A public hearing about an event venue at the Cumberland County Board of Supervisors was the focus of debate for several speakers, primarily due to a condition on the permit that details the number of those allowed to attend events on the property.

The majority of the supervisors voted to renew the conditional use permit for the Barn at Timber Creek event venue at 525 Holman Mill Road with the amendment to construct a bridal suite at the facility. District One Supervisor William “Bill” Osl said he would abstain due to a legal matter he is involved with in association with the event venue. District Five Supervisor Parker Wheeler asked it to be noted that he would only vote in reference to the bridal suite.

The one amendment of the permit would to add a bridal suite at the Barn at Timber Creek, which would be around 1,000 square feet with approximate dimensions of 24 feet by 42 feet. The suite, according to the Cumberland County Planning and Zoning Director J.P. Duncan, would include a half-bath and a kitchenette.

There was confusion among members of the board about what the board was voting for. County Administrator and Attorney Vivian Seay Giles said the vote the board made Tuesday would renew the conditional use permit for the Barn at Timber Creek, with the only amendment being the expansion of the bridal suite.

District Three Supervisor Kevin Ingle asked about the condition discussed during the planning commission meeting about the potential to accept more than 300 people at events.

Duncan said that the amendment was discussed, but it was ultimately stricken from the permit.

The current condition is allowing up to 300 people to attend an event, a condition approved when the board of supervisors first approved the Barn at Timber Creek conditional use permit during the Oct. 11, 2016, meeting.

There is a limit of 150 who are allowed inside of the venue building.

Adjacent property owner Dr. Robert Lee Banton said he agreed to a different number.

He referenced a memorandum of understanding between himself, Carolyn his wife, and land owners Larry and Deborah Thompson for a perpetual easement that would run through the adjacent landowners’ properties.

The memorandum was dated July 27, 2016, less than three months before the conditional use permit was approved.

The memorandum cites that “said easement herein described includes, but is not limited to, the use of said easement for access, ingress, and egress, by the Grantees, their successors, heirs, assigns, partners, associates, agents, contractors, subcontractors, participants, guests, patron, invitees, permittees, and licensees, to and from Holman Mill Road and the Grantees’ property for agritourism activities occurring on the Grantees’ property attended by no more than 150 persons, including vehicles and traffic related thereto, and for the setup and teardown for such activities.”

Banton said he and his family agreed to no more than 150 people, having no idea that the permit with the board of supervisors allowed up to 300 people.

Giles said during the meeting that the language in the easement phrase, “easement herein described includes, but is not limited to,” does not contain a contractual or legal limitation to the document. She said, in her opinion, the figure of 150 people would be considered an example, but not a limitation.

Giles said the county would try not to recommend a permit that was inconsistent or contrary with existing documentation elsewhere about a project.

Osl asked if a separate contractually binding agreement could take precedence over a conditional use permit. Giles said it could.

Quoting the late Virginia Supreme Court Justice Leroy R. Hassell, Banton said during the hearing that elected officials need to be careful when relating to conditional use permits. “What’s in the right hand you might know, but the left hand, you don’t,” Banton said. “What you just heard was a dialogue of misdirection.”

“If a contract is not binding, why in the world do we have law?” Banton said.

Banton said he had no problem with the bridal suite, but expressed concern about any future plans to heighten the number of attendees, asking what would happen if large groups, such as those from Longwood, came to the venue.
“We’re screwed as a family going down that 30-foot easement,” Banton said.

Banton also mentioned the concern and potential for gang activity at the venue.

Osl asked whether the agreement between the Thompsons and the Bantons was solely between the two parties, or if the board needed to intervene. Giles said the agreement was between the two parties.

Paul Mack, an attorney representing applicant Whitney Lipscomb, also spoke during the hearing. Mack encouraged the board to approve the bridal suite, and said the applicant would continue to follow the other items in the conditional use permit.

Ingle noted he worked at the facility during a wedding and said at the times he worked, the participants adhered to the conditions.

Judy Hamlin, adjacent property owner to the event venue, said she had no problem with the bridal suite.

Lipscomb spoke and said her intent in requesting the attendance extension was due to holding fundraisers.

The county typically allows two festival permits each year. Lipscomb said her concern was violating her conditional use permit if a fundraising event exceeds 300 people.

Larry Thompson spoke during the hearing.

“We try to do a good job and run a good facility,” Thompson said.

He noted that the event venue holds events for organizations such as Special Olympics. Concerning gang activity, Thompson said he worked for 34 years in law enforcement and would make sure no criminal activity was taking place.