Miami Twp. wedding venue zoning trial set

Owner accused of violating a permitted use in an ag district.

A trial date has been set for a wedding venue owner charged with the business violating Miami Twp. zoning codes.

The case involving Stoney Hill Bed and Breakfast operator Darren Powlette has been set for Nov. 26 in Miamisburg Municipal Court, record show.

Powlette, 50, pleaded not guilty in May to a misdemeanor criminal charge that the Upper Miamisburg Road venue violated a permitted use in an agriculturally zoned district.

Powlette contends the township has no jurisdiction in the matter because his business is qualified to operate under the Ohio Revised Code’s agritourism guidelines. He appealed to the Miami Twp. Board of Zoning Appeals.

Earlier this month, the township BZA ruled the venue’s “activities do not satisfy the definition of agritourism under” the ORC.

Powlette declined to comment after the township’s decision, but he said he plans to appeal it to Montgomery County court.

Attempts to reach his attorney were unsuccessful. Township officials said an appeal on the decision must be filed in county court within 45 days of the hearing.

The township decision followed a July 9 hearing lasting more than three hours and involving testimony from Powlette, the township and about 10 individuals, most who opposed the business.

The municipal court charge stems from an incident on April 19, according to court records.

A neighbor called authorities after he said members of a wedding party entered his property and petted his horses before his wife told them to leave.

The BZA said Powlette “failed to present any evidence that visitors to the property ever actually engaged in any” agritourism

activities on or before May 8, when the citation was issued.

“Nor is there any evidence that appellant used potential agritourism activities as a selling point to advertise the wedding venue,” according to the township’s finding of facts.

Miami Twp. Planner Alex Carlson last month “presented evidence of photos taken by neighbors and sent to township staff, displaying ... weddings in progress on the property ... alleged wedding guests on the property.”

Carlson said he never entered the property “for investigative purposes,” but felt the evidence he had was strong enough to conclude that, appellant, was in fact, “using the property to run an impermissible wedding venue,” records show.