How the Voting Trustees and the Zoning Board of Appeals got the Northfield Common Nano Brewery Application Right

By Justin Leitgeb

The issue of Hawley Brewing in Northfield Common is still important in this election. It is significant in terms of our understanding of the role of Trustees and sound governance. I have written on various events in the process of the appeal regarding the brewery, and in summarizing the process I would like to make two points that are relevant today.

First, Trustee Keating did not vote against the appeal as he has claimed publicly - he abstained. Second, the Trustees did not vote to block a brewery - they voted to appeal the building inspector’s ambiguous determination letter in order to respond to the concerns raised by Village residents and clarify the interpretation of our Village Code.

The Building Inspector verbally reported to the Board of Trustees that the agricultural use zoning language allowed only the brewing of beer, but not a retail business such as tastings and the sale of beer. The Building Inspector’s letter, however was ambiguous as to what he approved. The Building Inspector shortly thereafter took a full time position elsewhere. The Board of Trustees voted 4-0 to appeal the written decision to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Trustee Keating abstained and he gave no reason for his abstention.

Trustee Keating posted on the Northfield Common Facebook page “Not all the Trustees are in agreement on this. The vote was 4-1 to appeal the Building Inspector’s decision. I was the one.” While it would indicate from the “4-1” comment that Trustee Keating voted against the appeal, he abstained from voting. The vote was 4-0. See the adopted minutes.

Hawley Brewing initially filed an application to be exempted from the Moratorium. They later claimed they needed no Village Board approvals because it was the “processing of an agricultural product” and the Building Inspector’s letter authorized a brewery.

Many residents at the Trustees meeting said that they did not oppose the brewery, but were concerned that without needing a special permit, there would be no determination about the nature of the business, including its hours, noise, entertainment, refuse location, lighting, odors and outdoor uses.

The Trustees, with the exception of Dan Keating, recognized that the only way to address the residents’ concerns was to appeal the Building Inspector’s decision to the Zoning Board of Appeals. This would cause a swift determination of what the “processing of agricultural products” allowed. The appeal and fast determination by the ZBA would also likely avoid future expensive litigation by either the brewery or residents.

The Zoning Board of Appeals listened to the concerns of all parties and reached a thoughtful decision. The ZBA said the agricultural use would allow brewing, but narrowed the approval to this specific project with a number of conditions, such as selling only the beer they brewed, hours and that outdoor extension would not be allowed.

We should thank the Trustees who had the courage to vote for what at first blush was an unpopular appeal. As a result we have a nano brewery approved sooner, responded to residents’ concerns and avoided expensive litigation. Thanks also to the ZBA for clarifying our outdated code while the Village works on its code and comprehensive plan updates during the moratorium. We want a vibrant business district that adds value to our unique, historical community. Our voting Trustees and the ZBA demonstrated courage and skill in the decisions that they made, and our Village is stronger as a result.