Local Vineyard Takes Legal Action Against Southold Planning Board

SOUTHOLD, NY — A Southold vineyard and orchard that's been seeking to site a winery on its location on Main Road has taken legal action against the planning board after being asked to provide a traffic study — a request they say has stalled proceedings and that they believe has to do with town politics.

Surrey Lane has proposed a 3,610 foot winery, including a tasting room, retail room, retail area, wine production area, case storage and farm stand with 39 parking stalls on a 1.8 acre parcel adjacent to 43.7 acres of farmland at 46975 Route 25, east of South Harbor Road and New York State Route 25.

Surrey Lane, represented by Eric Bressler of Wickham, Bressler & Geasa PC, filed a request for judicial intervention Monday at New York State Supreme Court, stating that the Southold Town planning board was in violation of New York Open Meetings Law and acted in a way that was "arbitrary and capricious" by requesting the traffic study.

The town planning board "impermissibly singled out Surrey Lane" for the traffic evaluation when other wineries were not asked to perform similar traffic reviews, the court documents said, adding the planning board should be enjoined from further violation of the Public Officers Law.

Surrey Lane maintains that the planning board's request was politically motivated: "The Supervisor of the Town of Southold has publicly declared on numerous occasions that he desires a town-wide moratorium on winery approvals," the court documents state. Supervisor Scott Russell, the petition continues, "has publicly declared that he seeks changes to the code with respect to wineries, but no such changes have been officially proposed or implemented."

In December, Russell said that the proposal for a moratorium on new wineries did not receive the support of the town board and was off the table, but announced that a working group to discuss the issues would be organized.

When asked to comment on Surrey Lane Tuesday, Russell said while he was unable to comment on any specific pending action, "The planning board is required to consider public health, safety and welfare in every application it reviews. It is also required to evaluate community impacts, if any. Traffic is not just part of any review, it has become one of the central concerns. I’m sure if you were to ask the public, they would agree."

Surrey Lane's journey

According to documents filed with Suffolk County Court on Monday, Surrey Lane first applied to the building department in July, 2016, and was referred to the planning board for comments. According to Surrey Lane, the planning board said the use of "a winery was permitted and that site plan approval was necessary."

The building department subsequently issued a notice of disapproval in August, 2016 because site plan approval was required; the application was then before the planning board, with issues such as curb cuts and parking discussed.

After the planning board determined that the application was complete in October, 2016, public hearings were held in November and December of last year. The planning board said, in December, 2016, that it would vote on a resolution to seek an interpretation from the Southold Town zoning board of appeals; Surrey Lane objected and the matter was adjourned.

Surrey Lane voiced its objection to possible referral to the ZBA; no notice was received by Surrey Lane that the matter was on the agenda, court documents maintained. In response, Surrey Lane sought legal recourse with an Article 78 — and requiring that planning board members attend training in regard to Public Officers Law.

Next, a final public hearing was held on Surrey Lane's site plan application on June 5, 2017, the court documents state.

Traffic study request

On June 26, the planning board told Surrey Lane that a "professional traffic safety evaluation from a traffic engineer" be completed.

However, the court documents state, the planning board "could not provide the specifics of what the traffic analysis would entail"; the minutes of that meeting are not yet available to the public.

The planning board said it would not move forward without the minutes of the June public hearing.

Although 10 months have passed the planning board asked agencies for comments, Surrey Lane remains "stalled" because the planning board "refuses to move forward," the suit maintains.

Surrey Lane once again reminded the planning board of its breach of Public Officers Law and on July 13, when they had not yet received any communication about the traffic analysis requirements, sent a letter to the planning board "demanding" specifics, the court document says.

The planning board responded and said the evaluation was required for six offsite intersections, with 9 types of information and analysis to be provided.

On August 7, Surrey Lane reps and an attorney for the planning board met and Surrey Lane said a negative declaration had been issued almost 10 months earlier, almost all the information sought referred to offsite matters, and even if the traffic study was embarked upon — which Surrey Lane does not believe it should have to do — it does not negate the fact that a winery use was allowed as of right.

That traffic analysis, Surrey Lane maintains, would cost up to $22,000 and entail months of delays.

The letter and its issuance was not approved or voted upon at an open public meeting, attorneys for Surrey Lane said, the planning board did not call an executive session at an open public meeting to discuss the letter, not notice of any public meeting was given to discuss the letter, as required by Public Offices Law, and no minutes of the meeting at which the letter was approved were taken, the court documents said.

The suit asks that the letter be annulled as "violative of New York Public Officers Law and arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, illegal" and not supported by substantial evidence. The suit also asks that members of the planning board be required to attend training classes concerning their obligations under the Public Officers Law.

David and Liz Shanks, owners of Surrey Lane, deferred to their attorney when asked for comment; Bressler said he was unable to comment on pending litigation.

Southold Town Attorney Bill Duffy did not return a request for comment.