North East winery stalls amid zoning review

NORTH EAST — For John and Kristen King, moving to the countryside and raising their children on a vineyard was the ultimate dream. But after purchasing a 36-acre property in Millerton and trying to make their vision financially sustainable, that dream now hangs in the balance amid a years-long zoning review in a town that’s prioritizing a thorough process over expedition.

One family’s vision

In 2023, John King began touring dozens of agricultural properties on the market in the region, but kept coming back to Millerton. The deal was sealed when he drove his wife up the hill to a 36-acre parcel on Route 44/22 and Smithfield Road and the couple took in its sprawling, bucolic view.

“That was it for her,” King said with a smile. “My wife didn’t want to look at another property.”

The pair, who live in Harlem with their 3- and 4-year-old, have been coming upstate for 20 years and say they’ve always had a soft spot for Millerton. “It was always our favorite Main Street to hang out on.”

While the idea of “King’s Winery & Vineyard” began to take shape in 2023, the official process with the Town of North East began this spring when the Kings submitted a petition to amend section 180-40 of the zoning code. The change would expand “Country Inn” permissions in the A5A and R3A districts — where their property sits — to accommodate uses such as weddings and small events that could provide supplemental income to sustain the vineyard.

While existing zoning regulations in the district allow for “repurposing an existing structure” for overnight accommodations, King hoped to amend the code to allow for new structures. His ideal winery would feature 24 rooms for overnight guests and work force housing that would provide a number of local jobs.

On a tour of the property, King pointed out where grapes would be grown and where lodging might be tucked into the treeline in order to blend with the natural charm of the land.

“The goal, first and foremost, is to build a vineyard and winery,” King said. “My family would be living there so we have no interest in hosting frequent, weekly weddings,” he said, addressing rumored concerns about local traffic and noise.

King also noted his commitment to hiring locally and boosting the economy. “Everyone we’ve brought on is local — architects, engineers, excavators — because we want to be part of the community, not just some city people coming in.”

Early encouragement

When the Kings’ petition first came before the Town Board in April, it was met with cautious optimism. The Board accepted the application for review, but warned that zoning amendments could take time.

In a July meeting, Town Attorney Warren Replansky called the proposal “reasonable” and “likely to benefit the community.” He added that it was consistent with the rural character of the area. Replansky said the applicant established an escrow account to cover the town’s legal costs — a gesture of good faith that signaled cooperation.

Supervisor Chris Kennan also sounded supportive, telling King that he would attempt to move the process forward quickly and solicit necessary feedback from experts including the town’s Planning Board, the Conservation Advisory Council and Nan Stolzenburg, a zoning consultant with decades of experience.

Deferred dreams

At the September Town Board meeting, the tone had shifted and the Board backed away from the idea of treating the petition as a standalone amendment. Instead, the group agreed to address the request during the broader second phase of the town’s zoning overhaul, which will review residential and agricultural districts. This move would honor the hard work that went into the commercial review, said Kennan, and put safeguards in place for the residential and agricultural districts.

Councilwoman Meg Winkler described the winery application as “putting the cart before the horse.” Fellow Councilman Chris Mayville said the Town had “learned a lot” about how complex zoning work can be. Kennan, once optimistic, now stressed caution. “Things can sound wonderful, and this application in particular sounds like a wonderful thing, but I realize it applies to a lot of other parcels and there are reasons to spend time making sure this is what we want to do.”

The CAC raised environmental concerns, particularly about noise from outdoor events. Stolzenburg pointed to state guidance that “incidental uses” must clearly support — not overshadow — agriculture. Universal feedback recommended more careful language and new definitions to avoid future loopholes.

The shift left King disillusioned. “We’ve tried to align with everything the Town wants so there isn’t friction. And yet here we are,” he said.

While Bill Kish, a member of the Planning Board, suggested the applicant prove his agricultural commitment by planting vines before seeking broader permissions, King insists that model isn’t financially viable.

“I’ve run the numbers every which way,” he said. “Without events and additional revenue, we’ll fail in the first year. We’re at the point of deciding whether or not to pull the plug.”

The town’s perspective

For Kennan, the answer lies in process. The town has spent years — and more than 100 meetings — modernizing its commercial zoning code in response to the 2019 Comprehensive Plan. That work is nearing completion, with residential and agricultural zoning next on the docket. Kennan hopes to assemble that review team before the end of the calendar year and move forward more efficiently.

At the end of the day, the petition represents not just one project but the precedent it could set. The Board’s caution highlights the tension between supporting economic growth and protecting the character of North East.

“I appreciate Mr. King’s interest and we welcome people who want to come and start a business and invest in our town,” Kennan said. “We want to make sure it’s done in a way that keeps the nature of the town consistent with what we know.”