Proposed Moratorium On New Wineries, Distilleries, Breweries Off Table: Supervisor

SOUTHOLD, NY — A controversial proposal for a moratorium on wineries, breweries and distilleries in Southold Town is effectively off the table, Southold Town Supervisor Scott Russell said Tuesday.

"The town board has decided to go in the direction that was requested by the Long Island Wine Council, which is to organize a working group to identify changes needed in the code and draft changes," Russell said. "The group the board envisions would include a cross-section of the community and won't be dominated by any one industry."

The moratorium was first proposed by the supervisor in October. Russell said the aim was to get a global look at the future of the industry as a whole and put the brakes on a rapidly changing landscape on the North Fork.

Russell said he discussed the concept from the start with the Long Island Wine Council and the Long Island Farm Bureau first and asked for their input.

"I believe that we have needed a moratorium to update a very outdated insufficient code for some time. I have been raising these issues since the State of the Town address," Russell said. "Southold really needs to take charge of our future and adopt code that ensure we stay on that path. These industries are growing and there are new applications seemingly every day. We need to plan for them and make sure that such growth doesn't erode the quality of life this community is entitled to."

On Tuesday, Russell said the board was not willing to embrace the moratorium.

"The rest of the board doesn't support it. I thought it was a necessary first step and still do, but the board feels differently."

A resolution is expected on the agenda at the next town board meeting for the working group, which will likely consist of five to seven members, representing a cross section of the community. A working group convened by the Long Island Wine Council and the Long Island Farm Bureau will be able to attend meetings of the town's group to offer input on issues, the board said.

The news came after some heated debate on the topic Tuesday.

At Tuesday's town board work session, Russell discussed a letter from Ali Tuthill, executive director of the Long Island Wine Council, which was drafted by the Wine Council and the Long Island Farm Bureau in response to bullet points sent by the supervisor on Nov. 17.

Russell said the LIFB and the LIWC were forming their own independent working group. His concern, Russell said, was that his intent was to step back and look at the "broader picture. How do we deal with this globally? They want me to set up one within the narrow confines of their own industry." Russell said he "would have hoped they meant what they said when they said they were going to work with the town."

Russell said he gave the LIWC a list of bullet points and asked them for their input. He said, at a meeting with the Mattituck Chamber of Commerce, that he was "quite stunned" to hear Tuthill say that she didn't know the reason for the moratorium and was waiting for clarity.

Russell said that a suggestion that the town write violations for businesses not compliant with the code was "very draconian. I refuse to take a hard line stance." Some businesses, he said, would have no choice but to shutter.

Representatives of the Long Island Wine Council asked to comment at the work session; Russell said public comment appropriate at the public town board meeting, not work sessions.

Russell also added that the LIWC's request for his "long term vision" for the agricultural community was missing the point. "My vision is irrelevant. It's the community's vision. The code is a public document. It belongs to the community."

And, as for a call for transparency and consistency, Russell said people need to engage in the process and attend meetings.

Councilman Jim Dinizio said there's already relief provided for applicants, via the zoning board of appeals. "We should make that less onerous," he said. "What we really should be doing is streamlining our process. Not having someone six to nine months in the planning board asking for permission to do something he's really allowed to do."

"You can't streamline the process of a code that doesn't exist," Russell said. "You cannot get a use variance form the ZBA."

Dinizio disagreed. "It's not impossible," he said. "People come in and present their ideas to the board and the board says 'no' or 'yes.' You learn from that. You have a record." Applicants, he said, can appeal or file an Article 78, but many say it's too expensive. "Our process needs to be clear to people."

Russell said sending people to the ZBA to let them get turned down, or file an Article 78, "is sending them down a path of being defeated and not serving their purpose."

The model is evolving, Russell said, with more specialized operations. He added it's critical to recognize "the glaring errors in the code." The purpose of the moratorium would have been to step back, review, and understand cumulative impacts.

Dinizio said Russell's view was myopic.

"The code wasn't carved on tablets," Russell said. "It varies, based on changing needs. You can't keep saying 'Go to the ZBA.' That's myopic. Shunting our responsibility over to a group of appointed people." Decisions of an appointed board, he said, might not be consistent, as code needs to be.

There are also "failures in the original code that need to be cleaned up," Russell said. For example, one new owner is planning a 6,000 foot winery but only to plant five acres of grapes; that individual, he said, "is not committed to creating a vineyard."

"Businesses should not be given the amount of bureaucracy they are given," Dinizio maintained.

"That's specious, when the code doesn't exist," Russell said.

The code has been in existence since 1957, Dinizio said.

"In order to make it work we have to revisit it from time to time," Russell said.

Councilman Bill Ruland said the "robust" discussion between the supervisor and Dinizio was one reason why a working group was needed.

Councilman Bob Ghosio agreed the community also felt strongly on the issue and a working group was needed.

Russell asked the board to come back at the next meeting with suggestions of who should be included in the group.

Wine Council Speaks at town board meeting

At Tuesday night's town board meeting, Tuthill said Russell's "summary" of her letter was "misconstrued" at the work session; she said the supervisor had met with the wine council on Oct. 24 and "made it clear" to them that they'd work together and "the supervisor would identify the root cause" for the moratorium.

That letter, she said, "was rebuffed publicly this morning."

Tuthill said many of the issues raised could be addressed through state and federal regulations. She said the LIWC would work on whatever issues remained, with the town. "We are willing to work hand in hand," she said.

Russell asked how the letter was "rebuffed."

"Your summary was certainly delivered in a way that made it seem we were not open to collaborate," she said, adding that it was "an attack on the industry."

Russell asked how he attacked the industry.

Tuthill suggested he go back and review his statements.

Russell said he'd read the letter verbatim.

The supervisor said he wanted to clarify on the public record that he asked for the Wine Council for their input some time ago. "It's not like I haven't reached out to you. But when you go to the Chamber and someone says, 'Where did the moratorium come from?' and you say you don't know and that you're still waiting for information, that's not being honest."

Tuthill said she was on record as saying Russell had reached out to the group and they were still waiting for specifics.

She added that she did not want "to revisit the past."

Karl Novak, president of the Long Island Farm Bureau, said his group was there to work with the town.

Adam Suprenant of Coffee Pot Cellars wanted to address what he called a "farce of a moratorium."

He alleged he and others were told to come down and talk to speak to Russell about a moratorium. "That's kind of disingenuous to say it was a call for open dialogue," he said.

Russell then said the board did not support a moratorium. "Although I didn't think a working group would work without a moratorium, this town board does."

He added that Suprenant had mischaracterized his request that Wine Council reps come speak to him as "strong arming". He said he had made an effort "to try and convince you."

Chris Baiz of the town's ag advisory committee said the goal was to look ahead to keep farming vibrant on the North Fork.

The board's conversation regarding a moratorium was "over," Russell said. "I'm going to take your suggestion and put a working group together and address the issues."

Russell said he's been accused of being anti-winery. "I've been here a decade. Name one thing I've ever proposed or supported that's anti-winery. I'm sure you can't."