The clash of competing land use interests in the North Fork wine region played out again before the Southold Planning Board yesterday in public hearings on winery/tasting room proposals for two existing vineyards.
Neighboring residents, fearful that wineries can become entertainment venues, are complaining about potential impacts from tasting room traffic and special events that might be held at the proposed wineries.
And in the back and forth about impacts of winery operations, one planning board member questioned whether “we are prostituting ourselves to save open space with alcohol.”
Planning Board member and Southold Fire Department Chief Jim Rich lamented “the amount of times I’ve had to go scrape up drunks from wineries,” adding “other than Vineyard 48” — a winery the town has been battling with over its sometimes raucous operations for several years.
A winery is a permitted use in Southold’s agricultural conservation and certain residential zoning districts, as long it meets four conditions set by town code:
- It must produce and sell wine “made from primarily Long Island grapes.”
- It must be located on land owned by the winery owner where “at least 10 acres are devoted to vineyard or other agricultural purposes.”
- It must be set back at least 100 feet “from a major road.”
- Site plan approval is required.
But what constitutes wine production? And what kinds of marketing activities may be hosted on site for the purpose of selling wine? When do those activities transform the facility into a “catering hall” or a night club?
The planning board is wrestling with those questions as it reviews proposals for the next generation of vineyards and wineries in Southold Town. And last night, as board members moved to punt the production question to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a code interpretation, the clash became contentious.
Surrey Lane Vineyard, located on Main Road in Southold, is seeking site plan approval for a 3,600-square-foot winery building that includes two tasting rooms, plus a terrace, covered porches, roof deck and tasting pavilion. On-site production, according to the site plan application, is a barrel fermenting area in the basement. The vineyard is located on 43 acres of preserved farmland and currently has 25 acres planted in grapes. The winery would be built on a 1.84-acre adjoining parcel that would be merged with the larger agricultural acreage.
In moving to refer the application to the ZBA for a code interpretation, Planning Board Chairman Donald Wilcenski read a statement he said was prepared by planning department staff and agreed to by all members of the planning board.
“The sudden addition of a wine production area in the basement is not convincing evidence of the main purpose of the building to produce wine,” Wilcenski read, noting that a “crushing pad was left off the site plan.”
The planners wanted a code interpretation to determine whether what the site plan depicts is sufficient to meet the code requirement that the winery is a place where the wine sold is also “produced.”
This question is one of the issues Supervisor Scott Russell, in calling for a moratorium on all site plan approvals and building permits for wineries, says the town must resolve. Modern business practice has many local vineyards using off-site, third-party producers, he said, and the current code does not account for this practice.
Though the chairman at first resisted their effort to comment on the referral motion, Surrey Lane’s attorneys strenuously objected to the move to refer the application to the ZBA, which they argued would cause needless delay and jeopardize the viability of the project for the 2017 season.
Attorney Gail Wickham took exception to Wilcenski’s use of the term “sudden addition” with regard to the basement production area.
“It’s not a sudden fit of the imagination in an attempt to go around the code,” Wickham said.
“The first plan did not have a crushing pad,” member Martin Sidor said. “Winemaking was not shown on the first plan.”
Steve Mudd, a well-known vineyard manager and pioneer in the establishment and growth of the North Fork wine region, told the board that “barrel storage is production, by the way” and it was indicated on Surrey Lane’s original application — though the board members seemed “of the impression that this was added at the 11th hour.”
Wickham and her partner Eric Bressler assailed the board for the delay that would result from the ZBA referral. Bressler took it a step further and said the planning board had no legal grounds for making the referral. The use is governed by and meets the requirements of the state Agriculture and Markets Law and Alcoholic Beverage Control Law as well as by town code, Bressler said.
“We know what the code says. We know what the laws say. What advice are you seeking? Are you asking the ZBA to determine when tasting is permissible?” he asked.
“To propose that this go to the ZBA for an interpretation is entirely irrational,” Bressler argued. “There are going to be months and months of delay that will result in a non-decision or a decision so irrational, arbitrary and capricious that it’s going to be set aside [by a court],” Bressler said.
“What’s the purpose other than slowing down this application?” he asked.
After Bressler scuffled a bit with town attorney William Duffy, the planning board backed down on the ZBA referral and instead adjourned the hearing to allow time for it to “do additional research,” Wilcenski said.
A held-over hearing on the site plan application of Sannino Vineyard on Alvah’s Lane in Cutchogue was concluded and closed.
Sannino seeks approval for a 2,800-square foot winery and tasting room on 8.94 acres. The owners obtained an area variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals in March, allowing construction of a winery on less than the 10-acre minimum required by code.
All wine to be sold at the winery will be produced on site, according to the application.
Neighbors expressed concerns about impacts of a winery in a residential area. One resident, adjoining property owner Frances Slezak, railed against the impacts of wineries on neighboring homes: noise, traffic, headlights, intoxicated patrons, litter were among the things she said she feared about a commercial winery being built next to her house.
Rick Shaper, deputy mayor of the Village of Brookville in Nassau County, spoke in support of the application. He said he had served 15 years on the planning board in his village, 10 of them as chairman. “I can appreciate the position you’re in,” Shaper said.
“I hope the supervisor’s advocacy of a moratorium has not influenced your handling of this application,” Shaper told them.
The supervisor’s proposal to halt new winery, brewery and distillery permits to allow the town time to update its code governing those uses, has created uncertainty for applicants already in the review process. It has also triggered alarm among members of the industry.
The Long Island Farm Bureau weighed in last night. Jessica Anson, public policy director at the farm bureau reiterated the organization’s position that the marketing and sale of “value-added products” made from agricultural products grown on the farm is essential to the grower’s survival. The farm bureau opposes any effort to restrict that activity, she said.
