Supervisor Speaks Out on Proposed Winery Moratorium, Addresses Pushback

SOUTHOLD, NY — Southold Town Supervisor Scott Russell wants to set the record straight about his reasons for proposing a moratorium on wineries, breweries and distilleries in town.

Russell, who pitched the plan at the end of October, has gotten some pushback from members of the wine industry.

Most recently, Ron Goerler, former president of the Long Island Wine Council, has been questioning his motives for the moratorium on social media, Russell said.

"Ron is one of a few in the winery industry that have been calling me 'anti-winery' for years," Russell said.

But that's not accurate, the supervisor said. "First, name one piece of legislation I proposed in 10 years here that was detrimental to the winery industry. He has none."

Goerler also attacked the process via social media regarding special events legislation, Russell said.

"He now claims that the special events legislation we adopted was 'nothing like the one we agreed to'. His statement is false. The code amendment that created the new permit took months. Everybody worked on it, including winery representatives."

New York State's Ag and Markets, Russell said. "probably had more input than anybody. We were all a little unhappy with it. That's the nature of compromise."

But, discussing the proposed moratorium, the bottom line is, Russell said at a meeting of the North Fork Chamber of Commerce Monday: "This isn't anti-winery."

In an interview with Patch, the supervisor said, "If I was so hellbent on sticking it to wineries, why would I bother with a moratorium? Why am I not putting legislation on the table every day to carry out my evil plot? I don't need a moratorium to do that."

Wineries, Russell said, "are an important part of the community. But, they are no more or less important than any other business. Some feel like they are, however, and expect to be treated that way. Anything short of that is being anti-winery."

At the Chamber meeting, which was held Monday at Peconic Landing, Russell gave a state of the town address, including an explanation of the proposed moratorium on wineries, breweries and distilleries.

The plan isn't anti winery, he began. "That's a mantra, every time you mention wineries and zoning. The fact of the matter is that the current code isn't good for the wine industry, and isn't good for the town."

In the past, wineries were all created under one model, with a great expanse of land, and production facilities usually in one large building, requiring a large financial investment, Russell said.

"Things have changed," he said.

Today, wineries are able to produce wine on smaller parcels. But, he said, in town there are currently not in compliance with code, "not even close."

The moratorium, Russell said, "is not about restricting wineries. It's about creating code" for the new models that have emerged industrywide in recent years.

One prospective new owner, he said, is proposing a winery on a 15-acre North Road parcel, but only planting five acres of grapes. "It's perfectly clear he doesn't want to run a vineyard, and he has no obligation to do so under the current code. How is that not commercializing the North Road. Does anyone think that was the intent of the code? Of course it wasn't," Russell said.

He added, "If you have people coming in to build a winery and don't commit to a vineyard, that's a problem."

In the past, the winery was the end result of a vineyard, the place to sell the wine produced on-site. "Now all of that is an afterthought," Russell said.

Something has to be done, he said, about existing wineries that currently can't come into compliance.

"I have no interest in holding up applications that have already been through the process"

Despite the tide of public opinion to the contrary, Russell said he has "no interest in holding up applications that have already been through the process" and are coming down the pike toward approval.

On the other hand, he said, he'd rather see a moratorium than have applicants in the same shoes as the recent Sports East application, which recently got the red light from the zoning board of appeals after months before the town. "That's not good, either," he said.

He'd rather "freeze the process," and create new code that recognizes today's models, Russell said.

Winery applications are popping up right now, he said, that would not be able to get through the approval process because the town doesn't have the authority to grant the okay.

The goal, Russell said, is to address the cumulative impacts, over time, of a burgeoning industry that has measurable traffic, noise, and quality of life repercussions.

A spike in traffic, he said, with limos getting stuck and clogging roads such as Depot Lane, is only one of a plethora of issues that need to be addressed.

"If we are going to allow smaller wineries on smaller parcels, we have to mitigate the impacts," Russell said. "Maybe allow them on smaller parcels, but restrict the size" or tell the applicant that no special events will be allowed, he said.

The Long Island Wine Council, Russell said, has told him that they "don't agree with Vineyard 48." But then, he said, he tries to come up with a solution via a proposed moratorium and is told, "You're picking on us. You have to work with me."

As for the claims of Ali Tuthill, executive director of the Long Island Wine Council at a Mattituck Chamber of Commerce meeting recently that "the root cause" of the moratorium "has not been defined," Russell said it's simply not true.

"I met with them weeks before" announcing the possible moratorium, he said, adding that he told Long Island Wine Council representatives that he wanted their input; he also said he'd put together specifics of the proposal, send it to them, and then, asked to work together after hearing their input. "That's what happened," he said.

The fact is, Russell said, if he called for a moratorium on marinas or restaurants, there'd be "no human cry." And the town "survived" a moratorium on big box stores years earlier, he said.

"Six, nine, 12 month isn't that long," Russell said. "The review process takes that much, if not longer."

And, he said again, "The current applications going through the process, despite myths," will not be held up by a moratorium.

At the Mattituck Chamber meeting, Tuthill said she didn't think a moratorium was necessary and others said they thought it could be harmful to small business owners.

Business owners question moratorium

Tuthill, at the Mattituck Chamber meeting, "From our point of view, as community members, we don't think there's a need for any stop to new businesses coming," such as members of the craft beverage industry, she said. "We need the wine industry, the craft beverage industry, farms," she said. "Our winemakers are farmers. We're supporting a landscape out here, protecting what we all love and want to see maintained," she said.

Daniel King, who, with his wife Alane Kelly, operate the North Fork Guest House, asked why the idea of a moratorium had been proposed. "Where is this coming from?"

Tuthill said the Long Island Wine Council was still "waiting on that information" and noted that Russell's reasoning had been outlined in the media.

She added that there had been an initial meeting between the Wine Council and the Long Island Farm Bureau "to discuss the potential of" a moratorium, but said "the root cause of that has not been defined."

Tuthill said Russell had brought up reasons for the moratorium, such as the lack of definitions in the code as they pertain to tasting rooms, distilleries and wineries; he also, she said, mentioned other public safety issues such as traffic.

But, Tuthill said, the Wine Council was still waiting for additional information, without which they couldn't elaborate in lengthy discussion.

Russell has said since that those comments were false, as he'd made a point to meet with the Long Island Wine Council well before any public discussion.

David Perrin, owner of Cedar House on Sound B&B and the Bay Breeze Inn & Bistro in Mattituck, said he was afraid of what a moratorium would mean. He said he did not want to "alienate any industry, in any way, shape or form. As a small business my success is reliant on everyone else's successes in town. A moratorium on small businesses kind of scares me."

Small business owners, he said, are also home owners and residents. "We have families, we want places where kids can come pack. Anything to impede growth makes me nervous."

Since the idea of a moratorium was pitched, the community has been rife with concerns, with some residents turning out at a recent town board meeting to voice their fears.

"This notion that we are anti-winery" is not true, Russell said at the Chamber meeting. "Histrionic reactions," he said, told him some weren't "serious about the dialogue."

The bottom line is that the town code, as it pertains to wineries, is "flimsy," created in the early 80s, and depicting wineries with large tracts of land, fronting main roads, with a large building or two housing the entire operations; Russell said. Thirty or 40 years ago, today's landscape and the multitude of uses could never have been imagined, he said.

Times have changed, he said. Smaller investments are needed for a custom crush, with a new business model emerging, one that allows winemakers to produce niche wines without crippling overhead and large investment. They no longer need road frontage, with social media bringing critical exposure, he said.

A winemaker could produce, perhaps, 5,000 cases, he said. "The problem is, they don't have a place to sell, because town code doesn't allow tasting rooms on agricultural properties," he said. "Evolution is a good thing, but we have to start answering questions."

For example, Russell said, the town board needs to ask if tasting rooms should be allowed and if so, where, and under what conditions. Current code requires 10 acres, with two for the winery, he said.

The irony, Russell said, is that one winery owner in town has been producing for more than a decade; he has 30 acres scattered across town but no 12 acres contiguous. "He's not allowed to have a winery or tasting room under town code," Russell said.

Many who are not allowed to have tasting rooms have them, anyway, he said.

The town has reached a point of absorption, Russell said. "We can get overrun very quickly," he said, adding that conditions regarding acreage, and other issues needed to be put in place.

Referencing the principals behind the Threes Brewing application in Cutchogue who came before the board recently to express concerns that their application might get caught up in a moratorium, Russell said, "No one is saying a moratorium is going to hold up" the brewers in an industrial park in Cutchogue. "No one."

That application is far along in the process and will be complete before any moratorium, he added.

New code, Russell added, might bring some restrictions but it may also be more permissive in others.
The aim is to convene a working group, he said.

"The reason we need a moratorium is one solution at a time won't work. It hadn't worked. It's time to put a whole plan together. The community has a right to weigh in. We need to put a comprehensive vision together for the next 20 or 30 years and let the public comment, then adopt it all as one package."

Paul Silansky of Strong's Marine, after the supervisor spoke, suggested the public give him and the board time to make improvements to the code, necessary to help support the burgeoning industry on the North Fork.

Not anti-winery

"If I was as anti-winery as I have been portrayed," something would have been done about it, Russell said. But instead, the situation reflects that the "one size fits all" approach isn't "good enough anymore."

Perrin said he believed a moratorium was a "bit of an overreach."

When asked, Russell said currently, there are eight applications before the town, for wineries, breweries and distilleries, all in different stages. For applications "this close to the finish line, it would be operating in bad faith for the town to stop them."

Russell set out to clear up misconceptions. "This notion that we are stopping growth and business is untrue," he said.

The aim was to address community concerns sparked by the North Fork's growth, including traffic; traffic flow, and solutions such as weight limits, need to be considered, he said.

While many have blamed the fall harvest season — "You have parked the bus squarely on pumpkin growers," the supervisor said — instead, he believes, the traffic issue is a global concern on the North Fork. Concerns regarding pumpkin farms should be handled on a site specific basis, he said.

To Tuthill, he said the Wine Council advertises bringing in three million people. "That's a lot," he said. "Quite honestly, we have a huge volume of it. Traffic is not a bad thing but it has to be accommodated."

Offsite parking, currently not allowable under town code, is one thing that might be considered, he said.

"The reason why we need a moratorium now is we have a lull. You're done for the most part, with harvesting, and have time to sit around that table."

He added, "All I am asking is that you keep an open mind, that you showed me weeks ago when we talked about the moratorium," Russell said to Tuthill. "Don't say it's bad."

Tuthill said the purpose of the meeting was to talk about "community, job creation." To Russell, she said. "We have been consistently on the record saying we are still waiting to work with you. We aren't here being antagonistic. We're here as partners. An accusation that we're already not working with you is not fair," she said.

After the meeting Russell added that when he'd first met with the Wine Council weeks go, the discussion was "productive. I would like to continue them. However, I question their sincerity if they issue an emphatic 'no' regarding a moratorium. A 'we need to know more is reasonable, and I thought that's where we were at."
He added, "When their leadership uses words like 'scapegoat,' then, to me, that is a histrionic overreaction that doesn't serve the purpose of the community or of the industry itself."

Moving ahead, Russell said many residents have told him that they are in favor of a moratorium. "I'm quite confident that the general public will support it."

Goerler did not respond to multiple requests for comment.