Last call for the proposed distillery?
When I was a young reporter covering municipal government, I found myself often surprised when my newspaper’s editorial board wrote an opinion piece about a story that I was covering.
“How do they know what really happened?” I asked a fellow reporter after one such editorial. “They weren’t there. They weren’t at that meeting.”
I joked that all they knew about the issue was what they had read in their own newspaper, which was true, since they sat in their offices all day. They didn’t even consult with me, the guy covering the issue, the person who had the backstory (there’s always a backstory), which often went beyond the simple who, what, where, when and how. I found their editorials to be shallow, obvious and sometimes just plain wrong.
I had a flashback to those days yesterday after reading PennLive’s third piece in a week about the proposed distillery in Midtown Harrisburg. I thought to myself, “How do these guys know what really happened at the zoning board meeting? They weren’t there.”
In the minds of the PennLive editorial board, the zoning board is in the wrong, hindering the redevelopment of Harrisburg by denying a variance for the distillery. That sentiment has been repeated in the numerous comments accompanying the stories, as well as on several Facebook posts. So, is it true?
Outside of the zoning board members, the two applicants, the stenographer and the city planning officer, there were only two people in the room for that hearing. I was one of them, the only reporter present.
Actually, this was the second zoning board meeting I had attended for this project.
Two weeks earlier, the zoning board had first heard from the applicants, Alan Kennedy-Shaffer and Stanley Gruen, who proposed creating a distillery in the long-empty, dilapidated “Carpets and Draperies” building at 1507 N. 3rd St. The board quickly determined that the applicants lacked standing in the case as they did not own the building, nor did they have a valid purchase or lease agreement for it.
Nevertheless, the board let the applicants begin to make their case. Kennedy-Shaffer and Gruen spoke about their dream for a distillery, about how they wanted to contribute to the economic revitalization of Midtown Harrisburg and how they hoped to put an historic, neglected building back into productive use.
These were all noble goals, members of the board agreed. However, they believed that the applicants similarly lacked standing to testify about both distilling and the building itself, as neither was a distiller nor a structural engineer or architect.
“We need evidence,” said board Chairwoman Marian Frankston. “We just can’t take what you’re saying third-hand. We need proof.”
I’ve been to many zoning board hearings over the years, and, indeed, the board can be exacting and tough. Members take their jobs seriously, and they expect applicants to be equally serious about their projects, to have their act together before appearing before them.
In this case, the board wanted the applicants to have a signed sales/lease agreement, as well as reliable data on such issues as raw materials used, frequency of deliveries, size of vehicles, shipments out, bottling, parking, waste, odors and more. Alcohol production, after all, can be hazardous if not done correctly, and the business certainly would impact the immediate commercial and residential area, which is not zoned for industrial uses.
Board members strongly advised the applicants to bring in experts who could testify in detail about the distilling process, about its potential dangers, about the business of a micro-distillery and about the building itself–its condition, its viability and its suitability for the proposed purpose.
“We want to promote business in Harrisburg,” said Frankston. “But you have to have your case ready for us to properly review it.”
The board offered to continue the case to the next zoning board meeting in February. The applicants, though, claimed hardship, saying the delay might cause them to lose potential investors. Yielding to their needs, the board agreed to hold a special meeting for their case in two weeks, just days before the end of the year.
When I walked into that second meeting, I immediately had a bad feeling.
Kennedy-Shaffer and Gruen sat in front, before the board, ready to begin their testimony. However, the same people were there as in the previous meeting: the applicants, the board, the stenographer, the planning officer and, with my appearance, the same two guys in the audience.
In other words, there were no experts or witnesses on hand to offer testimony and, based upon the prior hearing, I knew right off that was trouble.
The applicants did have a signed sales agreement for the property, contingent upon zoning board approval. The board accepted the document as valid and began to listen to the applicants’ testimony.
To their credit, they had more information this time. They had some data from existing micro-distilleries and some government statistics regarding matters such as odor, noise, waste, deliveries, etc. They also had included the street addresses of nearby business owners who had signed letters of support, information missing the first time around.
The applicants also answered questions about the building itself, about the equipment they would use and about what they expected in terms of deliveries, waste, etc., at their distillery.
The problem: They still had no expert witnesses, such as an architect, structural engineer and master distiller, who could support these assertions. The board also wanted greater detail, as members were not satisfied with the floor plans, renderings and other documents that the applicants submitted.
The applicants offered to call their distillery consultant to testify over the phone. However, the board refused to take telephonic testimony.
“We have certain rules of evidence,” said board member Dan Deibler. “We may not use hearsay or testimony by someone not here.”
Kennedy-Shaffer stated that the pair couldn’t afford to meet the board’s requirements, as they were “paying out of pocket right now” until their proposed backers provided financing, which, they said, was contingent on the zoning board granting a variance. The applicants estimated the project’s cost to be at least $1.2 million.
After two hours, they board remained unsatisfied with the presentation.
“I’ve never seen anyone present such a major project so ineptly,” said James Cowden, the board’s solicitor.
The board offered to continue the hearing until the next meeting in February. Half-a-dozen times, Frankston asked the applicants if they wanted to continue the hearing until February. The applicants refused to answer “yes” or “no.”
Frankston told them that, if they didn’t respond, the board would have no choice but to vote, as they couldn’t leave the case open without a continuance. The applicants still refused, with Kennedy-Shaffer reading his closing remarks over Frankston’s final warnings that a vote probably would go against them. Exasperated, she called the vote, which unanimously denied the variance application.
In the end, the distillery hearing came down to two contrasting views of what was necessary to obtain a variance for the property.
The applicants believed that they had presented a solid case. The board did not agree and explicitly told them why. At both meetings, the board attempted to educate the applicants on what more they needed to do. Chairwoman Frankston strongly advised them to return in February to take another shot at it and said that some applicants appear before the board three or four times before getting it right. The applicants, though, ignored her advice.
In its editorial, PennLive had another opinion, in which it tried to make a larger point. It stated that the distillery rejection was an example of an anti-business mindset in Harrisburg. That’s simply not true. I’ve repeatedly seen the zoning board bend over backwards to approve projects it believes are in Harrisburg’s economic and business interests. Just in recent years, these projects have included the Zeroday Brewing (Alter Ego) brewery, the Susquehanna Art Museum, LUX condominiums, the Millworks and others–some of the most important businesses proposed in Harrisburg in decades. Furthermore, PennLive’s conflation of this case with City Council’s attempt to sell a blighted property on Cameron Street near Appalachian Brewing Co. makes no sense, as the two cases are very different, involving different properties, different government bodies and different circumstances.
As it should, the Harrisburg Zoning Hearing Board believes that the bar should be set high to obtain a variance, which, after all, is an explicit exception to established city law–the zoning code. The board takes this responsibility seriously and does not grant variances until it is convinced that a project is viable, is in the city’s interest, will benefit the immediate neighborhood and is generally supported by the community.
Even after its “no” vote, the board told the applicants that they had the option to re-file. If they do, I hope they make the most of this first, failed attempt. In fact, their experience should serve as an example to anyone considering filing for a special exception or a variance: give the board precisely what it wants, bring in the experts, be courteous and professional, and understand that the board gets to decide what is needed for approval–the applicants don’t.
This story was updated to correct a quote attribution.
