Board tables wedding-venue lot-size variance after 20-year operator and staff outline concerns

Planning staff told the board the applicant seeks a variance from the 10-acre minimum for outdoor special event venues under section 10.4.0.23(c)(2)(a) to allow creation of a proposed 4.71-acre venue parcel from an existing 21.08-acre property along Limestone Road; staff recommended denial because the conditions are not unique and there appears to be available land to meet the ordinance.

"Number 1, there does not appear to be an extraordinary or exceptional condition pertaining to this particular piece of property," Planning staff said in the analysis and recommended denial based on the findings presented.

Applicant Albert Judy (surveyor) and owner/operator Cathy Byron described a venue that has operated for about 20 years. Byron said the buildings are "over 5,000 square feet" and that most gatherings are handled inside; she told the board the outdoor portion is often a patio and said the venue has relied on existing paved parking. Byron described limited incidents over two decades: "In 20 years... we've only called the cops twice," and said she limits events and hour cutoffs (typically 11:00 p.m., moving to 10:00 p.m. next year).

Board members questioned whether approving a smaller parcel would create nonconforming issues—including buffering, future adjacent home construction and financing hurdles for future owners—and asked whether the proposed 4.71 acres could meet the 50-foot buffer and other landscape requirements in section 13.2. Staff said more detailed site plans and demonstration of buffer compliance would be required to make findings in favor of a variance.

A motion to approve was introduced but failed on a recorded nay; following extensive questions and requests for more analysis the chair moved to table the item to next month and asked staff to prepare a detailed review, including whether landscaping/fencing could meet buffer requirements and how subdivision would affect grandfathered nonconforming status. The board seconded the table and voted to defer further action.

The board requested that staff follow up with specific buffer/layout analyses and that the applicant consider alternate subdivision configurations (including possibly adding adjacent acreage to approach the 10-acre guideline) prior to the next hearing.