four submitted letters — voiced concerns that retail sales, regular tastings into the evening, parking for up to 18 vehicles, and potential increases in traffic along state Route 306 would change the residential character, reduce property values and burden wells and drainage. One resident summed up a common sentiment: "This is a residential area," and others asked for a clearer business plan and specifics about hours, extent of cultivation, number of on‑site events and water usage before variances are considered.
After discussion, a motion to approve an area variance to treat the property as agricultural was made and seconded, but the applicant chose to withdraw the agricultural variance request and said he will return after more planning and consultation with the planning commission.
