Winery Nuptials Focus of Ongoing Litigation

WEST CAPE MAY – When Judge Allen Littlefield issued his ruling dismissing a lawsuit brought by the Borough of West Cape May against Willow Creek Winery, his action was just the latest salvo in a long- running conflict. The judge dismissed the lawsuit on technical grounds noting that the borough was not a proper party to bring the lawsuit. A technical ruling makes no claims on the merits of the case and therefore is not likely to end the long struggle.
The latest controversy goes back to the opening of new facilities at the winery in 2012. Situated on a 40-acre tract of land off Stevens Street, the winery includes owner Barbara Wilde’s personal home, the farm with many acres devoted to grapes and a new, almost 13,000-square-foot building constructed for storage and wine tasting events. The facility used by the winery for hosting special events is over half a mile from the street buried deep within the winery’s property.
The problem stems from the fact that most of the winery sits on preserved farmland. In 2003, Wilde was paid $890,000 for a restriction on her deed that requires that 36 acres of the farm must remain in agriculture including the land under the storage facility. The restrictions under the Farmland Preservation Program are open to debate, however, and that is what ensued immediately after the storage and wine tasting facility opened.
The winery argued that weddings and special events were allowed as long as “our product is highlighted,” according to Director Kevin Celli. Celli notes that over 90 percent of the total revenue at the winery is from sale of farm product, mostly wine. The remaining revenue is from all other sources including the rental fees from special events.
Back in 2012, the State Agriculture Development Committee took an opposing view. SADC Executive Director Susan Payne noted, “If you want non-agricultural activities you shouldn’t preserve your farm.”
The borough became involved in the summer of 2012 as council meetings witnessed some residents complaining about quality-of-life issues due to noise and other problems they feared would be associated with winery special events. As Trenton began considering legislation that would allow greater freedom for special events on preserved farmland, the council began to consider its noise ordinance. The beginnings of a long controversy were taking form.
The winery has consistently argued that its deed restrictions do not prevent special events and that Mayor Pam Kaithern, who lives on Stevens Street, has a personal vendetta against the winery.
The winery and its owner went so far as to sue the borough and its mayor for harassment. The suit claimed that Kaithern should have disqualified herself from land use decisions related to construction on the site because she owns a property within 200 feet of the winery.
It also alleged that Kaithern performs wedding ceremonies throughout Cape May and West Cape May, and that she is attempting to prevent the winery from offering competition.
Local ordinances, according to Celli, make West Cape May one of the few municipalities where the mayor can retain fees for such services. The borough claims it is reacting to concerns of residents and to the disregard by the winery of local and state restrictions.
Additional complications were added this past summer when the governor signed into law a bill that gives greater flexibility to state wineries on preserved farmland. The law is intended to allow wineries to expand their businesses through the use of weddings and special events as long as they followed a set of specific conditions to ensure they remain largely agricultural operations. Celli points out that this new bill does not add any restrictions to the preservation contract for the winery which predated the bill.
The 2003 agreement, Celli says, “Contains no restrictions on special events.” He claims that he must meet public health and safety regulations and ensure that the majority of the winery’s revenue is from agricultural product.
In August, the borough filed suit alleging that the winery was ignoring many of the conditions including those related to local ordinances. It was that lawsuit that Littlefield dismissed on grounds of jurisdiction. The borough is left with a decision to either appeal the decision or take its complaints to the SADC.
Borough Attorney Frank Corrado is even on record as claiming that Wilde is “running a commercial event venue disguised as a winery.”
Celli described a process for special events at the winery in which the only charges from the winery are for rental of the facility and sale of wine. Caterers, entertainment and other aspects of any event are arranged for separately by the clients and are not a part of the services or the fees from the winery.
“We are solely interested in bringing people to our farm and having them experience our product,” Celli said. “We have not once had the police come out during an event because of complaints about noise.” The only complaints filed after the fact were, Celli said, for a date when the winery had no event.
There is little reason to expect this struggle to be over soon. The winery’s website continues to invite couples to let “our team of event specialists work seamlessly with you to create your perfect wedding,” and the council continues to consider revisions to local ordinances.
To contact Vince Conti, email vconti@cmcherald.com.
For previous coverage, go to:
– Willow Creek Winery Denies Borough’s Allegations, Plans Its Defense in Court: http://goo.gl/uMs4ci.