HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Correspondence Sv 6-P
r rf�LA
� boo
Diane Crosser
A
500 Alvahs Lane, Cutcho ue, NY 11935 ;
June 3, 2025
1350 Alvahs Lane
SCTM#1000-102.-4-6.1
Southold Town Planning Board Members, Planning Department, Supervisor Krupski, and
attorney De Chance:
A letter from the Rigas Co. submitted on 2, 2025 states, "much conjecture has been stated
by certain Southold town residents expressing their thoughts and feelings regarding the
proposed agricultural barn at 1350 Alvahs Lane. Unfortunately, these opinions are not
rooted in fact." Mr. Rigas, agent of NFVC, LLCIBitlAckerman owner, has requested approval
from the planning board for this application.
I submitted the facts to the Planning Board in my letter dated May 28, 2025 in the form of
attachments from previous planning board and ZBA meetings, and other documents from
the original file, including statements from the owner, Mr.Ackerman declaring his intent to
run his business from this preserved land.The ZBA denied the application in 20i7, based on
the facts in that file; that is not conjecture. "Opinions"were formed by residents in
response to an original application which was incomplete, inaccurate, contradictory, and
Lacked transparency.
2025, and little has changed.There is no schematic as to what equipment will be stored in
the`barn'. There is no list of chemicals, herbicides, pesticides that will be used. Mr. Rigas
states, "The entire property is currently used and shall continue to be used exclusively for
agricultural production..." That is simply NOT true; it is most certainly used as a business
operation. Residents have stated numerous times,this location is operating as a business.
Photos and a video have been submitted to the planning board; the word fact, by
definition-"something that has actual existence or actual occurrence of a piece of
information presented as have objective reality." Those statements on record from
residents observing the loading and unloading of supplies, movement of heavy farm
equipment on and off the property, and the photos and video are fact, not conjecture.
Mr. Rigas stated, "The proposed agricultural storage barn shall be used for storage of
equipment needed to maintain the vineyard and cattle pasture." If the equipment is not to
Leave the property, why the need for a`staging area",two curb cuts- ingress and egress on
r
and off Alvahs Lane, and five garage doors? What equipment will be stored there? 1350
Alvahs Lane, SCTM#1000-102.-4-6.1 is a proposal for an agricultural storage barn,yet no
one has been able to provide documentation of exactly what will be`stored'in that barn;
how can this possibly be considered for approval?
As for"certain residents expressing their thoughts and feelings".Taxpayers and residents
have a right to know(in detail) proposals for building plans which affect the residents'
safety and quality of life. Taxpayers and residents have the right to expect the government
will enforce the town code and insist that the complete application proposal will be
available for public review before any approval could be considered.
"Opinions"and "feelings"are irrelevant here. The fact in this matter is simply that a
business is operating on preserved farmland and has submitted plans to enhance their
ability to grow that business. This proposal was previously disapproved by the town
authority-the Southold Town ZBA. As per ZBA chairperson, Leslie Weisman in 2017. "THE
USE AS PROPOSED BY NFVS TO ERECT BARN FOR THE STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT USED
IN A BUSINESS WHEREIN NFVS MANAGES VINEYARDS UNRELATED TO THE
AGRICULTURAL OPERATION ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, IS NOT AN ALLOWED USE OR
ACCESSORY USE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 280-13(A)(2) OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF
SOUTHOLD.
This proposal is incomplete, inaccurate, contradictory, and once again, lacks transparency.
This requires an honest, detailed review; to date,that has not happened.
Thank you for your time.
It
Diane Crosser
Narrative attached to video and photo submission
Re. 1350 Alvahs Lane
Contents of one thumb drive: (19) .mov files. (Excerpts from original files previously submitted
on SD Card prior to 6/4/25 deadline)
Description: During the open meetings, and also in written submissions, the community has
said multiple times that the operations of the existing gravel area in the western part of 1350
Alvahs Lane property is being used for offsite commercial contracting work. In support of these
statements, please find videos from between May 27 and June 3, 2025 of this area showing
activities such as: loading of materials and equipment in the morning for delivery offsite,
unloading and re-provisioning throughout the day, and workers parking their cars in the
morning to immediately depart in commercial vehicles while returning at the end of the day to
then go home. Very little (if none at all) is to farm the Alvahs farmland as stated by the applicant
as per zoning but instead is for this non-conforming use.
Each file is named according to the approximate time of day of the recording. Together they
document a chronological pattern of use over approximately one week's time. (Please note that
because of the way the camera downloads the live feed to the recorded file, the timestamp on
the upper right corner of videos is 12 hours fast. Le. sunrise is the same day but at 17:25 vs.
5:25, and sunset is at 8:25 (the following day) vs. 20:25 the day of.)
In a separate download, a series of 5-6 videos shows two deliveries from 5/17/25 being loaded
on to a p/u truck and delivered from 1350 Alvahs offsite to another vineyards barn near rte
25/Mill Lane and unloaded ."
Bischoff Law >:ra Joan@jbischofflaw.com
P L.L C (631)948-0234
ATTORNEY AT AT LAW $? 7160 Hortons Lane
Southold NY11971
Southold, June 1, 202
S2
To: P (L r MTipq: G
Chairperson and Members of the Planning Board
Town of Southold JU 2025
53095 Main Road Sourrac�LD TOWN
Southold,NY 11971 ��
&�L.i�L��kNG BOARD
Re: Further Objection to Proposed Agricultural Building at 1350
Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue (North Fork Viticultural Services)
Dear Chairperson Rich and Members of the Planning Board:
As you know, I represent Alexander Porter Compagno, the owner of property located at
1 100 Alvah's Lane in Cutchogue, which is directly impacted by the proposed
construction of a 7,000 sq. ft. agricultural structure at 1350 Alvah's Lane in Cutchogue
(the"Property") as proposed by North Fork Viticultural Services LLC ("NFVS").
I respectfully bring to the Planning Board's attention that not a single individual—apart
from the Applicant's own representative, Mr. Rigas—spoke or submitted written
comments in support of the above-referenced application. In stark contrast, the Alvah's
Lane community came out in strong and unified opposition during the public comment
period. Your Board received testimony from neighborhood residents, descendants of the
original farm family who granted the development rights easement, and numerous other
concerned members of the public, all expressing firm and reasoned objections to the
proposed site plan.
The fundamental issue is this: virtually the entire surrounding residential community
opposes the introduction of what is, in effect, a commercial marshaling yard or
contractor's depot—regardless of whether the Applicant now refers to it as a "garage" or
"barn." Residents have expressed legitimate concerns about the disruption of their quiet,
bucolic neighborhood, the risk posed to children by increased heavy equipment and truck
traffic, and the incompatibility of such a facility with the preserved agricultural character
of the area.
1
Although the Applicant now claims the proposed barn will be used solely for storing feed
and hay for on-site cattle, the scale, location, and design of the structure, and past history
and patterns of use of the land all suggest otherwise. More importantly, the Board has
received direct testimony indicating that the property is being used, or intended to be
used, to support North Fork Vineyard Services' (NFVS)off-site operations—including
the chemically intensive maintenance of hundreds of acres of vineyards throughout the
region. Such off-site commercial use is in direct violation of both the Town Code and the
restrictions imposed by the development rights easement.
The purpose of this letter is to address public comments made by the LPC Coordinator
during the June 2, 2025, public hearing. Her statement, together with the corresponding
letter of determination, raises significant concerns about the Town of Southold's
administration of its Development Rights Easement program—specifically, the apparent
lack of rigorous oversight and enforcement of easement terms. She stated:
"I am not going to add anything to the draft of the comments made
on behalf by the LPC so I am not going to add anything clarify two
things so I am not going to add anything. The easement is the only
thing the LPC is the only thing charged with reviewing as it relates
to the site plan."
She further read the language of the easement:
"Agricultural Production—shall mean the production for
commercial purposes of crops, livestock, and livestock products,
but not land or portions thereof used for processing or retail
merchandising of such crops, livestock, or livestock products.
Land used in'agricultural production' shall also include fences,
equipment storage buildings, livestock barns, irrigation systems;
and any other structures used exclusively for agricultural purposes.
... This is the only definition the Land Preservation Committee
is allowed to apply to for its review for barns that are referred
to us for site plan review."
Additionally, she referenced the Zoning Board of Appeals' (ZBA)jurisdiction, saying:
"The Board is charged with and has jurisdiction to interpret and
make determinations under Chapter 280 of the Town Code.
Therefore the Board is without jurisdiction to make a
determination as to whether or not the proposed use meets the
definition of'Agricultural Production'under a chapter within the
Town Code other than Chapter 280."
2
"The easement is covered by Chapter 25 as cited in the deed of
development rights which is now Chapter 70..."
The letter of determination and these statements raise multiple issues now unfortunately
before your Board:
MEMORANDUM REGARDING THE LAND PRESERVATION
COMMITTEE'S REVIEW OF THE NFVS APPLICATION
The Land Preservation Committee ("LPC") serves a vital legal function as the steward of
the Town of Southold's Development Rights Easement("DRE") program—an
instrument of perpetual land use restriction designed to preserve farmland for bona fide
agricultural production and land preservation. Funded through public expenditure and
administered under statutory authority, these easements form a binding covenant that runs
with the land and must be interpreted and enforced in accordance with the law in effect at
the time of execution.
In the matter concerning the application of North Fork Vinicultural Services LLC
("NFVS"), serious legal deficiencies are apparent in both the process and substance of the
LPC's review. These deficiencies require correction to ensure compliance with the Town
Code, the controlling DRE, and the Committee's public trust obligations.
I. THE LPC'S STATUTORY AND FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS
The LPC is charged with ensuring that any proposed use or development on protected
farmland complies with the express limitations set forth in the applicable deed of
development rights and related provisions of the Southold Town Code. The DRE at issue
was executed under Chapter 25 of the Town Code as it existed in 1999. Accordingly, any
determination of compliance must be based on the statutory and regulatory definitions,
legislative intent, and legal standards in effect at that time. Any reliance by the LPC on
Chapter 70 of the current Code constitutes legal error, as subsequent recodification does
not alter vested property rights or legal restrictions previously established.
The LPL's authority is not discretionary—it is fiduciary. The Committee is the sole
municipal body specifically tasked with upholding the terms of the easement. This
authority includes the duty to independently assess whether proposed uses are consistent
with the purposes of farmland preservation, as well as to investigate potential violations
or abuses of the easement's terms.
II. THE LPC'S DUTY TO CONSIDER ALL RELEVANT AND
GUIDING FACTORS
The Land Preservation Committee ("LPC") serves a quasi-adjudicative role in
determining whether proposed uses on preserved farmland comply with the restrictions
imposed by the Town's Development Rights Easement("DRE") program. This role
3
requires the LPC to deliberate on all material facts and applicable legal standards,
especially those present at the time of the easement's execution.
Under New York law,municipal bodies making land-use determinations must avoid
arbitrary or capricious decisions and instead show that all relevant and guiding factors
have been considered. See Matter of Pell v. Bd. of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222 (1974). For the
LPC, this includes:
• The original statutory framework (in this case, Chapter 25 of the 1999 Town
Code);
• The express language of the deed of easement;
• The actual and intended use of the proposed structure;
• Any relevant findings or interpretations by other Town entities, including the
2017 Zoning Board of Appeals determination; and
• Any allegations or evidence of easement violations, past or present.
In this application, the LPC failed to investigate or address key facts—specifically, that
the barn would store equipment used in the off-site, for-profit operation of NFVS, which
manages over 200 acres of vineyards not subject to any preservation easement. This off-
site use directly contradicts the easement's definition of"Agricultural Production" as it
stood in 1999.
The LPC cannot substitute current Code provisions (e.g., Chapter 70) for the legal
standards in effect when the DRE was executed. Doing so constitutes legal error.
Moreover, the LPC must act as a protector of the public interest, not an advocate for
applicants. The failure to question the applicant's intended use, despite a well-
documented history of similar concerns, undermines the LPL's credibility and its duty to
uphold the integrity of the Town's farmland preservation program.
In sum,the LPC must apply the correct legal standard, deliberate on all relevant facts,
and preserve its impartiality in fulfilling its role as steward of public trust.
III. FAILURE TO APPLY THE CORRECT LEGAL STANDARD
Testimony from the LPC's Coordinator during the public review process reflects, as in its
draft determination letter part of this file, a misapplication of law. The assertion that"the
easement is covered by Chapter 25 as cited in the deed of development rights, which is
now Chapter 70," conflates two separate legal frameworks. The Town Code, as
recodified, does not retroactively amend the terms of executed easements. Any
interpretation of the easement must be rooted in the 1999 version of Chapter 25—its
definitions, intent, and restrictions.
The applicable definition of"Agricultural Production" in 1999 clearly excluded uses
related to processing or retail merchandising, as well as uses for servicing off-site
commercial agricultural properties. The language of the easement restricts use to on-site
4
agricultural production, as a limited accessory use in a residential zone where barns are
not otherwise permitted. No provision authorizes the construction or use of a barn for the
storage of equipment intended for use on other off-site properties. Therefore, use of the
proposed barn to support off-site vineyard maintenance--covering over 200 acres—
constitutes a commercial use not permitted under the easement.
IV. FAILURE TO CONSIDER MATERIAL FACTS AND
ADMINISTRATIVE PRECEDENT
Equally troubling is the LPC's posture as if their determination can only consider what is
stated within the four corners of the current application. The LPC so failed to incorporate
or even reference the factual findings of the Southold Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA")
in its 2017 interpretation of the Code with respect to the same applicant and materially
identical facts. The ZBA stated,
"The Board f nds that since, in its application to the Planning Board, NFVS states that
the purpose of the proposed barn is to store equipment that is used in a commercial
business that maintains other people's vineyards, the use as proposed is not an allowed
use in the AC Zoning District pursuant to Section 280-13(A)(2) of the Town Code. "
While the LPC may not be bound by the ZBA's jurisdiction over Chapter 280, it is bound
to consider the factual record developed by the Town's zoning authority. The LPC had an
obligation to inquire into the nature of NFVS's business—specifically whether the
proposed structure would facilitate off-site commercial operations. That such inquiry was
absent from the LPL's review process constitutes a failure of due diligence and renders
the resulting compliance determination arbitrary and capricious.
V. DISREGARD OF THE NATURE OF APPLICANT'S BUSINESS
The LPC also ignored the fundamental nature of the Applicant's operations. North Fork
Vinicultural Services LLC (NFVS), as its name and business model indicate, is not a
traditional agricultural producer, but a commercial service provider. It maintains over 200
acres of vineyards—not on the subject property, but across various off-site locations. The
bam, as proposed, is intended to house equipment used for this off-site commercial
enterprise. Such use is plainly inconsistent with the definition of agricultural production
under the 1999 Code and is not permissible on preserved land.
VI. FAILURE TO ADDRESS POTENTIAL EASEMENT VIOLATIONS
Concerns regarding off-site commercial use of preserved land were raised in 2016 and
2017 in connection with earlier iterations of this application. These concerns were not
addressed in the LPC's most recent review. Furthermore, the LPC failed to make any
findings concerning the proposed barn's function, its potential to serve non-agricultural
operations, or whether the applicant's intended use constitutes a material breach of the
easement. The LPL's omission of this analysis is a breach of its fiduciary duty to protect
taxpayer investments in farmland preservation.
5
VII. LACK OF ANALYTICAL RIGOR
The LPC's written comments and its Coordinator's comments and determinations are
wholly conclusory. There is no indication that any specific factual review or analysis was
conducted. No effort appears to have been made to assess how the proposed barn aligns
(or fails to align)with the specific use restrictions imposed by the'easement.
VIII. FAILURE OF PROCEDURAL OVERSIGHT
While the efforts of volunteer LPC members are appreciated, the Coordinator holds a
paid, professional position and is responsible for ensuring procedural and legal integrity.
The misapplication of the law and failure to guide the committee through a fact-based,
statute-driven review reflect a failure of administrative duty.
IX. INTERDEPARTMENTAL CONFUSION AND LACK OF
ACCOUNTABILITY
The LPC Coordinator's vague and erroneous statements about jurisdiction between the
LPC and the ZBA only highlight the Town's broader failure to ensure consistency and
accountability in its land use review procedures. The suggestion that LPC is somehow
bound or excused from thorough review because of jurisdictional boundaries is both
legally incorrect and administratively negligent.
X: IMPROPRIETY OF THE APPEARANCE OF ADVOCACY BY THE
REVIEW BODY
While the LPC is comprised of mostly volunteer members whose service is appreciated
and respected, the integrity of the process demands that the Committee maintain
impartiality and avoid the appearance of advocacy on behalf of applicants. The record in
this matter reflects a posture more consistent with promoting or defending the project
than with scrutinizing applications and performing an objective review. Such a stance is
incompatible with the LPC's statutory mission and undermines public confidence in the
administration of the Town's preservation program.
CONCLUSION
The LPC's determination of compliance is legally deficient and should be set aside. The
Committee failed to apply the correct legal standard, did not consider controlling facts or
prior administrative precedent, and abdicated its duty to rigorously assess potential
violations of the DRE. The LPC's role as steward of the public trust and the Town's
farmland preservation program requires strict adherence to the law and a fact-based,
impartial review process.
6
In light of the foregoing,this application should be remanded for further review
consistent with the 1999 Code,the recorded easement, and applicable legal standards.
Again, my client fully supports the continued success of agricultural operations on the
neighboring property but respectfully urges that the easement's restrictions be honored in
accordance with the original intent of the Zelinsky family as so clearly set forth in the
Deed of Development rights.
Thank you for your consideration please include this letter in the official record.
Respectfully, - ,
Joan H. Bischoff van Flcernskcrck,Attorney at law
7
___-~_ �
W40�
� ������ ISLAND
» -�—
m����na�� ��mm����`� ��
PINE� � �� � �� J� � � � �� �
x���nvn^ u- n � ~"
� �� �� � � �� ��
°� �� �� � m� � �
SOUTHOLD TOWN
Protecting Land & Water PLANNING BOARD
Mr.James Rich III.Chairman
Town ofGoutkoidPLanningBoard
Town ofGouthoid
5437s Main Rd.
P.O.Box 1179
Southold, NY11971
June 2.uU25
Re:NFVS Holdings LLC.AQriouLtuxoi Barn(SCTM#1OOO'4'O1)
Dear Chairman Rich and Members of the PLanningBoard:
The Long Island Pine Barrens Society opposes the project site plan cited above in its present form and submits the
following comments regarding the updated site pLan application(2024)by property owner NFVS Holdings,LLC,located at
1O5OAk/aha Lane,CutohoQuo.
Note that the Long Island Pine Barrens Society submitted comments on November 17,2016 re:the originaL site plan
appUoadon. In that correspondence,we pointed out that there is no dispute that the development rights to this parcel
were sold to the Town of Southold in1889 and that itionot germane that they were sold to the town bya previous owner,
However,there io Little clarity auto the proposed usage of the structure. Permissible agriouLtura\use ia Limited;it does not
incLude general storage or"warehousing"for offsite business,as was cited in our 2016 letter.
We recommend that the Planning Board determine how this application is materiaLLy different from the original
application that was denied,incLuding the explicit uses for the proposed barn at this time.In addition,we recommend that
comments from the pubiioinciuding size,views and setbacks boconsidered.
Finally,we remain concerned that a precedent wouLd be set,if the barn usage is not clearly defined and pubLic concerns
were ignored. Southold's Purchase of Development Rights program continues to enjoy an exceLLent reputation for
protection offarmiund.fertile soils and rural tradition. Unconditional approval of the application under review would
pormanontLy undermine this noble program.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
�l
NinaLoonhurdh
Acting Executive Director
Long|oiand Pine Barrens Society
zo42w Country Road,Suite |o3'waum»River,w, 11792 1 631'369'3300 1 /nfo@pmeux,rensum | pmeoa,ren,.ocV
Sv b�
Devin & Ed Lynch "' cc—9-O
WUR
555 Alvah's Lane JUN 0 3 2025
Cutchogue, NY 11935
SOUTNGf.D TOWN
May 28, 2025
To: Town Planning Board of Southold
Re: Opposition to the Site Plan Application by North Fork Viticultural Services (NFVS) at
1350 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue
Dear Members of the Town Planning Board,
We are writing to respectfully oppose the current application by North Fork Viticultural Services
(NFVS)to construct a 7,000-square-foot, 35-foot-high "agricultural" storage facility on protected
farmland at 1350 Alvah's Lane in Cutchogue.
We recently moved to our home on Alvah's Lane with the intention of raising a family in a
peaceful, rural environment. Our street is home to several young families, and the safety of
children playing outdoors is a shared concern. The introduction of regular commercial vehicle
traffic—particularly large trucks—presents a serious safety risk on a quiet, residential road not
designed for heavy use.
In addition to safety concerns, frequent use of local roads by overweight commercial vehicles
can cause long-term damage to pavement and roadside infrastructure. This creates a financial
burden for the town and diminishes the rural character that Alvah's Lane is known for.
This proposal represents a dramatic shift in land use, inconsistent with the stated intent of
preserving agricultural and residential integrity. The scale and industrial appearance of the
building are incompatible with the surrounding area, and it is unclear how the structure relates
proportionally to the actual needs of farming activity on this parcel.
We urge the Planning Board to consider the broader and long-term impacts this development
would have on the families who live here, the condition of our infrastructure, and the
preservation of one of the most scenic stretches of the North Fork.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Devin & Ed Lynch
T, L3( �C
Date• 6/2/25 11'`
From: Nancy Sawastynowicz LPLANINM
(�25
To: Town of Southold Planning Board HOLDTOWN
BOARD
World War I was just starting when my grandfather Paul
Koloski was 17 years old and he walked from Poland to Hamburg
Germany and from Hamburg he took a ship to America. Grandpa found
work as a farmer and saved enough money to buy a farm on Alvahs
Lane in Cutchogue.That was almost 100 years ago. I grew up on
that farm surrounded by family and friends.
In 1999 my family sold the development rights to the
taxpayers of Southold town. The Town promised to limit use of the
land to farming.
I think North Fork Viticultural Services is using the farm
to store tractors and other kinds of equipment and supplies to
use for managing hundreds of acres. In my opinion, the deed of
development rights is already being violated.
About eight years ago NFVS wanted a permit to build an
enormous building to use as a base of operations. Now NFVS wants
a permit to build an even bigger building. I don't understand why
NFVS would need the same size building to farm the 22 acre farm
on Alvahs Lane as it said was needed to farm hundreds of acres.
The new proposal would have 5 garage doors on one side and would
not have a single human sized door. I never saw a barn that looks
like that.
If NFVS is already operating in violation of the land use
restrictions the Town should stop it, not give it permission to
build an industrial garage.
Eight years ago, NFVS told the town what it planned to put
in the building and the town said no. This time NFVS is not even
telling the Town what it plans to put in the building. Please do
not approve this Site Plan. Your approval would be a precedent
for other farmers to buy land at lower cost because Development
Rights were sold and use that land for industrial agriculture.
When my relatives sold the Development Rights, they knew
they could have got more money by selling to developers. The farm
meant more to them than just money. Now it is up to you to do the
right thing and follow the law and deny the site plan.
The name Cutchogue means Broad-Field in the Indian language.
Please keep it that way. "M, ,., ,� .. 01-S
O
F
O i'BALL
AWAW
SHOW DOGS'
TEAM SCORES BIG DAY
43 RUNS W
SEE
SEE SPORTSQ COMMUNITY
VOL.CXLII No.38 SERVING THE NORTH FORK SINCE 1857 THURSDAY,JULY 2, 1998 $1•00
N Alt Is
0
� �� �,� „ ,
Uot '�� +car r
i„ 1;
tCLIPM
w &�
Town has
preserved a
clan's heritage
By Unda Crawford
r
CUTCHOGUE—Paul Kaloski's
1
r aai rorrv, If
b it
journey began in the first decade of 1 ji
this century when he set off on foot 1 ta�
from Poland, bound for Hamburg, "'` ' ." "�
Germany,and a ship that would bring � ° �r
him to America. With the century �u�r;a, U %s %. ®.f"A ,�� , ,
drawing to a close, his journey came r,� t,
full circle last week with the assurance
that the farmland he had acquired and „ `n '�✓ - "��
worked devotedly on Alvah's Lane � �
will be preserved for centuries to '
come. 411
k,
Mr.Kaloski,who died'in 1977,was-
n't there to witness passage of a law
purchasing development rights to the ��
farm, nor was his wife, Sophie, from
whose estate
i Southold Town ,,m. r
vn
y
bought them
But from the
back of Town"
i
Mall auditorium.
as the Town y
'i 1G Board's ",,ayes"
the issued from N
dais, a number � a
of the couple's children and grandchil-
dren applauded. N F
The town may have saved parcels
i
that
farm,wore tth t had grander
larger �,
property g � 1
historic reverberations. It's certainly
celebrated the rescue of open space,
one of its most endangered species,
with greater fanfare. But the Kaloski � l ;
family members present were the
human face of the farmland — bred
r ,
on it,shaped by it,reflecting it—and ✓�" �,
seldom had an act of land preserva-
tion seemed more intimate.
"It's hard to separate the farm and ,� t
the family," Jim Mulhall, husband of
des-
ignated family spokesman, told the ° �� � ' „ .� �,w, ,..n a � t�"0 ev J '
Dorothy,a Kaloski daughter,and des- �
r Mmaram�
board last week. "It's like an enclave The Kaloakl clan down on the farm.From left:(front row)Estelle O'Connell, Frances Zellnskl, Irene Sawastynowita,
Helen "Cookie" Loth, Dorothy Mulhall, (back row) Mike Kaloski and his son, Paul. Not pictured: brother Chester.
See Kaloskl, page 41 Seated:Chelsea.
Kaloskil...
►From page 1
there [on Alvahs Lane,where many ,
still live], and its been continuously
farmed by all these members of the
family at one time or another." ,
"They're just tremendous, dedi-
cated farmers," Alex Hargrave, a
near-neighbor, said of the Kaloskis ;
this week. He and his wife, Louisa,
have known the family since the
Hargraves arrived in Cutchogue 25
years ago.The farms eastern border
and what is now the western edge of
the Hargrave vineyard don't quite
converge, "but we see each other's
fields," he observed, noting that the
16-acre property between .them is
likely slated for preservation as well.
But they're far more than hard-
working figures glimpsed at a dis-
tance,he made clear."They were es-
sential to getting us on our feet here
when we started out."And the fami-
ly's choice about preserving the farm
obviously pleased Mr. Hargrave, suno&ThTm pWo by Judy Ahrens
paticularly, he said, as the youngest Mike Kaloakl and son Paul on their
family members backed it as strongly Alvah's Lane farrm
as those who'd spent decades on the
land, have been built by Alvah Tuthill,giv-
To see the farm change, Dorothy ing the lane its name—was"the only
Mulhall said after last week's Town house on a hill in Southold Town,"
Board action, -would be like cutting Frances noted last week.
part of[the family]away,There's such "My father took a mortgage with,I
an emotional attachment to it, espe- think, somebody who was a relative
cially for those still looking at it every and had a duck farm in Center
day,and farming it." Moriches,"she recalled,"and we'd go
Mike Kaloski, who's 80 now, has there with him in the Model-T when
been, after his father, "the leading he went to pay it." Sometimes, the
farmer on the estate,"as Jim Mulhall mortgage money came "from sand
put it, and Mikes son, Paul, is now [my father]sold from our property to
second in command.But during their the people building[Route 25]."
childhoods, all seven of Sophie and Then, as now, the farm produced
Paul Kaloski% children — Chester, primarily potatoes,beans,sprouts and
Mike, Irene„ Frances, Dorothy, Es- cauliflower.And the potatoes remain
telle and Cookie—worked on their the most vivid in Frances% memory.
parents'land. "My father would give a quota, so
Building heritage many bushels," she said, "and those
g a g had to be picked before you could do
There were 60 acres, which Paul anything else."
Kaloski acquired in the following And afterward? "Are you kid-
manner.After arriving in this country, ding?"she answered,with a favorite
he did farm work in the Olen Cove preface. "I'd go caddy at the North
area before making his way to the Fork Country Club, from the time I
North Fork. He worked for other was 8 or 9.A lot of us did that.And
farmers here as well,saved his money that money I could keep and put in
and bought,first,the farmland on the the bank.Some families were so poor
west side of Alvah%, then the piece the kids couldn't keep it.But we could
that lies to the east. Altogether, the always save that money ourselves."
farm fronts on 2,350 feet of the lane. What she liked most about working
Before becoming a landowner,how- on the farm, she remembered, was
ever, Paul met and married Sophie. "the fresh air and the exercise."What
Also born in Poland,she'd followed she liked least was the dust that some-
her sister,Connie,to America and to times rose from the ground,covering,
Cutchogue,the fast of their family to penetrating everything.
settle in a new land. One of the
Kaloskis'daughters,Frances Zelinski, A forever farm
said her parents were married in 1914, A few of Paul and Sophie%children
the year World War 1 began. have left the North Fork and lived
And Frances,Dorothy insisted,was elsewhere for various periods of time,
the one to ask about family history, Frances was away for just a few years.
But before begging gaff in her sisters But all of them eventually came back
favor,Dorothy imparted an arresting home, and when they did, the farm
glimpse back„ Their father was "the was here, as it always had been. To
last man to have a milking cow on the know that won't change"makes us so
North Fork," she said, and she's happy," she said. "We're so glad to
always believed that"he started to go know that the farm%not going to be
downhill after the cow died," He'd covered by houses and crowded with
already seen the-entire world trans- people.We see all these developments
formed during his lifetime, and the around,what they look like"
cow's death,she speculated,may have Southold paid$500,000 for 55 of the
seemed a portent of further,and even farms 60 acres, a price reflecting its
more unwelcome,changes ahead. value for development, according to
Paul and Sophie bought the Alvah's Dick Ryan, chairman of the town's
Lane property from the Simchicks on land preservation committee.But the
Jan.5,1926.The homestead standing sale price could never reflect all that
on it — which Frances thinks may was saved last week.
t a
WORM
Mon, Jun 2, 2025, 12:51 PM
IN 1350 Alvahs Ln., Cutchogue LC [ � IC�C
JUN 0 2 2025
submitted are: sOUTHOLD TOWN
PLAN04G BOARD
1. (4) videos from May 17, 2025-- Video 1: documenting the loading of a palette of materials at
1350 Alvahs Ln. onto a pickup truck (with NY plate NFVS-BIZ) then its delivery and unloading to
another farm located at the intersection of Marratooka Lane and Route 25. then Videos 2,3&4
documents the return trip made back to 1350 Alvahs another pallet is loaded onto the same
truck and a second delivery is made to the same location.
2. A continuous video of activities on 1350 Alvahs from 5/24-6/1 (ov\ so
V VA
"AAJ::,v�j
let Outlook for 0.13
� 1 �
PETITION to oppose the Proposed Site Plan for 1350 ALvahs
Lane, Cutchogue (SCTM# 1000-102-4-6.1) M 1 RE�I M D V_7 ERMP)
SOUTHOLD TOWN
L_ PLANNING BOAND _J
We the undersigned, hereby petition Southold Town Planning board to reject the pending site plan
application.
Southold Town owns a Development Rights Easement on the property that is supposed to Limit the use
to agriculture. Contrary to the applicant's claims,the proposed building is designed and intended to be
used for the staging and distribution of commercial activities and storage of its equipment for off-site
viticuLtural services, not for agricultural storage for its own farmland as is allowed.
'J
The proposed location would destroy the view that the development rights were purchased to
protect.
The proposed size is too big for a property without development rights.
The proposed 7000-square-foot and 35-foot-high building on AlLvahs Lane is too massive would be
out of character&scale and have a destructive impact on the neighborhood.
............................ .............. ................... ..........
Print name Address.. Contact info Signature
.......... ............. ......
ZZ
(All CCA� t1% (OA
..................... ................ ..........
.................... ........... ....... ..........
A46i>
................................... ........... ........
Ile,
x,klat
........... ......................... ........ ... ......
Ka
.......... .......... .................. ...... .........
F5 5 M vaw to-A-e- � 51 L,, 4o�o 416:5
................. .............
PETITION to oppose the Proposed i e Plan for 1350 Alvahs
Matte, Cutchogue (SCTM# 1000-102 - . )
We the undersigned, hereby petition Southold Town Planning board to reject the pending site plan
application.
Southold Town owns a Development Rights Easement on the property that is supposed to limit the use
to agriculture. Contrary to the applicant's claims,the proposed building is designed and intended to be
used for the staging and distribution of commercial activities and storage of its equipment for off-site
viticultural services, not for agricultural storage for its own farmland as is allowed.
The proposed location would destroy the view that the development rights were purchased to
protect.
The proposed size is too big for a property without development rights.
The proposed 7000-square-foot and 35-foot-high building on Alvahs Lane is too massive would be
out of character&scale and have a destructive impact on the neighborhood.
Print name Address Contact info _www.e_.. _... Signature
-" 1 A, mow._
A v f�
d
'4
1 Awl,
l ckne
ok�k ql�y �o12,5Sfob
5
PETITION to oppose the Proposed Site Plan for 1350 ALvahs
Lane, Cutchogue (SCT M# 1000-102- -5.1)
We the undersigned, hereby petition Southold Town Planning board to reject the pending site plan
application.
Southold Town owns a Development Rights Easement on the property that is supposed to limit the use
to agriculture. Contrary to the applicant's claims,the proposed building is designed and intended to be
used for the staging and distribution of commercial activities and storage of its equipment for off-site
viticultural services, not for agricultural storage for its own farmland as is allowed.
The proposed location would destroy the view that the development rights were purchased to
protect.
The proposed size is too big for a property without development rights.
The proposed 7000-square-foot and 35-foot-high building on Alvahs Lane is too massive would be
out of character&scale and have a destructive impact on the neighborhood.
Print name Address Contact info Signature
mess LO g rrla1 l. co r►m
Ich Litt rrnclvec
MckU er 7hVC.. V 23 'BOV@7VVL9.4
�... ...................
eCA, SU_-0-nSC+_1 3�s AkVCths DC_a:�C- S1 WnSc{)
Lcc�n g rViat I. C cry
_.......... _wwww
�Vt� ��5 ►hv�r a.�S ��-c�v,c+-� .eP . St..,�c�n•
S ao ✓ S�,giut: S naussoge do e.cpM
� ss� YrDA/4 totvro-,Sejaj
w,, v C"va k- `yl Q ,�,
PETITION to oppose the Proposed Site Ilan for 1350 ALvahs
Lane, Cutchogue (SCT # 1000-102- - .1)
We the undersigned, hereby petition Southold Town Planning board to reject the pending site plan
application.
Southold Town owns a Development Rights Easement on the property that is supposed to limit the use
to agriculture. Contrary to the applicant's claims,the proposed building is designed and intended to be
used for the staging and distribution of commercial activities and storage of its equipment for off-site
viticultural services, not for agricultural storage for its own farmland as is allowed.
The proposed location would destroy the view that the development rights were purchased to
protect.
The proposed size is too big for a property without development rights.
The proposed 7000-square-foot and 35-foot-high building on Alvahs Lane is too massive would be
out of character&scale and have a destructive impact on the neighborhood.
Print name Address Contact info Signature
vv,
�
P
�a
Nf,
1'0A l ire
PETITION to oppose the Proposed Site Flan for 1350 ALvahs
Lane, Cutchogue (SCTM# 1000-102-4-6.1)
We the undersigned, hereby petition Southold Town Planning board to reject the pending site plan
application.
Southold Town owns a Development Rights Easement on the property that is supposed to Limit the use
to agriculture. Contrary to the applicant's claims,the proposed building is designed and intended to be
used for the staging and distribution of commercial activities and storage of its equipment for off-site
viticuLturat services, not for agricultural storage for its own farmland as is allowed.
The proposed location would destroy the view that the development rights were purchased to
protect.
The proposed size is too big for a property without development rights.
The proposed 7000-square-foot and 35-f oot-high building on Aivahs Lane is too massive would be
out of character&scale and have a destructive impact on the neighborhood.
............................ .........—11,11,111,111,1111,................
Print name Address Contact info Signature
---- —-------- ..............-- ...............................
9
.............I..........
............................ 0 C C_c, 5 q-7
.............. ...................... _...... ................. ................... .............................
LA -4-141 4-7�'S
...............---------------------..... ............................
.............. ..................... .............------------------
-1
............... ................... ........
--—----------—- .......
............ .......... .....---------_.___..._._.____....................................
.................. .....................................
PETITION to oppose the Proposed sed Site Man for 1350 Alvahs
Caine, Cutchog e (CTM# 1 -1 - -6.1)
We the undersigned, hereby petition Southold Town Planning board to reject the pending site plan
application.
Southold Town owns a Development Rights Easement on the property that is supposed to limit the use
to agriculture. Contrary to the applicant's claims,the proposed building is designed and intended to be
used for the staging and distribution of commercial activities and storage of its equipment for off-site
viticultural services, not for agricultural storage for its own farmland as is allowed.
The proposed location would destroy the view that the development rights were purchased to
protect.
The proposed size is too big for a property without development rights.
The proposed 7000-square-foot and 35-foot-high building on Alvahs Lane is too massive would be
out of character&scale and have a destructive impact on the neighborhood.
Print name Address Contact info Signature
PfmmASA AVF
41"
�r�e v� F®o 1�
µ� /0
.__...........
PETITION to oppose the Proposed site Plan for 1350 Alvahs
Lane) C tci ogee (sCTM# ° 000-102- -6.1)
We the undersigned, herebypetition Southold Town Planning board to reject the pending site plan
application.
Southold Town owns a Development Rights Easement on the property that is supposed to limit the use
to agriculture. Contrary to the applicant's claims, the proposed building is designed and intended to be
used for the staging and distribution of commercial activities and storage of its equipment for off-site
viticultural services, not for agricultural storage for its own farmland as is allowed.
The proposed location would destroy the view that the development rights were purchased to
protect.
The proposed size is too big for a property without development rights.
The proposed 7000-square-foot and 35-foot-high building on Alvahs Lane is too massive would be
out of character&scale and have a destructive impact on the neighborhood.
Print name � Address _ Contact info Signature
2,� } U 9 vt bv u s V
U �iM�Lt—; '&1r(,iC-"I 1.
V 2 ►it 1.1 C V'r„L I{
0n0v �C2 no�LQS �d� �i r41 2� �vnrz l,�00 (�f
cvfcub / 0YIN35
rr r
sv 6�,
June 1, 2025 8r HL f MTj 136 M6
Southold Town Planning Department, SOUTHOLD TOWN
L MM BOARD
Jim Rich III, chairperson,
Donal Wilcenski, Pierce Rafferty, Mia Jealous-Dank, Martin Sidor
Town Supervisor Albert Krupski Jr., and town attorney Paul DeCance
Re. 1350 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue, NY(SCTM 102-4-6.1)
Concerning the application by NVFS for an Industrial Garage on preserved land
By way of introduction, my name is Cliff Batuello. My wife Regan and I live at 1825 Alvah's
Lane, directly across the road from 1350.We have lived here since 1999.We purchased the
original Kaloski home and the 23 acres across the road at that time, knowing the acreage
was now protected and was intended for agricultural use exclusively. Subsequent to
purchase, I spent 18 months preparing about 15 acres of the land and then planted (over
two seasons) 11 acres of grapes.We farmed that land for seven years, then sold it.
We raised our two sons here on Alvah's Lane and treasured the opportunity to live on this
road. I'm sure you've heard from many people over the years that Alvah's Lane is one of the
real gems here for its beauty, its character, and the people who live here. Lately,we've been
gladdened to see lots of new folks move in with small children, playing and cycling on the
road. As Diane Crosser mentioned in her own letter,this is very much a little community
that has a long connection, in many ways directly through the many homes here that were
populated with the Kaloski clan, a true farm family, living and working here since the
1890's.
As a young boy, I grew up in what is now called Silicon Valley. My family was there since
1920, and for decades it was a beautiful valley with a thriving farm economy-almost
exclusively. My memories of that area are nothing more than that, memories. But I've taken
great consolation and not a little bit of pride in how the leaders of the North Fork worked
diligently to manage growth in a healthy manner, and protect as much as possible the
historic character of our hometown.
I write now with great concern over the development of said farmland in a way very different
than it was originally intended.As others have stated,a"barn"is certainly within the
guidelines for this property but an industrial garage of the size and dimensions so proposed
is clearly not.A cursory look at the diagrams make it seem rather benign, but noting the
measurements, well that's something else. Isn't it?This garage would be over 40 yards
long. Almost half a football field in length for reference.And though it's described as
"single-story"it is, in truth planned to be 35 feet in height!
The town file for this project is quite thick, I see, 177 pages at present.And a lot of the filing
is a reiteration of the original application from 2017 that was denied by Southold Town.
Rather than being a slimmed down proposal though,this new industrial garage is proposed
to be even bigger and grander than the original. HOW is that possible?The entire pitch for
this enterprise was voted down eight years ago and so it seemed settled.What has
changed since then?Was the town actually looking for a building that would be even bigger
than the original?That seems to be the only alteration.
And, truly, it isn't just the look of this garage that I find unsettling,though losing our local
charm would be a real shame, and wasn't that a part of the original mission of the land
preservation program on the East End? Keeping farm families on the farm and preserving
our historical beauty the best we can? It's also interesting that the garage is positioned at
the front of the property,for all to see, while the large area at the northwestern part of
acreage (next to the Ackerman home)would be left wild and, let's say it, more attractive.
My own concerns are also of a more practical nature.We see a lot more traffic on this road
with each year. Nothing for it, really. But how can we as a community allow even our back
roads to grow ever more busy with trucks, machinery, and traffic to the point that our local
children could be put in harm's way. Not hyperbole, but a real possibility.
Finally, another consideration is what might happen with permission granted for said
industrial garage. If, in the ensuing year or two, it becomes clear that the uses at 1350
Alvah's Lane are contrary to the very binding restrictions of Preserved Ag Land,will
complaints, filings, and redress make for an even more expensive endeavor both for Mr.
Ackerman AND Southold Town. Please consider that as well.
There is nothing personal here I might add. Nothing ad hominum from me as I bear no
grudge or ill will for Bill. But this is about our community.And very much about the spirit
and the LAW of preserved Ag Land in Southold Town.
Thankyou,
Cliff Batuello
631-734-2901
Sv
PL31 HL MT, 13C/mc
rO U FOR
THE May 29, 2025 JU 025
SOUTHOLD TOWN
Chairman James Rich III & pLAtaretrro Boakt
East End Members of the Planning Board
Town of Southold
P.O. Box 1179
Robert S.DeLuca Southold,NY 11971
PRESIDENT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS Re: NFVS Holdings LLC, Agricultural Barn (SCTM# 1000-4-6.1)
Katherine Leahy Birch Dear Chairman Rich and Members of the Planning Board,
CHAIR
On behalf of Group for the East End, please accept the following comments
William Hyall regarding the updated site plan application 2024 b roe owner NFVS
VICE CHAIR g g P p pP ( ) y property tty
Holdings, LLC, located at 1350 Alvahs Lane, Cutchogue.
Susan Abdalla
Kimberly Allan For the record, Group for the East End submitted comments (November 18, 2016,
Lou Bevilacqua attached) on the original site plan application. At that time, there was much debate
W.Marco Birch regarding the intended use of the structure and whether it was considered a permitted
Kristen Briner use on the property.
Andrew Goldstein
Stuart Goode Review of the file makes it clear that similar concerns have been brought to the
Nestor Gounaris attention of the Planning Board regarding size, location, and its impacts on the
John F.Shea viewshed, and whether the structure will be used solely for"agricultural purposes"
Kimberly Smith Spacek
Marisa van Bokoce on the subject lot and NOT utilized as a storage building for a larger agricultural
operation taking place offsite.
Mary walker
Donna Winston
Please review the Zoning Board of Appeals (#7037) Determination (May 4, 2017)
that ruled,
P.O.Box 1792
Southold, NY 11971 "The Board finds that since, in its application to the Planning Board, NFVS states
P.O.Box 569 that the purpose of the proposed barn is to stone equipment that is used in a
Bridgehampton,NY 11932 commercial business that maintains other people's vineyards, the use as proposed is
631.765.6450 not an allowed use in the AC zoning district pursuant to Section 280-13 (A)(2) of the
GroupfortheEastEnd.org Town Code. "
It was clear in the original site plan application that the applicant had intended to
utilize the storage structure for purposes not permitted, and this was noted by the
ZBA in its decision.
"Mr.Ackerman stated that the equipment stored at the property would only be used
for the subject property, and equipment used to manage other vineyards would be
stored elsewhere. This corres.ondence is contrary to the application to the Planni1W
0ocr�aac�"t�r.� ^fr��c°k�^r°�rzcrn;� testtrnon and rrther°���r•itt��r�c�orrc�,�pc>nzle�rcc� a,��n#ell
At this time, Group for the East End recommends the following:
1) Please make every effort to determine how this application is materially
different from the original filed,and for which the ZBA ruled was not
permitted. If the Planning Board is inclined to approve the site plan,
please explicitly prohibit the applicant from utilizing the proposed barn
for all uses not allowed within the zoning district as a statement in the
final approval.
2) Please consider all comments from the public,as they appear in the file,
regarding the protection of the viewshed on Alvah's Lane and the most
appropriate setbacks.
Thank you for taking the time to consider our comments. Please contact me should
you have any comments or questions. I can be reached at ienn(Wthea rota—or
g.
Sincerely,
Jenn Hartnagel
Director of Conservation Advocacy
Bischoff Law Pzo
Joan@jbischofflaw.cam
(631)948-0234
t ATTORNEY AT AT L A W 0 7160 Hortons Lane
Southold NY11971
Southold, June 1, 2025
s,,b-P
To: P 31 t.,.. I- i t•-tT # 13C,me
Chairperson and Members of the Planning Board
1219C�CEC1 y7ME D
Town of Southold JUN 0 2 2025
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971 SOUTHOLD TOWN
PLANNING BOARD
Re: Objection to Proposed Agricultural Building at 1350 Alvah's Lane,
Cutchogue (North Fork Viticultural Services)
Dear Chairperson Rich and Members of the Planning Board:
I represent Alexander Porter Compagno, the owner of property located at 1100 Alvah's
Lane in Cutchogue, which is directly impacted by the proposed construction of a 7,000
sq. ft. agricultural structure at 1350 Alvah's Lane in Cutchogue (the "Property") as
proposed by North Fork Viticultural Services LLC ("NFVS").
I respectfully submit this formal objection to this application based on the following
grounds:
1. Precedent.
On June 6, 2017, the Southold Town Planning Board denied the Site Plan application for
the Ackerman Agricultural Barn referenced above, including the Site Plan entitled
"Ackermann Property"prepared by Jeffrey T. Butler, P.E., dated July 12, 2016, because
the proposed use was not an allowed use or accessory use pursuant to Section 280-13
(A)(2)of the Town Code of the Town of Southold.
The basis of that denial was that on May 8, 2017, the Zoning Board of Appeals issued a
Code Interpretation for File No. 7037, stating:
"The use as proposed by North Fork Viticultural Services (yVFYS) to erect a barn for the
storage of equipment used in a business wherein NFVS manages vineyards unrelated to
1
the agricultural operation on the subject property is not an allowed use or accessory use,
pursuant to Section 280-13(A)(2) gflhe Town Code of the Town of Southold. "
In the 2016 application involving an 8,162 sq. ft. structure on the same property, the
Planning Board denied the request on the grounds that the proposed equipment storage
did not qualify as a permitted agricultural use, since the equipment was used for
vineyards not operated on the subject premises.
A. The 2016 proposal.
A letter submitted separately by my client, a licensed architect,provides a detailed
comparison of the 2016 and current applications and demonstrates—through supporting
documentation—that they are substantially the same. This letter also detail aspects of the
application which are incomplete and insufficient for any proper Planning Board
determination.
The basis for denial in 2017 was clear: the proposed barn was to be used for storing
equipment in connection with NFVS's commercial vineyard management business,
which services properties other than the subject site. This use was found not to be
permitted under the Town Code.
While both Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals recognized in 2017 that the
property is subject to a strict development easement (a copy of the deed of easement
("DDE" or"Easement") is hereto attached), the decision to deny the application was
based on the application of the Town Code in 2017, not the Easement.
Under the Town Code in 2017, "the proposed use was not allowed in the AC zoning
district under Section 280- 13 of the Town Code on the grounds that although Section
280- 13 does allow barns and storage buildings, they are listed under the umbrella of an
agricultural use on the property." '-
B. The current proposal is functionally identical. Approval would effectively
constitute a reversal of the ZBA's legal interpretation without any new facts
or procedural authority.
The current proposal, submitted by Mr. Rigas for 1350 Alvah's Lane, involves the
construction of a 7,000-square-foot agricultural building. In the "Request for
Architectural Structure Placement on Land Subject to Town Development Rights
See ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS,TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND
DETERMINATION, MEETING OF MAY 4,2017, FILE No. 1073,CODE INTERPRETATION:"Therefore
the Board is without jurisdiction to make a determination as to whether or not the proposed use
meets the definition of Agricultural Production" under a chapter within the Town Code other than
Chapter 280."
tdem, Description of Public Hearing,quoting Ahigail Wickham, Esq.
2
Easement" submitted to the Department of Land Preservation, the stated purpose is:
"Barn.for Storage of Feed and Equipment,for Vineyard and Cattle Pasture. "
Before, during, and after the Public hearing for the current application, the Planning
Board received significant testimony and written comments raising concerns about its
use, particularly:
• Whether the use is permitted on land encumbered by a development rights
easement;
• Whether the statements in Mr. Rigas's application and correspondence accurately
reflect the intended use;
• And whether a 7,000 sq. ft. barn is appropriately sized and sited for the stated
agricultural operations on a small residential country road—for an 8-9-acre
vineyard and small herd (20 or so) of cattle.
These concerns echo those raised in 2017 and suggest that the true purpose of the barn
may again be to support Mr. Ackerman's business, North Fork Viticultural Services LLC,
which undisputedly continues to manage hundreds of acres of vineyards across the East
End.
The ZBA's 2017 decision directly addressed this issue
"As staled above, in one of his correspondence, Mr. Ackerman stated that
the equipment stored at the property would only be used for the subject
property and equipment used to manage other vineyards would be stored
elsewhere. This correspondence is contrary to the application to the
Planning Board, and to Mr. Ackerman's testimony,and other written
correspondence as well as the representative of',,VFVS who testified at the
public hearing. Although the Board questions the veracity of the
statement by jUr.Ackerman, it is ultimately irrelevant to the Board's
decision because the question before the Board is to decide whether the
equipment storage is an allowed use as proposed in the application to the
Planning Board... -
"The Board finds that since, in its application to the Planning Board.
NFV:S states that the purpose of the proposed barn is to store equipment
that is used in a commercial business that maintains other people's
vineyards, the use as proposed is not an allowed use in the AC Zoning
District pursuant to Section 280-13(A)(2) of the Town Code. -
The central question remains unchanged: Is the barn intended to support off-site
commercial vineyard management? if so, the use is not permitted. The record before the
Planning Board strongly suggests that this is, again, the applicant's intent.
Additionally, there is evidence of a pattern and history of improper current use of the
property in violation of Town Code and the Easement. At the public hearing, testimony
3
indicated that multiple employee vehicles are parked on the land—vehicles belonging to
workers whose primary duties occur off-site as part of the applicant's vineyard and farm
management business.
On Saturday, May 17, 2025, an NFVS truck was observed entering the property and
loading pallets containing large white plastic bags that had been stored on-site. These
bags were subsequently transported to a local vineyard for use elsewhere.
Such activity violates Chapter 70 of the Southold Town Code, which prohibits any use of
land subject to a DDE other than on-site agricultural production or infrastructure that
directly supports it. Use of the land as a contractor base constitutes a present violation
and raises serious concerns about the actual intended use of the proposed barn.
Given the similarities between the current proposal and the application denied in 2017,
the ZBA's prior interpretation remains controlling. If the proposed barn is intended to
support commercial operations involving off-site vineyard management, then just as
before—it is not a permitted agricultural use under Section 280-13(A)(2) of the Town
Code.
2. The Town of Southold Land Preservation Committee ("LPC")determined
improperly that the proposed use is consistent with the recorded Easement
and application of the incorrect standard constitutes legal error.
In 2017, the Planning Board denied the LIVS application without considering the
Development Rights Easement.
After the filing of the current application, the LPC erred in its decision by failing to apply
the correct definition of agricultural production as set forth in Chapter 25 of the Southold
Town Code, to be applied as in effect as of February 5, 1999. (See attached Deed of
Development Rights).
That DDE unambiguously and clearly describes the intent of the grantor of the DDE
(emphasis added):
"...restrict the use of the premises exclusively for agricultural
production as that term is presently defined in Chapter 25 of
the Town Code of the Town of Southold, and the right to
prohibit or restrict the use of the premises for any purpose other
than its present state of use, agricultural production."
The DDE then further clarifies the definition of the restriction:
" Agricultural Production- shall mean the production for
commercial purposes of crops, livestock, and livestock
products, but not land or portions thereof used for processing or
retail merchandising of such crops, livestock, or livestock
4
products. Land used in "agricultural production" shall also
include fences, equipment storage buildings, livestock barns,
irrigation systems, and any other structures used exclusively for
agricultural purposes."
In its determination letter, the LPC misapplied the applicable standard by incorrectly
stating that the recorded DDE limits the use of the premises "exclusively for agricultural
production" as defined in Chapter 70 of the Town Code.
While the two standards may seem similar, this reliance on the wrong chapter represents
a fundamental legal error, as the applicable definition is expressly set forth in Chapter 25,
which governs the Town's purchase of development rights program and should have been
applied as it existed in 1999, not under current Town Code.
And any interpretation of the language of the Easement and the intent of its grantor must
be considered in 1999, not 2025 context. Since the DDE specifies "as that term is
presently defined in Chapter 25" and assuming the DDE was recorded in 1999—the
phrase "presently defined" refers to the definition of agricultural production in Chapter
25 as it existed in 1999. Courts interpreting such language look to the intent of the
grantor and grantee at the time the Easement was created. Unless the DDE explicitly
incorporates future amendments or uses language like "as may be amended from time to
time," the controlling standard is fixed at the time of execution. The proper standard for
interpreting"agricultural production" is Chapter 25 as it existed in 1999, not the 2025
version or any other part of the Town Code (such as Chapter 70).
The Committee did not consider the Easement's mandate to restrict the use of the
premises for any purpose other than its "present state of use" in 1999.
Additionally, the Committee did not consider that agricultural production must be tied to
the Premises and cannot be related to off-site (commercial) activities, as demonstrated in
the Memorandum of Law hereto attached.
The interpretation of conservation easements is guided by the intent of the parties as
expressed in the language of the easement itself. In the case of Orange County Land
Trust, Inc. v. Tamira Amelia Farm, LL, the court held that a conservation easement
should be interpreted to give effect to the intent of the parties as expressed by the
language employed (Orange County Land Trust, Inc. v. Taira Amelia Farm, LLC, 141
A.D.3d 632 (2016). This principle is consistent with the general rule for interpreting
conveyances of real property under New York Real Property Law § 240, which states
that every instrument creating an interest in real property must be construed according to
the intent of the parties, as far as such intent can be gathered from the whole instrument
(McKinney's Real Property Law § 240).
The Committee also failed to consider the relevant precedent set by the Zoning Board of
Appeals in 2017. Although the 2016 application similarly claimed that the bam would be
used exclusively for on-site agricultural purposes, the Zoning Board determined
5
otherwise. It found that using the barn to store equipment for a commercial business
engaged in managing third-party vineyards is not a permitted use in the AC Zoning
District, pursuant to Section 280-13(A)(2) of the Town Code.
Responsibility for enforcing development rights easements in Southold—such as the one
placed on 1350 Alvah's Lane in 1999—rests primarily with the Town's Land
Preservation Department. This department oversees compliance with the terms of the
Town's purchased development rights program, which covers over 2,000 acres across
more than 100 parcels.
The Land Preservation Department conducts regular monitoring to ensure that land use
remains consistent with the permitted agricultural or conservation purposes outlined in
each easement. Where a potential violation—such as unauthorized commercial activity or
construction—is identified, the Department may coordinate with the Town's Code
Enforcement Division, under the supervision of the Town Attorney, to investigate and
take appropriate enforcement action.
Given the 2017 Zoning Board decision and public testimony from neighbors and
descendants of the family that originally sold the development rights—raising concerns
about possible easement violations—the Committee had ample reason to inquire further.
At minimum, these concerns warranted careful scrutiny and monitoring of the actual use
of the land, particularly in comparison to the stated use in the application. Has the
Committee taken account of any of the alleged Easement violations brought up during
Public Hearings in 2017, repeated now in 2025, and followed up on any of these
allegations'?
Oversized Barns and Presumed Intent
Given these concerns, the Committee now must also evaluate the proportionality to the
farming operations on the actual land subject to the Easement, size, scope, and location of
the proposed building, as these factors are highly relevant to assessing its likely actual
future use and compliance with the Easement.
If the bam's scale and specifications exceed what is necessary for the level of agricultural
production on-site: this discrepancy raises a red flag, especially if there is a history of
attempting to use the site for a non-agricultural contracting business.
Even if not mentioned in the application, the intent behind the structure matters. The LPC
can and must use its discretion and available evidence to assess whether the structure is
functionally and reasonably related to on-site agriculture, and whether it appears to be a
pretext for prohibited activity.
As during the public hearing process the Planning Board became aware of evidence
indicating existing non-agricultural uses on the property, as well as credible doubts
regarding the applicant's stated use of the proposed barn—similar to concerns raised in
6
2017—the application must be referred back to this Committee for a more thorough and
diligent review.
If the Planning Board previously denied an application due to commercial use, or there is
evidence or patterns of non-agricultural use, the Land Preservation Committee can and
should consider it when deciding whether the new application is a disguised attempt to
gain approval for a non-agricultural structure.
This is consistent with the LPL's duty to prevent circumvention of the easement terms
and to protect the public investment in preserving farmland for agricultural purposes.
It is well established that Case law and policy in New York support Municipal discretion
in land use oversight, especially when preserving public investments in farmland
protection. A town board or committee may rely on "substantial evidence" including past
applications, prior violations, or context clues (e.g., an oversized building) when making
its decision.
If the Committee approved the barn based on today's Chapter 70's broader definition and
interpretation, it may have exceeded its authority by misapplying the deed. This could
provide grounds for Administrative appeal; Declaratory judgment action; Possibly even
Article 78 review, arguing the decision was arbitrary and capricious or based on an error
of law.
3. Improper Use of SEQRA Type II Categorical Exemption
The Planning Department has classified this project as a Type II action under 6 NYCRR
§617.5(c)(2), claiming it constitutes a routine agricultural activity. However, SEQRA's
Type II exemption only applies to:
"Agricultural farm management practices, including construction...of farm
buildings...consistent with generally accepted principles of farming."
This building is not for agricultural production on the parcel itself. It is intended to store
equipment used for NFVS's management of over 20 other properties, which is a
commercial service, not an on-site agricultural activity. As such, it fails to meet the
threshold for a Type 11 exemption, and a full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) and
coordinated review should be required.
4. Inconsistency with the Southold Town Code
Per the Southold Town Code (§275-2 and zoning regulations for A-C districts),
"agricultural production" is defined as activities directly tied to on-site farming. Storage
structures must be used in support of production on the parcel to qualify as permitted
accessory uses.
7
.... �..... .._..,.
NFVS's proposed use does not satisfy this definition. Instead, the building would function
as a centralized equipment depot for off-site commercial operations, which is not allowed
under current zoning. In fact, this Board previously referred an almost identical case to
the Zoning Board of Appeals in 2017.
5. Potential Violation of Development Rights Easement
This parcel is subject to an agricultural conservation easement under the Town's
Farmland Preservation Program. Such deeds strictly limit permissible uses to those
directly related to on-site agricultural production.
Letters and testimony during the Public Hearing for this application indicated there is
evidence of non-agricultural use already occurring
If the structure is to serve off-site farming operations, it violates the terms of the
easement. We urge the Planning Board to refer the matter to the Land Preservation
Committee and possible code enforcement action before taking any action.
Concluding, I respectfully request that the Planning Board:
1. Apply 2017 precedent to deny this almost identical application and preserve the
integrity of the Development Easement program in the Town of Southold;
or alternatively:
2. Refer the application back to the land Preservations Committee for a more thorough
and diligent review;
3. Refer the application back for a full SEQRA Type 1 review including full review of
impact on the character of the neighborhood;
4. Refer any decision until an opinion is obtained from the Town Attorney and/or ZBA
on the applicability of zoning definitions;
5. Refer the application to the Land Preservation Committee to evaluate consistency with
deed restrictions and alleged pattern and history of use violations;
6. Deny the application as inconsistent with SEQRA, local zoning, and applicable
easement terms;
I have submitted an attached legal memorandum to address the misconception that any
bona fide agricultural use of the proposed barn is automatically permissible. The
memorandum also emphasizes that the terms of the easement must be strictly interpreted
8
and enforced in accordance with their original intent. I also attach a copy of the deed of
development rights.
My client fully supports the continued success of agricultural operations on the
neighboring property but respectfully urges that the easement's restrictions be honored in
accordance with the original intent of the Zelinsky family as so clearly set forth in the
Deed of Development rights.
Thank you for your consideration. Please include this letter in the official record.
Respectfully,
Joan H. Bischoff van Heemskerck, Attorney at law
9
PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
— ----- --------- —X
RE: APPLICATION BY Memorandum of Law
North Fork Viticultural Services LLC
For an Agricultural Barn
At 1350 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue,
SCTM 1000-102.4-6.1
--_____---_. ____----- —X
MEMORANDUM F LAW
A Barn is not per-se allowed on land subject to a development rights easement even if it is
used for bona fide agricultural purposes as defined in law.
A. NEW YORK AG AND MARKETS LAW DOES NOT OVERRIDE A
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS EASEMENT.
New York Agriculture and Markets Law does not override the language of a conservation
easement in a deed of conservation on 1350 Alvah's Lane in Cutchogue, NY. Conservation
easements are governed by specific statutes and regulations that ensure their enforcement and
modification are strictly controlled.
Conservation easements in New York are defined as interests in real property and are governed
by the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL). According to ECL § 49-0305, a conservation
easement is an interest in real property that is perpetual unless otherwise stated in the instrument
creating it ( e w„Gw u�:ctr .1„ �"05). The statute also specifies that conservation easements
can only be modified or extinguished pursuant to the provisions of ECL § 49-0307, and any such
modification must comply with the requirements for recording a conveyance of real
�,�r5 : � µu �m� y,;�n��o� v)[1]. This means that the terms of a
property (` i�, r rr5�� n ��III �. �` L
conservation easement are binding and cannot be overridden by other laws unless explicitly
stated.
The interpretation of conservation easements is guided by the intent of the parties as expressed in
the language of the easement itself. In the case of ')larj4If mnr �.:w5 �: rub RM,._� Gw5mr n_
the court held that a conservation easement should be
interpreted to give effect to the intent of the parties as expressed by the language
_........_..w. _ _ . )'d
�employed �r�rw��iw�_ r' �.��til��� r, �:r��l ��n:.r.�..�u�����_rr�,��sra °�K�:� 1:�� � ��e::�r. r_r..��. 14tl A,.•�) ......
1,20a °r)op n i,an n, pndm,0[2'1w This principle is consistent with the general rule for interpreting
i
conveyances of real property under New York Real Property Law § 240, which states that every
instrument creating an interest in real property must be construed according to the intent of the
parties, as far as such intent can be gathered from the whole instrument (\1cJ,Jnnev'S Rea�
While New York Agriculture and Markets Law supports agricultural activities, it does not
override conservation easements. For instance, McKinlie�EL'tJ. 1 '303 o1 ens a new
window allows agricultural activities on lands encumbered by conservation easements, provided
such activities do not impair drinking water and comply with an agricultural environmental
management program plan higey's [�Cl__1 .),5 13( 3oot nis i ne'A, �Jndo%�)[4]. This indicates
that while agricultural activities are permitted, they must still comply with the terms of the
conservation easement.
Conservation easements are enforceable by their grantor, holder, or any public body or not-for-
profit conservation organization designated in the easement as having a third-party enforcement
right()JcK_km y'i FIC] S 4903'0_;). The enforcement of a conservation easement cannot be
defeated by general laws unless such laws expressly state the intent to defeat the enforcement of
� 3 the easement (M, I`inney's 49:005). This reinforces the binding nature of conservation
I)L__.........---—--------easements and the limited circumstances under which they can be modified or extinguished.
In conclusion,New York Agriculture and Markets Law does not override the language of a
conservation easement in a deed of conservation. Conservation easements are interpreted based
on the intent of the parties as expressed in the easement, and their enforcement and modification
are strictly governed by specific statutes and regulations.
B. THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD DOES NOT
OVERRIDE THE LANGUAGE OF A CONSERVATION EASEMENT
IN A DEED OF CONSERVATION ON 1350 ALVAH'S LANE IN
CUTCHOGUE, NY.
Conservation easements are legally binding agreements that restrict the use of land to protect its
conservation values. These easements are typically perpetual and can only be modified or
extinguished under specific conditions outlined in the Environmental Conservation Law(ECL) §
49-0305 and § 49-0307 (Argyle Farm and Properties, LLC v. Watershed Agricultural Council,
135 A.D.3d 1262 (2016)).
The ECL specifies that conservation easements are distinct from traditional common law
easements and are not subject to many of the defenses that would defeat a common-law
easement(Argyle Farm and Properties, LLC v. Watershed Agricultural Council, 135 A.D.3d
1262 (2016))[1]. Furthermore, conservation easements must be recorded and indexed in the
county where the land is situated, and they are enforceable against the owner of the burdened
property (McKinney's ECL § 49-0305).
The Town of Southold, like other municipalities, has the authority to adopt local laws and
regulations that govern land use within its jurisdiction. However,these local codes do not have
the power to override the specific terms of a conservation easement that has been legally
recorded and is in compliance with state law. Conservation easements are designed to be
ii
enforceable regardless of subsequent local regulations unless those regulations explicitly state an
intent to defeat the enforcement of such easements (McKinney's ECL § 49-0305).
Several cases illustrate the precedence of conservation easements over local regulations. In
Stonegate Family Holdings, Inc. v. Revolutionary Trails, Inc., the court emphasized that
conservation easements provide a perpetual right in the property and are equivalent to a transfer
of a freehold estate in the land (Stonegate Family Holdings, Inc. v. Revolutionary Trails, Inc., 73
A.D.3d 1257 (2010)). Similarly, in Argyle Farm and Properties, LLC v. Watershed Agricultural
Council,the court affirmed that conservation easements are distinct from common law
easements and are protected from many defenses that would otherwise apply(Argyle Farm and
Properties, LLC v. Watershed Agricultural Council, 135 A.D.3d 1262 (2016)). Additionally, in
Friends of Shawangunks, Inc. v. Knowlton,the court ruled that a conservation easement is not an
"applicable requirement"within the meaning of Town Law § 281(b), indicating that local zoning
and planning requirements do not override conservation easements (Friends of Shawangunks,
Inc. v. Knowlton, 64 N.Y.2d 387 (1985)).
The interpretation of conservation easements should give effect to the intent of the parties as
expressed by the language employed in the easement document(Orange County Land Trust,
Inc. v. Tamira Amelia Farm, LLC, 141 A.D.3d 632 (2016)). This principle ensures that the
specific terms and conditions agreed upon in the conservation easement are upheld, regardless of
subsequent local regulations or changes in municipal codes.
In conclusion, the Town of Southold's local code does not have the authority to override the
language of a conservation easement in a deed of conservation on 1350 Alvah's Lane in
Cutchogue,NY. Conservation easements are protected under state law and are enforceable
against the property owner, ensuring that the conservation values of the land are preserved as
intended by the easement agreement(McKinney's ECL § 49-0305).
C. UNDER NEW YORK STATE LAW, INCLUDING AGRICULTURE
AND MARKETS LAW, A BARN BUILT ON LAND SUBJECT TO AN
EASEMENT RESTRICTING ITS USE TO "AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTION" CANNOT BE USED FOR STORING FARM
EQUIPMENT INTENDED FOR USE IN OFF-SITE OPERATIONS,
SUCH AS 20 LARGE VINEYARDS ELSEWHERE ON THE NORTH
FORK . THE STORAGE STRUCTURES MUST BE USED IN
SUPPORT OF PRODUCTION ON THE PARCEL TO QUALIFY AS
PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES.
New York Agriculture and Markets Law § 301(4) defines "land used in agricultural production"
as land used for the production for sale of crops, livestock, or livestock products, and explicitly
excludes land or portions thereof used for processing or retail merchandising of such crops,
livestock, or livestock products (McKinney's Agriculture and Markets Law § 301). This
definition emphasizes that the land must be used directly for agricultural production activities
on-site.
According to New York Agriculture and Markets Law § 301(11), a"farm operation" includes
land and on-farm buildings, equipment, and practices contributing to the production, preparation,
iii
and marketing of crops, livestock, and livestock products as a commercial enterprise
(McKinney's Agriculture and Markets Law § 301). This definition implies that the activities
must be directly tied to the on-site farming operations and not to off-site activities.
In Ecker v. Dayton,the court held that farm stands selling products grown on-site are considered
accessory uses customarily incidental to the main use of the land as a farm (Ecker v. Dayton, 234
A.D.2d 584 (1996)). However, the sale of products brought from other farms constitutes
commercial activity inconsistent with residential areas (Ecker v. Dayton, 234 A.D.2d 584
(1996)). This principle can be extended to the storage of farm equipment intended for off-site
use, which would not be considered an accessory use supporting on-site agricultural production.
In Rivendell Winery, LLC v. Donovan,the court upheld the denial of an application to operate a
farm winery in an agricultural zone, emphasizing that land used for processing or retail
merchandising of crops does not qualify for agricultural exemption (Rivendell Winery, LLC v.
Donovan, 74 A.D.3d 1594 (2010))[3]. Similarly, in Town of Lysander v. Hafner, the court
recognized that farm residential buildings are protected as part of"farm operations" under
Agriculture and Markets Law, but the focus remains on activities directly contributing to on-site
agricultural production (Town of Lysander v. Hafner, 96 N.Y.2d 558 (2001)).
Based on the definitions and case law, the barn on land subject to an easement for"Agricultural
Production" must be used for activities directly tied to on-site farming. Storing farm equipment
intended for use in off-site operations does not qualify as a permitted accessory use under New
York State law, including the Agriculture and Markets Law. The storage structures must support
production on the parcel to comply with the legal requirements (Rivendell Winery, LLC v.
Donovan, 74 A.D.3d 1594 (2010)).
D. THE LAND PRESERVATION COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF
SOITHOLD NY CAN CONSIDER A PREVIOUS DENIAL BY THE
SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD AND EVIDENCE OF USE
FOR A COMMERCIAL OFF-SITE CONTRACTING USE NOT
ALLOWED ON THE LAND, DURING ITS APPROVAL OF A BARN
OT BE BUILT ON LAND SUBJECT TO A DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS EASEMENT, EVEN IF NOT MENTIONED IN THE
CURRENT APPLICATION.
The Land Preservation Committee of the Town of Southold,NY can consider a previous denial
by the Southold Town Planning and evidence of use for a commercial contracting off-site use not
allowed on the land during its approval of a barn to be built on land subject to a development
rights easement, even if not mentioned in the current application.
The Land Preservation Committee has broad discretion in reviewing applications and can
consider various factors, including previous decisions by the Southold Town Planning Board. In
Kempisty v. Town of Geddes, the court upheld the planning board's discretion to require the
inclusion of developed property in an amended application for site plan review of adjacent
undeveloped property, even though legal nonconforming uses were permitted to continue
iv
without site plan review(Kempisty v. Town of Geddes, 93 A.D.3d 1167 (2012)). This indicates
that previous decisions and the context of the property can be relevant in current applications.
Evidence of use for a commercial contracting off-site use not allowed on the land can also be
considered. In Town of Ithaca v. Hull, the court held that testimony by a predecessor in interest
that a barn had been used for commercial storage prior to a residential zoning ordinance
established that the use of the premises as a preexisting nonconforming use was created prior to
the ordinance (Town of Ithaca v. Hull, 174 A.D.2d 911 (1991)). This precedent supports the
consideration of historical use and its compliance with zoning regulations.
The construction of a barn on land subject to a development rights easement must comply with
the terms of the easement. In Orange County Land Trust, Inc.v. Tamira Amelia Farm, LLC, the
court found that the construction of a barn did not violate the conservation easement because it
was consistent with the easement's agricultural purpose and requirements (Orange County Land
Trust, Inc.v. Tamira Amelia Farm, LLC, 141 A.D.3d 632 (2016)). This case demonstrates that
the committee must ensure that any proposed construction aligns with the easement's
stipulations.
The committee's review process is discretionary and can include considerations beyond the
current application. In Bower Associates v. Town of Pleasant Valley, the court emphasized that
the denial of an application does not implicate a protectable property interest if the governmental
authority has the discretion to grant or deny the application (Bower Associates v. Town of
Pleasant Valley, 304 A.D.2d 259 (2003)).
This supports the committee's ability to consider a wide range of factors, including previous
denials and evidence of nonconforming use. In summary, the Land Preservation Committee of
the Town of Southold,NY can consider previous denials by the Southold Town Planning and
evidence of commercial use not allowed on the land during its approval process for a barn, even
if these factors are not mentioned in the current application ( Kempisty v. Town of Geddes, 93
A.D.3d 1167 (2012)).
BISCHOFF LAW PLLC
JOAN H. BISCHOFF VAN HEEMSKERCK,
ATTORNEY AT LAW
7160 HORTONS LANE
SOUTHOLD NY 11971
TEL: 631-948-0234
JOAN@JBISCHOFFLAW.COM
v
� Np.
'�T ..... 1
cT
DEED OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
THIS INDENTURE, made this 5th day of February , 1999
BETWEEN Frances Zelinski As Executrix of the Estate of Sophie I aloski (3: L1CA
deceased, residing at 695 Alvahs Lane, Cutchogue, New York party of the
first part, —* 1514 P 'q�St)
AND the TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, a municipal corporation having its office
and principal place of business at Main Road, Town of Southold, County of
Suffolk and State of New York, party of the second part;
WITNESSETH, that the party of the first part, in consideration of Five
Hundred Seventeen Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Five Dollars and No Cents
($517,275.00) lawful money of the United States and other good and valuable
consideration paid by the party of the second part,
DOES HEREBY GRANT AND RELEASE unto the party of the second
part, its successors and assigns forever, THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, by
which is meant:
the permanent legal interest and right, as authorized by section 247 of
the New York State General Municipal Law, as amended, to permit,
require or restrict the use of the premises exclusively for agricultural
production as that term is presently defined in Chapter 25 of the Town
Code of the Town of Southold, and the right to prohibit or restrict the use
of the premises for any purpose other than its present state of use,
agricultural production.
to the property described as follows:
ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in
the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, bounded and
described as follows:
AoA zwrr4b,�D -4-b 6g�i 44- sotme-
i'p tx 1410q , cob
Pile No. 70983209
SCHEDULE A
s
PARCEL Y
AL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land,situate, lying and being of Cutchogue, in the Town of Southold,County of
SUFFOLK and State of New York:
BEGINNING at a point on the southeasterly side of land now or formerly of Droscosld, Cassidy and Vallenti;
RUNNING THENCE along the westerly side of Alvah's Lane south 47 degrees 02 minutes 58 seconds East, 1824.66
tCCtr
RUNNING THENCE south 08 degrees 37 minutes 27 seconds East,204.21 feet,
RUNNING THENCE south 44 degrees 45 minutes 21 seconds West,217.35 feet;
cy��3 /
RUNNING THENCE north A�B'degrees�minutes.2T seconds East,410.61 feet;
RUNNING THENCE south.VdegreesW minutes 4+seconds last, 91.24 feet;
RUNNING THENCE south 43 degrees 22 minutes 39 seconds Fast, 226.65 feet to land now or formerly of Doris Tynlec
and Michael Capuano;
RUNNING THENCE along said lands south 44 degrees 45 minutes 21 seconds West, 82.73 feet;
RUNNING THENCE along said lands and lands now or formerly Eugenia B. Kopustka south 40 degrees 54 minutes 10
seconds East 271.50 feet to lands now or formerly of Petrol Stations Limited;
RUNNING THENCE along said lands south 47 degrees 48 minutes 31 seconds West, 360.84 feet to lands now or
formerly of Gristina Vineyard's,LLC;
RUNNING THENCE along said lands three(3) courses and distances:
(1) North 45 degrees 23 minutes 17 seconds West, 888.23 feet;
(2) North 44 degrees 41 minutes 37 seconds Wait,836.26 feet;
(3) North 47 degrees 00 minut67 seconds West,506.88 feet to lands now or formerly of
Paulette Satur Mueller, Eberhard Mueller and the County of Suffolk;
RUNNING.THENCE along said lands now or formerly the following two (2) courses and distances;
(1) North 43 degrees 25 minutes 20 seconds East, 329.27 feet;
(2) North 42 degrees 24 minutes 08 seconds West, 452,86 feet to laud now or formerly
Droscoski, Cassidy and Vell nt first above mentioned;
RUNNING THENCE along lands" brth 32 degrees 41 minutes 54 seconds East, 343.75 feet to the westerly side of
Alvah's Lane at the point or place of BEGINNING.
Date Printed February 5, 1999
1-LB. 5.19'3y lef;WPM NO.810 P.4/5
a File No. 70983209
PARCEL II
• ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land situate, lying, and being at Cutchogue in the Town of Southold, County of
Suffolk and State of New York:
BEGINNING at a point on the easterly side of Alvah's Lane distant northerly 1175 feet more or less as measured along
same from the Intersection of the easterly side of Alvah's Lane with the northerly side of plain Road; said point also
being the northerly line of land now or formerly of Chester and Irene 5awastynowirz;
RUNNING THENCE along the easterly side of Alvah's Lane the following two (2) courses and distances:
(1) North 41degrees 27 minutes 14 seconds West, 820.63 feet;
52
(2) North 47 degrees 02 minutes 58 seconds 4.25 feet to land now or formerly Edward R,
Grohoski;
l 05
RUNNING THENCE`north 43 degrees.Orminutes 13 seconds East, 150,00 feat;
RUNNING THENCE'north 47 degrees 02 minutes 58 seconds West, 100.00 feet to lands now or formerly of William 1.
Kani'gan,
RUNNING THENCE along Said lands*rth 43 degrees 05 minutes 13'seconds East, 277.60 feet;
RUNNING THENCE north 47 degrees 11 minutes 27 seconds West, 236.26 feet to lands now or formerly of Franklin
Slachy and Malcolm Blachy;
RUNNING THENCE along said landsihorth 08 degrees 04 minutes 53 seconds East, 394.88 feet to lands shown on the
Map of Highland Estates, Map No. 6537;
OUNNING THE CE along said lands south 4e degrees 27 minutes 00 secorio ast, 439.27 feet to lands shown on the
*Map of Crown j nd Lane"", Map No, 6289;
RUNNING THENCE along said land "south 47 degrees 26 minutes 10 seconds East, 1415,78 feet;
RUNNING THENCE south 46 degrees 12 min 00 4*4 348.4S feet to lands now or formerly Michael R.
Crosser and Diane�ym Crosser;
RUNNING THENCE along said lands and lands now or formerly of]ernes R. Duffy and Unda A. DuffyLhry rth 43 degrees
18 minutes 10 seconds'West, 274.24 feet; -�
RUNNING THEN CI s utrr 46 degrees 44 minutes 00 sec nV"Wost,303,6O feet;
RUNNING THENCF'narth 43 degrees 18 minutes 10 seconds West, 334.04 feet;
RUNNING THENCE`siauth 49 degrees 35 minutes 50 seconds West, 200.36 feet to the easterly side of Alvah's Lane at
the polnt or place Oa SEGINNINIG.
c y"a onvencln only,if Together with all right, title and Interest of,In and to any streets and roads ded to be conveyed, { abutting the,above described premises, to the center fine thereof.
Date PrinW February 5, 1999
• TOGETHER with the non-exclusive right, if any, of the party of the first
part as to the use for ingress and egress of any streets and roads abutting the
above described premises to the center lines thereof.
TOGETHER with the appurtenances and all the estate and rights of the
party of the first part in and to said premises, insofar as the rights granted
hereunder are concerned.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said Development Rights in the premises
herein granted unto the party of the second part, its successors and assigns,
forever;
AND the party of the first part covenants that the party of the first part has
not done or suffered anything whereby the said premises have been
encumbered in any way whatever, except as aforesaid. The party of the first
part, as a covenant running with the land in perpetuity, further covenants and
agrees for the party of the first part, and the heirs, legal representatives,
successors and assigns of the party of the first part, to use the premises on and
after the date of this instrument solely for the purpose of agricultural production.
The party of the first part, as a covenant running with the land in
perpetuity, further covenants and agrees for the party of the first part, and the
heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns of the party of the first part,
that the parcels of real property described herein are open agricultural lands
actually used in bona fide agricultural production as defined in General
Municipal Law section 247.
AND the party of the first part, covenants in all aspects to comply with
Section 13 of the Lien Law, as same applies with said conveyance.
The definition of"Agricultural Production: as defined in Section 25-30 of
Chapter 25 of the Southold Town Code is as follows:
" Agricultural Production- shall mean the production for
commercial purposes of crops, livestock and livestock products, but not
AWL
land or portions thereof used for processing or retail merchandising of
such crops, livestock or livestock products. Land used in "agricultural
production" shall also include fences, equipment storage buildings,
livestock barns, irrigation systems, and any other structures used
exclusively for agricultural purposes."
THE party of the first part and the party of the second part do hereby
convenant and agree in perpetuity that either of them or their respective heirs,
successors, legal representatives or assigns, shall only use the premises on and
after this date for the purpose of such agricultural production and the grantor
covenants and agrees that the underlying fee title may not be subdivided into
AML
plots by the filing of a subdivision map pursuant to Sections 265, 276 and 277 of
the Town Law and Section 335 of the Real Property Law, or any of such sections
of the Town or Real Property Law or any laws replacing or in furtherance of
them. The underlying fee may be divided by conveyance of parts thereof to heirs
and next of kin, by will or by operation of law, or with the written recordable
consent of the Purchaser. This covenant shall run with the land in perpetuity.
Nothing contained herein shall prohibit the sale of the underlying fee or any
portion thereof.
THE word "party' shall be construed as if it reads "parties" whenever the
sense of this indenture so requires.
• THE party of the first part, the heirs, legal representatives, successors
and assigns of the party of the first part covenants and agrees that it will (a) not
generate, store or dispose of hazardous substances on the premises, nor allow
others to do so; (b) comply with all of the Environmental Laws; allow party of the
second part and its agents reasonable access to the premises for purposes of
ascertaining site conditions and for inspection of the premises for compliance
with this agreement. This covenant shall run with the land in perpetuity.
THE party of the first part, its heirs, legal representatives, successors
and assigns of the party of the first part covenants and agrees that it shall
indemnify and hold party of the second part and any of its officers, agents,
employees, and, their respective successors and assigns, harmless from and
against any and all damages, claims, losses, liabilities and expenses, including,
without limitation, responsibility for legal, consulting, engineering and other costs
and expenses which may arise out of(1) arfy inaccuracy or misrepresentation in
any representation or warranty made by seller in this agreement; (2) the breach
or non-performance of any convenants required by this agreement to be
performed by the party of the first part, either prior to or subsequent to the
closing of title herein; or (3) any action, suit, claim, or proceeding seeking money
damages, injunctive relief, remedial action, or other remedy by reason of a
violation or non-compliance with any environmental law; or the disposal,
discharge or release of solid wastes, pollutants or hazardous substances; or
exposure to any chemical substances, noises or vibrations to the extent they
arise from the ownership, operation, and/or condition of the premises prior to or
subsequent to the execution of the deed of Development Rights. This covenant
shall run with the land in perpetuity.
AS set forth in Chapter 25 of the Town Code of the Town of Southold
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS acquired by the Town pursuant to the provisions of
that chapter shall not thereafter be alienated, except upon the affirmative vote of
a majority of the Town Board after a public hearing and upon the approval of the
electors of the Town voting on a proposition submitted at a special or biennial
town election. No subsequent amendment of the provisions of this subsection
shall alter the limitations imposed upon the alienation of development rights
acquired by the Town prior to any such amendment. This covenant shall run
with the land in perpetuity.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the party of the first part has duly executed this
deed the day and year first written above.
Seller: Estate of Sophie Kaloski
By. Frances Zelinski, As Executrix
Purchaser: Town of
By:
W, ��aM �, Noah 11EPvT
� Yr SvPF�2vlso�
June 31d, 2025
Sv 6 f
Town Planning Board of Southold iiR/ L ��71 �<<�C
Southold Town Planning Department F-PLANWNG54375 NYS Route 25UN 0 025
OUTHOLD TOWN
3Gf
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re. 1350 Alvahs Lane, Cutchogue, NY(SCTM 102-4-6.1)
Concerns regarding the Site Plan application by North Fork Viticultural Services
Dear Members of the Board:
I am an architect and a resident of 1100 Alvahs Lane,where I live with my family. I'm writing
to raise concerns regarding the application submitted by NFVS Holdings LLC—a
commercial viticultural contractor—for the construction of a 7,000-square-foot storage
structure at 1350 Alvahs Lane. In particular I have concerns re.the incompleteness,
vagueness and missing information of the current drawings that do not adequately
describe the application.
In 2016-2017 this same applicant was denied permission for a building on this same
farmland due to its proposed use. Having learned from past failure,the current
application has simply tried to mask its intended use by simply not disclosing it. In
doing so, it doesn't actually contain enough information for this Board or the general public
to evaluate it properly.
Unlike some Town Committees and Departments,this Board is not limited to evaluating
only what is presented before them in an application. It is compelled to draw from all
sources of recorded testimony to the Town's Boards, both past and present,to initiate
Lines of inquiry as they see appropriate and to investigate existing patterns of use as it
pertains to an application before them. Further, any appearance of coaching of an
applicant by suggesting ways to modify their proposal to make it more"approvable"should
cease.
11PagQ
$_TE,, - The submitted site plan is incomplete.
1. Only two dimensions are provided to locate the building. This documentation is not
adequate to"lock in"the location of a building. One is from an existing 8x12 shed
(pump house)that would likely be torn down. This makes the future verification of
the building's siting impossible.
2. The orientation of the proposed building is not discernible so the impact on the
surrounding farmland cannot be evaluated. Does the proposed building's 5 large
overhead garage doors face an existing gravel parking/staging area in the
western corner of the property, or to the east out into the cattle pasture?
Close inspection of the site plan-specifically the proposed configuration of
the dry wells,the orientation of the building's label and the preservation of an
existing pump house-suggests the building is intended to open to the east. The
architectural plans do not help to clarify this as they are not directly referenced (or
"keyed")to the site plan and do not have a north arrow nor are the elevations
properly labeled N/S/E/W. These are all normal drawing conventions that are
conspicuously absent.
During the public hearing the applicant's agent contradicted what the plan
implies by stating the building would face west only confusing matters more as the
existing shed and proposed dry wells would be right in front of the garage doors
openings.
4 e
LA,NO Nrl YI: es �as Oro�a eoq, m. r°�&mmn,r
N FW"E WWt%d8OP�Pr�',
N �
9w ARD
arrENCE 4urarux [ 00
era, z' 180ItoLtl$t^kr4'NkE.ti"SF.+leSS,r wa6«
G 4 4r,'u W y ✓"v
°j4 —o_u yl ^3S M,,Ai+l,tip,.
R rn. rr
CAME PAS7URE
Y
*;
Lw,, n=
C:L. ra
lPFOCI�f.}C�%d�,'t-,LkEl..t..t7 "
1Pag (a
3. This site plan doesn't show necessary improvements (i.e.vehicular access to the
building is not shown.)that would be required to actually make a functional site
plan by any standard.
4. AREA OF DISTURBANCE-This cannot be calculated because the site plan is
incomplete and building orientation is unknown. A large gravel area is described as
"existing". Although this may be true, there is no record of this site improvement
being filed with the Town in the past. (see photos on Page 5). Proper calculation of
the Area of Disturbance should include this improvement. This clearly calls into
question the 25,000sf disturbance area that the applicant notes as a grass
un,dore.stimation,while infact far exceeding the 2016 proposal of 26,702sf.
5. LOCATION- In 2016 the ARB suggested a 100'setback for a similar building. Why
shouldn't this be considered now? The building is proposed with the minimum
front setback of 60'from the road and in a corner of the site that is very congested
and close to its neighbors. One motive for the building and staging areas being
proposed so close to Alvahs Lane is clear though: the view of the applicant(who
Lives adjacent to this land)won't be affected by his own massive building and its
ongoing commercial activities. With an "!can't see it from mybackyard"
attitude,the applicant proposes to stick the armpit of his commercial contracting
headquarters in the face of his neighbors.
Note:An application that a previous Board approved on 5455 Youngs Ave. in
2019 for a protected property, had a more appropriate 300'setback. Unlike this
NFVS proposal, the 2019 application was for a property in a much less congested
context with multiple adjacent preserved AC tracts of farmland, so that the impact
of an oversized buildingwas probably seen in the context of a very open space
around it, perhaps mitigating its impact. With its overhead power lines and
multiple street frontages,this approval was arguably more within the LWRP and
Zoning guidelines than this current NF`JS proposal. However, I recommend that this
Board visit with the public this property today to judge the impact of such
development on the scenic views,farmland and open space which were meant to
be protected.
6. SILT FENCE- This improvement is not dimensioned nor is its purpose
understandable since the topography of this area of the property is effectively flat. It
seems only a way to carve out more protected farmland for prohibited commercial
staging and outdoor storage&parking while forever destroying the scenic beauty of
the cattle pasture that runs right alongside Alvahs Lane. This smacks of a land
grab—the introduction of this element reflects no effort to minimize the impact
on the scenic land that the Town is charged to preserve.
OTHER-FEATURES REO RING COC' SWE A;" i N-These features are misleading.
ARCHITECTURAL"TYPOLOGY"-This doesn't look Like a"traditional barn"as stated by the
31Paoe
applicant on page 3 in response to Policy 3 of the LWRP. It looks like a commercial garage
with 5 oversized garage doors and lacks any of the architectural elements that are
commonly found of the traditional barns in the area.
77
_..I .I 4
f � f
I
f ,
f 4 _
..G:....,.ww,.r,. wrw,.rvaxw,..: .., w.......».„„,.:, ..:w...x....:.:..... .... .........,,.r ...:�..,.,,. ......'::.e.......t..,r....c.w...wv. .....4.,w.:,'"?...«.
PRIOPOUD FRONT ELEVATION-20,26
This is a 5-bay garage(not a"traditional barn")
SIZE-Although this appears to be a smaller proposal than its 2016 counterpart--7,OOOsf
vs. 8,162sf(7,142 w/a 1,020sf loft or"attic storage"), this is misleading. At 34-91/2"tall, this
proposal is almost 5'taller than its 2017 predecessor. Because of its additional height this
proposal contains an est. 174,000 cubic feet compared with an est. 158,000 cubic feet in
2016. This proposal is actually 10%larger by volume than the 2016 proposal.
CROSS SECTION-A 2,500 square foot loft or"attic"space is illustrated within the roof
trusses but is not labelled. In the 2016 application, a similar space was illustrated and
discussed. Simply because it is not labeled doesn't necessarily preclude discussion or
query. There are no structural notations of this attic area typically found on architectural
drawings to verify or evaluate it properly. This building appears to actually contain
9,500sf of usable floor area.
,4/ N
a iry
¢w
a 9Itjr nI.
�"aYp iwwwn
ii. r r F M1 dddaaa
x Iy.
f
w .x..e,w w::a,.:,u, mm.w,,.«wm,u,..• .a...r'......w
41 ' ; I,
USE- EXISTING ACTIVITIES- Page 2 of the SITE PLAN APPLICATION FORM does not disclose
that there is currently a non-conforming parking and staging area for the storage of NFVS
employee vehicles&materials (not related to the farming of this parcel of farmland), and a
large staging area for the loading of these materials for NFVS's off-site contracting
business. Under the current owner's stewardship,these existing improvements have been
made without application to this Board or with the prior approval they require. They are
outside the uses permitted by the easement. Not only should this activity cease and
desist,there is a clear attempt to"grandfather"this existing non-compliant area.
r
1 i 1
B
r
ALVAHS LANE in 2014
r
ALVAHS LANE in 2024,W/NVFS PARKING&STAGING AREA
5 1 P a g e
OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS-
1. TRAFFIC- Undisclosed/Unknown.
2. NOISE- Undisclosed/Unknown.
3. DUST- Undisclosed/Unknown.
4. PESTICIDES/FUEL- Undisclosed/Unknown.
ENFORCEMENT CONCERNS-Quoting from the applicant's affidavit(signed 2/28/25)"the
actual physical improvements will be installed in strict accordance with the plan as
approved by the Planning Board."
Why would the Town approve the construction of this proposal that poses a clear and
foreseeable enforcement issue in the future? It is sometimes difficult to deny an
applicant, but in this case, it's not. Having previously denied this same applicant for an
effectively identical proposal,this Board's denial of this proposal is clearly the right action
to take again. It would be far worse—for both the applicant and the Town—for this
Board to approve the construction of a buildingto serve an iLlegal ongoing use for
which its owner surreptitiously applied and was granted permission.
CONCLUSION-
Normally suggesting the applicant resubmit might be considered an option. But given the
potentially deliberate ambiguity of these current plans from an experienced and
knowledgeable applicant, I urge the Board to withhold its approval indefinitely.
Thankyou for your time and consideration regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
AYL4C
Alex Compagno, R.A.
1100 Alvahs Lane
S71 1>
HL- I'vrT i [3c,,M r-
Eff-TID
JUN 0 2 2025
Date: SOUTHOLD I Ovol 0�
PLANNNG 8 ARD
To:Town Planning Board of Southold
Re: Concerns to the site plan application by North Fork Viticultural.Services
(NFVS)at 1350 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue
Dear Chairperson and Members of the Planning Board:
I write to express my concern over the current application by North Fork Viticultural
Services(NFVS)for the construction of an"agricultural"storage building on the 22-acre
protected farmland at 1350 Alvah's Lane in Cutchogue.
The proposed 7,000-square-foot, 35'high building is very Large. It looks like a garage
(more than a barn)and doesn't appear designed for only the maintenance of this modest
piece of farmland.
ALvahs Lane is one of the prettiest on the North Fork and a proposal of this magnitude will
have a significant and irreversible impact on this beautiful place. This land must be
preserved properly.
I respectfully urge the Planning Board not to approve this application.
Sincerely,
A V
S,,-6-f-
From: Benjamin Schwartz, Esq. P 13, L4 L.1/11-1 6C M C
MIRK�Mow FOOD
To: Southold Planning Board
cc: Southold Town Attorney AM 0 2 2025
SOUTHOLD TOWN
PLANNING 130110n
May 30, 2025
At 17:58 min in the video of the Planning Board meeting on 20250505 during the Public
Hearing on the NFVS Agricultural Building a Planning Board Member stated "I move we leave
this application open for 30 days for written comment"There was a Second, but there was not a
Vote. The Motion is still pending. The letter dated 20250506 to the applicant is also
inconclusive. It states "The Public Hearing was held open for written comment for 30 days until
June 4, 2025." Nothing about closing the Public Hearing was said at the meeting.
Obviously the Hearing was recessed but was not adjourned. It is respectfully requested that a
Notice be included in the Planning Board meeting on 20250602 that the Hearing will
recommence during the July meeting.
Thanking You in Advance for your anticipated courtesy, consideration and cooperation.
x
Diane Crosser
500 Alvahs Lane, Cutchogue, New York 11935 '��
(631) 734-5868 0
dscrosserwoman@op onlinc._nef
May 28, 2025 MAY 0 20 5
SOUTHOLD TOWN
PLANNING BOARD
Southold Town Planning Board Members, iUZ,-4- (0.l
Jim Rich III, chairperson,
Donald Wilcenski, Pierce Rafferty,Amelia Jealous-Danek, Martin Sidor
Town supervisor Albert Krupski Jr., and town attorney, Paul DeCance:
I was informed of a presentation at a recent town board meeting, in which two neighbors
addressed the board, expressing concern about the proposal for construction of a barn at
1350 Alvahs Lane. I addressed the planning board at the May,,2025 meeting, and raised my
concerns and opposition to this project. I respectfully submit the following for review.
On May 4, 2017,the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals determined, "THE USE AS
PROPOSED BY NFVSTO ERECT BARN FOR THE STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT USED IN A
BUSINESS WHEREIN NFVS MANAGES VINEYARDS UNRELATED TO THE AGRICULTURAL
OPERATION ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, IS NOT AN ALLOWED USE OR ACCESSORY USE,
PURSUANT TO SECTION 280-13 (A)(2) OF THE TOWN CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD."
(please note-caps are part of this document). (attachments A, B).The applicant did not
appeal this decision.
Fast forward 2025,the applicant has submitted an application to build a barn bigger than
his first submission (2017);this is unacceptable. A farmer is certainly entitled to a barn for
agricultural use on his/her property.The objection here is that the applicant has declared
the need for his barn to house equipment for his"growing business, managing hundreds of
acres." Development rights were sold by the Kaloski family in 1999 to Southold Town.The
town has a fiduciary responsibility to tax payers to assure that this property is maintained
as stipulated by the deed, "Code of the Town of Southold and the right to prohibit or restrict
use of the premises for any purpose other than its present state of use, agricultural
production." (attachment C). Heavy machinery and equipment are moved on and off the
property throughout the day. Workers arrive between 6:50-7:10 am (I walk my dog past
there at that time);they park on the northeast side of the property. Workers tend to chores
at the 1350 property, and then drive trucks/heavy equipment heading to other locations
throughout the day,typically leaving between 8-8:30 (when I leave for work).Workers return
to 1350 Alvahs throughout the day, re-load, and head out again.This property is zoned
agricultural NOT commercial. On October 7, 2016,the planning board requested "...A list
of chemicals/herbicides/pesticides proposed to be stored in the building, and the number
of truck trips per day/week for the proposed business"(attachment D) and deliveries of
supplies: I was not able to locate in the file a response from the applicant providing same.
Prior to NFVS ownership,the property was owned by Belle River, LLC. On 3/9/15, Belle River
LLC presented a site plan for four stall horse barn. Unfortunately,the owner of Belle River
LLC passed October 5, 2015 and the proposalforthe horse barn expired at that time.
The property was then sold on 2/9/16 to NFVS LLC, owner, Bill Ackerman. Soon after the
purchase, the new owner began clearing the land, cutting trees, and erecting fences, and
trampling the property of adjacent homeowners. I arrived home from work to find
Landscape survey ties dotting my property, and neighboring properties as well(attachment
E). There were no work permits,the town planning department and the town supervisor at
the time (Scott Russell) knew nothing about this activity; no permits had been issued. I
attempted to speak to Mr.Ackerman but was quickly dismissed.
Public hearings were held and ultimately the ZBA determined that the proposed barn at
1350 Alvahs Lane to conduct business operations was not within the town code.
The size of the proposed barn was questioned multiple times. At a regular ZBA meeting on
3/2/17, Leslie Weisman, ZBA chairperson stated , "well you certainly would not need that
amount of equipment forviticulture of eight acres" (attachment F). 10/3/16, Heather
Lanza, Planning Director,when told the barn would only be used to house tractors, " Is that
the reason for the size of the building,the quantity?"attachment G). Brian Cummings of
the Planning Department and Melissa Spiro also commented on the size of a building and
questioned the need for same to manage 8 acres.At the March 2, 2017 regular meeting of
the ZBA, even the partner/agent of the applicant(Gwen Groocock) acknowledged, "Yes....I
mean I can tell you a thousand square feet is probablyway too small you know seven too
big probably. (attachment H).
In his November 4, 2016 memo to the Southold Town Planning Board, the applicant has
stated, "The equipment will be stored at Alvahs Lane regardless, as I purchased the
property to be a working farm, not as a public service to provide scenery to the neighbors.
The ongoing success of NWS ...relies very strongly on the equipment being in good working
order.'(attachment 1).A`working farm" however, is not the same as self-proclaimed
business operation on preserved farm land. No one that I am aware of, asked for scenery.
We do, however, have the expectation of compliance with laws and town code.
At the 3/2/2017 regular meeting of the ZBA, Gwen Groocock, partner/agent of the applicant
stated, " It never occurred to us that there would be a question that this is true agriculture
otherwise you know we easily could have bought one of the acreages like the two acre
piece nearby or whatever and put the barn on it if we realized that there's going to be a
question as to whether what we're doing is true agriculture or not.We certainly did not
expect this so... " (attachment J ) If the applicant did not conduct a feasibility study prior to
purchase of the property,that mistake should not be visited upon the residents of Alvahs
Lane. Deeds, codes, law cannot be circumvented simply because the buyer declares
ignorance; buyer beware.
In his 8/24/16 short environmental assessment form,the applicant states, "this is an
amendment to site plan previously approved bythe planning department:'(attachment
K).The application was disapproved by the Building Department on 6/7/25, due to no site
plan.The first planning department work session to review this matter was held on 9/12/16.
(attachment Q.At that time, Brian Cummings, planning department noted in his analysis,
"...the storage building must be an accessory to active agricultural use on site and cannot
be used for general storage or warehousing(attachment M)The first public hearing was
held on October, 2016.This application was never"approved".
The applicant has been less than transparent in his intentions for his barn and land. He
initially stated he intended to plant the remaining 14 acres of land in grapes (8 are already
planted with vines). He then stated he would plant grass on those acres. He stated he
wanted livestock; his partner then stated she was"reluctant"to get in to cattle.The
applicant stated he needed space in the barn for shelter for livestock;there is no provision
with for"shelter"on his schematic,just heavy equipment(attachment N 1,2).The
applicant provided different drawings indicating his use for the barn storage; no one know
which is the actual plan, since the last schematic does not include any equipment in the
barn and multiple different illustrations are in the file (O 1,2,3,4); No one knows which one
is correct and they are much different from what the applicant submitted initially on
2/24/16. (P 1,2). The applicant initially stated he needed a barn to, "store tractors". He
then added sprayers and"etc", without defining what is included in "etc"; he then added
heavy machinery. He requested two curb cuts, "for the ease of driving off." If you are truly
operating a farm on site, "ease of driving off"and FIVE barn doors would not be required.
The partner of the applicant stated "minor repairs"would be carried out on the property;
"minor"is not defined.There was no notice of public hearing sign posted (as per town
code) (attachment Q) prior to the May 5,2025 meeting.
The Alvahs Lane demographic is a composite of old farming families,transplants, and
weekenders. Neighbors look out for neighbors, assisting when a neighbor is not well,
chauffeuring trips to medical appointments, checking up on someone hospitalized,
celebrating a neighbor who chooses to more on, and cooking meals when needed when
someone`just can't': we are all connected.Anyone would be privileged to live on this road-
we all know it and are grateful for it.
Residents on Alvahs were pleased to see a farm, cows, livestock and a modest barn; to see
trucks load and unload throughout the day at 1350 with chemicals and supplies to be
utilized on other properties, and toxic chemicals stored on the property is unacceptable,
not in the town code, and certainly not what the Kaloski family intended in selling
development rights to Southold Town. The property was intended to be a farm not a
business and not as a depot for a business managing other business ventures.This is Satur
Farms dejavu. If the planning board does not take immediate action to stop this
application,you are potentially placing the town at risk for ongoing and expensive litigation.
You will be burdening the code enforcement officers and police department in monitoring
activity at this site- 1350 Alvahs Lane, another expense that Southold Town simply cannot
afford.This applications was DENIED in 2017. Use of preserved farmland for a business is
simply NOT AN ALLOWED USE, period.
We would appreciate your attention to this matter as this application needs careful
scrutiny and deliberation before it is fast tracked through.A neighbor has reported that she
was told by a town employee, "it is a done deal_"That cannot happen without careful
consideration to the ramifications of violatingterms of a deed and the difficulty in code
enforcement in monitoring compliance with the law. Please let me know if you have any
specific questions.Thankyou foryour time.
Diane Crosser
t BOARD M MMERS Southold Town Hall
Leslie Kanes Weisman,Chairperson , ' S� � 53095 Main Road o P.O.Box 1179
,. 4:p Southold,NY 11971-0959
Patricia Acampora Office Location;
Eric Dantes Town AnnexlFirstFloor,CapM One Bank
Gerard P.Goehringer 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Au )
Nicholas Plan to Southold,NY 11971
http://Southoldtownny.gov
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, ,
TONM OF SO OLD
Tel.(631)765-1809-Fax(631)765-9064 RECEIVED
FINDINGS,DMIKERAMNS,AND DETFIMINAT1ON dAY - 2017
ME>1TING OF MAY 4,2017
,
2BA III E; #7Code Infierpretation uthoid 1"ovtt Cheri
MM OF P ACANT: Southold Town Planning Board
PROPERTV LOCATION: 1350 Alvahs Lane,CutchogueNY SC'I'MNo. 1000-102.-4-6.1
PROPERTY FACTS/DPSCRIPTION. The subject property is a 22.8 acre parcel in the
Agricultural Conservation(AC)Zoning District that has had the development rights sold
(hereinafter"DRS land')and located on the easterly side of Alvahs Lane in Cutchogue,and
north of Main Road(NYS Route 25). Approximately 8 acres are in agricultural production as a
vineyard
BASIS OF APPLlC1 'T 1fIN:The Southold Town Planning Board has requested that the Southold
Town Zoning Board of Appeals make a deterimnation,pursuant to Article XXVL §280-146
(D)(1)of the Town Code,as to whether the use set forth in the Site Plan Application of North
Fork Viticultutral Services,LLC(hereinafter"NFVS"),is a commercial use or contractor's
yard,as opposed to an agricultural use, given that the applicant intends to build a barn that is
proposed to store agricultural equipment that is used in their local vineyard management and
consulting business.
BACKGROUND: The Board of Appeals received a memorandum dated December 2,2016
from the Chairman of the Southold Town Planning Board,on behalf of the Planning Board,
related to a pending application in which the applicant,NFVS,was seeldmg site plan approval
`Tor an 8,162 sq.ft. barn(7,142 sq.ft.footprint and 1,020 sq.ft. attic storage) proposed for
agricultural equipment storage"on property located at 1350 Alvahs Lane in Cutchogue
(hereinafter referred to as"the subject property"). The subject property is located in the AC
Zoning District which allows certain agricultural operations and related accessory uses.
Specifically, Section 280-13(A) (2)provides the following:
The following agricultural operations and accessory uses thereto,
including irrigation, provided that there shall be no storage of
manure, fertilizer or other odor- or dust producing substance or
use, except spraying and dusting to protect vegetation, within 150
feet of arty lot line:
Page-2,May 4,2017
#7617jTown of Southold Planning Board—(NFVS,LLC,aka Ackerman Barn)
SCTM No. 1000-102.4-6.1
(a) The raising of field and garden crops, vineyard and orchard
farming. the maintenance of nurseries and the seasonal sale of
products grown on the
Premises-
) The keeping, breeding raisin and training of horses, domestic
animals and fowl(except ducks)r on lots of l0 acres or more.
(c)Barns, storage buildings, greenhouses (includingplastic-
covered)and other related structures,provided that such buildings
shall conform to the yard requirements for principal buildings-
(d) The retail sale of local produce from structures of less than 20
square feet floor area shall be set back at least 10 feet from any lot
line.
Here,in its application,NFVS has stated that the proposed barn will not only be used to store
equipment used on the subject property and other land leased and farmed by NFVS,but it will
also store equipment that is used in the management of other vineyards that are not owned or
leased by NFVS.
P`RojECT DESC ION: NFVS has proposed an 8,162 sq.ft equipment storage barn(7,142
sq.ft.footprint and 1,020 sq.ft. atticstorage)on a 22.8 acre parcel of DRS land,that will store
equipment used to maintain the eight acres ofvncieyard on the subject property,to farm other
land leased by NFVS,and in NVFS' consulting business of managing other vineyards on the
North Fork of Long Island.
PUBLIC AR O BEFORE BOARD OF APPEALS- On March 2,2017, the Board
held a public hearing to take testimony and other evidence related to the Planning Board's
request for an interpretation as to whether the use as proposed by NFVS constituted a
"commercial use or contractor's yard rather than an agriculture use_"
Several members of the public appeared and testified at the hearing_Initially,neither the
principal of NFVS, William.Ackerman,nor any other representative ofNFVS were present at the
hearing,Eventually,a representative ofNFV S,Gwen Groocock,appeared and was heard_
The board received wide ranging testimony from the public.Many of those testifying owned
neighboring properties along Alvahs Lane.Much of the testimony focused on issues such as the
impact the proposed use would have on the subject property;whether such activity was allowed
on land where the development rights had been sold,the activities the property owner has
undertakers since purchasing the property and the impact on the surrounding properties;the
veracity of the statements made by Mr.Ackerman in his testimony before the Planning Board
and in correspondence,and the size of the barn and whether a barn that size is appropriate and
necessary to farm the subject property.Among those who testified was Abigail Wickham,a local
attorney who does a significant amount of zoning work within the Town of Southold. Ms.
Wickham opined that the proposed use is not allowed in the AC zoning district under Section
280=13 of the Tavern Code on the grounds that although Section 280-13 does allow barns and
� _ u
Page 3,May 4,2017
#7037 Town of Southold Planning Board-(NFVS,LLC,aka Ackerman Barn)
SCTM No. 1000-102.-4-6.1
storage buildings,they are listed under the umbrella of an agricultural use on the property. Here
the proposed use conteemplaVL storage of equipment used in a commercial enterprise to service
and support other people's vineyards.
As stated above, Gwen Groocock appeared on behalf of NFVS.Ms_Groocock stated that NFVS
intends to farm the entire parcel in that,in addition to the 8 acres in grape production,the rest of
the parcel will be used as a pasture for livestock. She went on to state that the same equipment
that is used to service other people's vineyards is also used to tend to their vineyard. Ms.
Groocock described in depth the operations of NFVS;including that they lease land where they
grow grapes,that they manage the vineyards for certain wineries and simply act as a consultant
for others. She explained the number of employees, and where the equipment is stored during
the season,among other things.
At the close of testimony,the Board left the hearing open for written comments until March 16,
2017-
VM=DOQUNIENIATION. After the hearing the Board received additional letters of
support and opposition from the public which,for the most part,mirrored the testimony given at
the public hearing.The Board also received additional written correspondence from NFVS
principal William illiam Ackerman,stating that no equipment used an its management business would
be stored in the proposed,barn.This lather is in direct conflict with M .AckermaWs previous
testimony before the Planning Board,as well as written correspondence to the Planning Board
and to this Board.Ultimately,this statement is irrelevant as to the Board's determination because
the matter before the Board is to make an interpretation as to the use as applied for to the
Planning Board.
F NDI IGS IF FAiUj�ASOl` S FOR BOA ACTION
1. The limited issue before this Board is the Planning Board's request for a determination as
to whether the use as proposed"is a commercial use or contractor's yard rather than an
agricultural use.- Sine the subject property is located in the AC zoning district,the only
issue for the Board to decide is whether the proposed use is allowed under Section 280-
13 of the Town Code as a principle or accessory use to agricultural production_
2. Much of the testimony and written comments submitted to the Board focused on whether
the proposed use was allowed pursuant to the Deed of Development'Rights which
transferred the development rights for the subject parcel to the Town of Southold. That
deed states that the only allowed use of the property is agricultural production as defined
by what was then Chapter 25 of the Town Code.The successor to Chapter 25 is Chapter
70 of the Town Code.The Board is charged with and has jurisdiction to interpret and
make determinations under Chapter 280 of the Town Code.Therefore the Board is
without jurisdiction to make a determination as to whether or not the proposed use meets
the definition of"Agricultural Production!'under a chapter within the Town Code other
than Chapter 280.
Page 4,May 4,2017
#7031 Town of Southold Planning Board—(NFVS,LLC,aka Ackerman Barn)
SCTM No. 1000-102.-".1
3. The Board received substantial testimony and written comment about the impact the
proposed use would have on the subject property and surrounding properties;whether
such activity was allowed on land where the development rights had been sold;the
veracity of the statements made by Mr.Ackerman in his testimony before the Planning
Board and in correspondence,and the size of the proposed barn and whether the proposed
8,162 sq.ft.barn is an appropriate and necessary size for the subject property. If Mr.
Ackerman was seeking a variance or a special exception permit before this Board,or a
site plan approval before the Planning Board,those issues would be relevant and
important considerations. However,they are simply not relevant to the limited issue
currently before the Board of Appeals.
4. In addition,the testimony and written comments on behalf ofNFVS is largely irrelevant.
There was much testimony regarding the farm operations on the subj ect property. Since
agricultural operations are an allowed use in the zone district in which the subject parcel
is located,the proposed uses as a vineyard and pasture for raising cattle are allowed.
However,the issue before this Board is whether the storage of equipment on the subject
property,to be used in a commercial business managing other people's vineyards, is an
allowed use and/or accessory use. As stated above,in one of his correspondence,Mr.
Ackerman stated that the equipment stored at the property would only be used for the
subject property and equipment used to manage other vineyards would be stored
elsewhere. This correspondence is contrary to the application to the Planning Board,and
to Mr.A kerman's testimony and other written correspondence as well as the
representative of NFVS who testified at the public hearing. Although the Board questions
the veracity of the statement by Mr.Ackerman,it is ultimately irrelevant to the Board's
decision because the question before the Board is to decide whether the equipment
storage is an allowed use as proposed in the application to the Planning Board.
5. As set forth above,Section 280-13 (a)(2)states that allowed uses in the AC zoning
district include:
... agricultural operations and accessory uses thereto, including
irrigation, provided that there shall be no storage of manure,
fertilizer or other odor-or dust-producing substance or use, except
spraying and dusting to protect vegetation, within 150 feet of any
lot line:
LaLThe raising offield and garden crops, vineyard and orchard
farming, the maintenance of nurseries and the seasonal sale of
products grown on the premises.
�bLThe keeping, breeding, raisin and training of horses„ domestic
animals and fowl(except duc s) on lots of 10 acres or more.
LcLBarns, storage buildings, greenhouses (includingplastic-
covered) and other related structures,provided that such buildings
shall conform to the„yard requirements for principal buildings.
Page 5,May 4,2017
#703-7 Town of Southold PIanning Board—(NFVS,LLC,a.ka Ackerman Barn)
SCTM No.1000-102.4-6.1
d�The retail sale of local produce from structures of less than 20
square feetfloor area shall be set back at least 10 feet from any lot
line.
The Board finds that the purpose of Subsection(c)is to allow barns and storage buildings
as acroso o,to allowed us in Subsection and ,oamk i the raisin o'
field and garden crop,vined and o • ar and the� x and l r
�mg an oof horses domestic animals and fowl..
6. The Board finds that since,in its application to the Planning Board,NFVS states that the
purpose of the proposed barn is to store equipment that is used in a commercial business
that maintains other people's vineyards,the use as proposed is not an allowed use in the
AC zoning district pursuant to Section 280-13 (A) (2)of the Town Code.
Section 280-146 D)(1)of the Town Code states that the Zoning Board of Appeals may determine
the meaning of any provision contained in Chapter 280 upon the request of any Town officer,
board or agency. Therefore,the Board finds that,pursuant to Section 280-146(D)(1),the Board
has jurisdiction to make the interpretation requested by the Planning Board as to whether the use
proposed by NFVS is an allowed use under Section 280-13 of the Town Code.
RES0LUnONO_FTBEBOARD: In considering all of the above factors,motion was offered
by Member Weisman(Chairperson),seconded by Member Goehringer,and duly carved to
determine that:
THE USE AS PROPOSED BY NFVS TO ERECT A BARN FOR THE STORAGE OF
EQUIPMENT USED IN A BUSINESS WHEREIN NFVS MANAGES VINEYARDS
UNRELATED TO THE AGIRCULTURAL OPERATION ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY,IS
NOT AN ALLOWED USE OR ACCESSORY USE,PURSUANT TO SECTION 280-13(A)(2)
OF THE TOWN CODE OF,THETOWN OF SOU71HOLD.
Vote of the Board. Ayes. Members Weisman (Chairperson), Dante, Goehringer and Planamento
(Member Acampora abstained). This Resolution was duly adopted(4-0)_
bib.,
Leslie lases Weisman, Chairperson
Approved for filing 1 12017
c r. a) '"'O=. p d a) �1 a) a) O
O tea, a a '� C, b ( o b d o 72 Q
. O O •.. '�0 a) O cn
a) 'd• .�C7 N� O 3�_ cE
¢ � d ova4.
ptoo a) c `°Z4r_: a)
a_ �v d• ob a)=_ 3
o � o Q Q w•-� m�d m ❑
cda) +� �• a) p— cda) 3a) cd O 'd cd m 3 G.cad
rc o75, w
fCSoo ¢H , p�" a�i� `� > a: .' a� Vp0
� `db
0 41
, O w c� H'.O' �a
E � cda) 3:v � -' '4 ci'fl Z cad
a) o^bA O '+w
r✓5'• a) 6I'� .vi H O O O
� H d
a) H H
w7 Sj � .-� h �i V �y �
04
0.
• w- O W cd -� +, COO 'd a)C"
CU
a) 41
ga)Q �
` a)��a)
�a 1 � O
a N E. +, O0 ++�a) g 0
0 r < co O� 5 O 'd� G w w o
y i t'H',�'b a m
CU cd a) )
-0 O b W W PQ Of+i ��' `t . p
Qj 11 a3� � 4o °
2 "00 441) �
H
� � a)•� o �z ¢+'d a) Cdd
0
a) m �'dr- ria0.50d
W cd d'd O
vy U c) d a)r-I ': . 'C7 } gbo
� aib O 'er O0
2 o Oda) Aa) O=4
a CL'H U m'd H .0 !3.cd U c�
0 ryr S a�i a'"i v am)c c�.0 a)•d
T1 cd 'd
bD-g ,a), o u 41 te a)
rrr
U cmd cd !�"O di 4� d �
L... ` ' a) a) a) v61i o
+s
Vf v .d A O
+1 CO cd 4_ cl,O ,
r
RP w 0u) cd � a� d �
�� as S W � o• cd
o
a 5 5-� 3 Q
H a) Q+O d )
I wr O.O —
N
4-/ ai a) r
N
u.l cd 4' a) g". a. nra a-a r ,e„w,. O w-a y
0.0 SRN q ry' U p 4) N 7 � a)}
O cJ caa p a 0.4H cct _ r� r u S
E*
O a) Q H Q d
cu
?) � . oa) . Qoo~ qj "� O -,3In d oc
�, d z o _ tz
.
� 001CO
0
� r z uu O sCL m
� r O" d a - r O c
— aaJ dW.. s'". '-� """ O ^' ,�, ay Ct,) "�,�. "'� ;.e ,r.,C -.,, O .�•C) O '✓ �° '".r' rs
.: r f.10-
DEED OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
THIS INDENTURE, made this 5th day of February, 1999
BETWEEN Frances Zelinski As Executrix of the Estate of Sophie Kaloski .L
deceased, residing at 695 Alvahs Lane, Cutchogue, New York party of the
first part,
AND the TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, a municipal corporation having its office
and principal place of business at Main Road, Town of Southold, County of
Suffolk and State of New York, party of the second part;
WITNESSETH, that the party of the first part, in consideration of Five
Hundred Seventeen Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Five Dollars and No Cents
($517,275.00) lawful money of the United States and other good and valuable
consideration paid by the party of the second part,
DOES HEREBY GRANT AND RELEASE unto the party of the second
part, its successors and assigns forever, THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, by
which is meant:
the permanent legal interest and right, as authorized by section 247 of
the New York State General Municipal Law, as amended, to permit,
require or restrict the use of the premises exclusively for agricultural
production as that term is presently defined in Chapter 25 of the Town
0
(.ode of the Taym of Southold,and the right to prohibit or r det the �
of VW grgmigge for any puMassother than its pfevent aMe of use,
�k
agriculbAal Prodolon. $
to the Q!'DpePIy desalbed as f®l1ow9:
ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of laud, situate, lying and being in
the Town of Sout1oid, Cou*of Suffoik and;state of New Yofk,bounded am r y
described as follows:
1
p� dead
a
1
Y
�v
1 Y.
P
G
x^x9
G,
Y
s
} iA
Vy'
t
V
l l
4
i C
1iII�
If
4 `
MAILING ADDRESS:
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS �� / P.O.Box 1179
DONALD J.WILCENSHI Southold,NY 11971
` Chair
OFFICE LOCATION:
WILLIAM J.CREMERS cry Town Hall Annex
PIERCE RAFFERTY r 54375 State Route 25
JAMES H.RIM III �% (cor.Main Rd. dY�Youngs Ave.)
MARTIN H.
Telephone:631 765-1938
www.southoldtownny.gov
FII NNE G BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
October 7, 2016
Mr. William Ackermann
P.O. Box 633
Laurel, NY 11948
Re: Public Hearing Held Open — Proposed Amended Site Plan for the
Ackermann Agricultural Barn
Located at 1350 Alvahs Lane, t1175' n/w/o NYS Route 25 &Alvahs Lane,
Cutchogue
SCTM#1000-1000-102-4-6.1 Zoning District: AC
Dear Mr. Ackermann:
A Public Hearing was held by the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, October
3, 2016 regarding the above-referenced Amended Site Plan.
The Public Hearing was held open.
To further help the Planning Board in their review of the application, please provide the
following:
1. A floor plan schematic showing tractors and farm implements in building as
discussed at the Public Hearing. Any space in the building not used for storage
must be appropriately labeled on the plan;
2. Detailed drawings showing second floor and/or loft and their proposed use;
3. A list a of chemicals/herbicides/pesticides proposed to be stored in the building;
4. Number of truck trips per day/week for the proposed business and deliveries of
supplies.
The next Public Meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board will be held on Monday,
November 7, 2016 at 4:30 p.m.
w 4n
Ackerrnann Aq Building Page 2 October 7, 2016
If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact this office.
Very truly yours,
4,(30S�
Donald J. Wilcenski
Chairman
March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience?
DIANE CROSSER : Good afternoon my name is Diane Crosser. My husband Michael and I have
lived on Alvahs Lane for twenty years. I guess what concerned me was about a year ago I came
home from work and staked on our property was a landscape tie not a survey tie and it came
out of nowhere so I went and pulled it out. A few minutes later Mr. Ackermann and his worker
not a surveyor came back and hammered right back in. After that moment the land was cleared
with such speed that you couldn't turn around before something else was cut down. I actually
have a video because every day he was out there when I was off from work. I actually filmed it
which was very un-nerving to him and then also took pictures of him coming out on our
property trespassing on our property and no one in the neighborhood seemed to know about it
so I introduced myself to Mr. Ackermann. I asked him if any of the neighbors were aware of
what was going on and he said yes I spoke to the neighbors. I went and spoke to the neighbors
and no one knew what was happening with the property. So I then called Town Hall and I spoke
with Brian Cummings, Tracey in the Building Department, Mr. Keily in the Town Attorney's
Office and Scott Russell and no one knew what was happening with the property. So all of that
is just a preface of what I want to say because it speaks to what I'm going to call lack of integrity
with this proposition. Zoning regulations I'm not a lawyer I'm I shouldn't be following you or
Gail Wickham I'm just a registered nurse but in trying to really research this to really
understand that agricultural conservation and light industrial use are pretty similar in their
uses. The differences are a contractor's business or yards not including not limited to building,
electrical, plumbing or landscapers are permitted only in industrial zones. They're permitted
there a barn to house tractors, sprayers for a management consulting company. Mr.
Ackermann's words not mine which requires two curb cut outs for safe tractor access from
Alvahs Lane for the management of hundreds of acres of vines that's Mr. Ackermann's site plan
that's a direct quote from that 8/24/16 that's a business. It belongs as other people have said in
an industrial zoned property not on an agricultural property. A site that's used for chemical
storage requiring for again a management company is a business. The email of the applicant
himself is Bill@NFBS.biz that's a business. On October 3rd when Heather Lanza asked the
applicant if he intended that the property was going to be used for business he didn't reply.
Again she asked him and I quote "do you intend to run the business out of the building?" His
response was "it's where I'm going to store tractors at" didn't answer the question. The
Southold Town Comprehensive Plan says generally agriculture in residences can peacefully
coexist. If the goal is to provide a balance between supporting agriculture and ensuring
neighborhoods are protected from large adverse impact then we have to look at what's
happening here. If the goal is the prevention and reduction of traffic congestion and I'm
quoting this from the Comprehensive Plan "prevention and reduction of traffic congestion and
promotes efficient and safe circulations of vehicles and pedestrians. A vine management
.6 ��
March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting
business does not belong on Alvahs Lane. Again two curb cuts, a fuel and pump station that
would most certainly have a negative impact. We all have well water. There are three leech
pools that's going into our well water. Page 22 out of 56 of the Comprehensive Plan calls for
regulation of agricultural uses and is necessary to facilitate and encourage bona fide agricultural
operations while providing for the health, safety, and welfare of town residents and visitors.
We ask that you use the authority of your position of protect us from misuse of the property.
Part of the problem is this application has changed. Every time it comes back to him it comes
back with something different. When the Comprehensive Plan encourages bona fide
agricultural operations what they mean are operations that are authentic, real, true this is a
quote from Miriam Dictionary actual without intention to deceive. I've prepared for you at least
six instances where Mr. Ackermann has erroneously reported information and then in another
place contradicted himself including saying that there was an improved site plan. The only site
plan that Brian Cummings had on file was for Belle River and that expired in 2015. There was
not site plan. Mr. Ackermann's paperwork is referencing an amendment to an approved site
plan. That is just absolutely not true. Mr. Ackermann stated that there are roughly eight acres
of vineyard and the rest as someone said before is not conducive to putting a vineyard on so
it'll just be grass. Again I go back to that meeting October 3rd Ackermann there are roughly eight
acres of vineyard the rest of the parcel is not conducive to a vineyard it will just be grass that's a
quote. Chairman Wilsenski so eight acres planted and twenty two acres of vines in total yes.
Now in the new paperwork in the letter that you got it does speak to now suddenly he has
thirty one twenty three acres I'm sorry that are now being farmed so in two months we went
from eight acres to twenty one acres in the winter time I'm not really sure how you do that.
Smoking mirrors are great but this building proposal keeps morphing into something else every
time someone says Bill Ackermann no you can't do that. If I said to you these words widgeon,
pochard, Kaki Campbell, black scoter, Hawaiian Koloa you would probably have no idea what
I'm talking about. They're all ducks all ducks forty different ducks. If it walks like a duck and
quacks like a duck it's a duck. A warehouse that's used for storage for a profit business is
industrial business not agricultural. You can arbitrarily change wording in a site plan to suit the
needs of the applicant so he gets the response that he wants but that's the information that all
of you are trying to deal with and I would hope that you would assume that that would be
truthful bona fide and accurate. Richard Amper executive director of the Pine Barrens Society
responded to the site plan stating and I quote "it's clear that the proposed use does not
constitute agricultural use. The applicant's use is intended to involve offsite business of a
general service nature." Again I quote Mr. Amper, "especially concerning is the precedent that
would be set where the usage to be permitted." While Mr. Amper's referring to possibly the
destruction of the town purchasing anymore development rights because once people know
that you can do this it's going to set off a whole flood gate of people looking to do other things.
This is what I mean. If residential zoning is identical to agricultural zoning then I want to enlarge
March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting
my garage. I want to get a lift, my tools, equipment, parts and all the chemicals I need to work
on my vehicles then people say Diane you have such a great garage here come to our house
work on our vehicles. I'll bring my vehicle to my house. If you approve Ackermann doing that
then why shouldn't I be able to I grow lavender roses, my husband has a vegetable garden now
people come and they say wow how do I grow lavender well I have a business let me come to
your house. I pop a landscaper sign on my truck and I travel to my customers. Now I come to
you and say I need a shed for my equipment. It's for my equipment I need it for my business.
We have large parties in the summer. People are impressed so now I come to you and say I
need a storage unit. I need to store my tables, my tents, my chairs, my glassware now people
say come plan my event. I needed it for my personal use but now I've turned it into a business.
Approval of a site plan for a growing management company to store the company's equipment
to maintain hundreds of acres when only eight are in use is a disservice to everyone on Alvahs
Lane and not what the law originally intended. The Building Department did disapprove this
and the Preservation Committee unfortunately did not have accurate facts because there are
no accurate facts in this information. Additionally and I'm going to end on this if this is
approved it'll invite a legal challenge because it represents a misuse of taxpayer money to pay
for litigation when the tax payers themselves paid to preserve that land. It can't be used for
personal benefit. When you talk Chairwoman is that the right word when you talk before about
farmers loaning equipment, loaning equipment to each other makes sense. A bartering system
but now when I'm paid to own the equipment and I use my own equipment to service your
property that's something totally different. In just to wrap up just in terms of inconsistencies
throughout the plan again
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just interrupt you for one second cause I don't want people
to misunderstand what's happening here these two members have got to leave. That doesn't
mean you have to stop talking.
DIANE CROSSER : I only have two more minutes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He's an attorney and he's got to get to a closing and he lives on
Fishers Island and if he misses the ferry he's stuck here for a couple more days. I'm going to
make sure that everyone has copies of everything it looks like you're reading so you can submit
this can you?
DIANE CROSSER : I do have four copies for all of you. By the way we will have this the entire
transcript of this hearing will be transcribed pretty swiftly and given to all Board members so
we can review everything very thoroughly but please carry on I just didn't want be rude and
have you think that people were just getting bored. They're not bored they just required to
leave so please carry on.
March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting
DIANE CROSSER : Again the inaccuracies eight acres or is it twenty two that are being used?The
original application calls for a small bath but then when questioned by Mr. Wilsinski electric or
water and he said no water and there was a question about that no water only for the pumps
no bathroom again the inconsistencies just speak out over and over again. Again these pictures
of someone coming on to everyone's property, taking advantage, trespassing and I did ask the
Town Attorney's office about that and they said it was a civil matter that they would not be
able to help me with that. Again, I ask you to look at this not only for the implication for this
property. If you allow this Pandora 's Box will be opened for anyone and everyone to say I can
run a business from my home from my property. Satur farm will pale in comparison with what
happens with this.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Member Horning who had to leave has asked that you
just identify which your property is on this tax map.
DIANE CROSSER : I have four copies you need four copies?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It saves us in making copies if you can so kind as to do it already
because we have five board members. While all of this is being passed around and so on first I
want to thank all of you for being here and for your testimony. Oh did you have something you
wanted to add? Sorry I didn't mean to cut anyone off.
GWEN GROOCOCK : Hi I'm sorry I've been running late I just came from Riverhead. My name is
Gwen Groocock my partner Bill Ackermann is the owner of the property.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait hold on I'm sorry wait one second cause I can't hear while
they're talking to each other, Gerry could you share that information with the rest of the
Board?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Surely, I'm just trying to he's call it in Leslie.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay fine. Please proceed.
GWEN GROOCOCK : Okay again hi I'm Gwen Groocock. My partner Bill Ackermann is the owner
of the property. I'm happy to answer any questions or clarify some things. We had submitted a
letter I think it should be in the file that which you probably have read by now stating our
position and what we are trying to do so beyond that if there are any other issues that have
come up we are as we stated in the letter in fact farming the whole of the property. The
vineyard equipment is the same vineyard equipment that we're using on our own vineyard as
we use elsewhere. It is not multiple sets of the same equipment at different places to be stored
in a giant barn. So, even if we weren't servicing any other vineyards we would still have
vineyard equipment and it would still want to go into a barn. As far as the pasture land and
March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting
head. I think it's roughly about fifty tons of grapes are ours last season that's ho
out. So, whatever else beyond that would be owned by the land owners w It worked
you
want the actual breakdown to say how much you know how much is like us farming andf how
much is us farming for somebody else I can get you those that breakdown for sure but we'
have to go into the computer and get the charts and you know. d
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you give me a rough idea of the annual income for
agricultural businesses we'll pluralize it. your
GWEN GROOCOCK : It's just the one business.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so about what percentage are you actively engaged in farming
the Alvahs Lane property? g
GWEN GROOCOCK : Yeah absolutely the eight acres of grapes plus the pasture land and as I said
in the letter we've changed it to livestock fence. We've planted pasture grass and we are prett
much settled on cows. We were going to do sheep for a little bit but that's y
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well certainly you wouldn't need that amou
nt of equipment forty
viticulture for eight acres if you were just doing your own eight acres particularly since th
of the acreage is now being proposed for cattle which would require a rest
situation so then most of that equipment is going to be used on otherpropertydifferent kind of
are leasing it or you're providing services for others. whether you
GWEN GROOCOCK : We tried to explain this to the Planning Board as well. W
e provided them
with schematics showing how the equipment would fit in the barn. Now a f the smaller tractors
the equipment tha
we own there's probably a couple of machines that you know a couple o
around the same size are used for the vineyards so if they need to tend to Alvahs Lane that's
where they're going to be. We don't again we don't have multiple sets of these you know a
hundred thousand dollars pieces of machinery at each of our sites. They move around so five
if you want exactly for example the eight acres what precise machines were used thisagain
growing season and is that all of our own equipment or is that seventy five percent passed
whatever then that we can try to do that breakdown as well. It's just that a vineyard O or
the same equipment it's just if it's larger it will take more time to go just
and down the rows.I take
don't have like two giant three giant sprayers all going at once in a big vineyard he You
not on the North Fork anyway. You're
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's think what else, did I hear you correctly that you said th
repair of equipment is done will be done in this proposed storage building? at no
Southold Town Planning Board Page 128 October 3, 2016
Heather Lanza: You are only using it to store tractors?
William Ackermann: That's it, there's nothing else that needs to be done there, tractors
and implements. I would rather have implements stored inside the barn than rather
unsightly outside of the barn, that's one of the main reasons.
Heather Lanza: Is that the reason for the size of the building, the quantity?
William Ackermann: I actually did a schematic, I can forward it to you if your need it, of
a footprint to show where all the pieces would fit. I still don't have room for all the
implements and things I want to keep under rooves so they are not damaged by
weather and what have you. I'd prefer they weren't outside, just kind of randomly sitting
around.
Heather Lanza: That would be good to provide that to the Board.
William Ackermann: Sure, okay.
Heather Lanza: How about the two driveways? Normally we like to see one curb-cut, Ald
did you have a reason why you wanted.the two driveways? Vilk
William Ackermann: Just because the ease of just driving, all it is, is a u-shape, that'
all. There are a lot of houses and other- I don't want to be-coming in and out of there
onto Alvahs Lane, backing out if you will, I'd rather turn in and make it a safer way to get
in and out. If you're familiar with the properly up on the north side there is a hill, and
quite frankly people do come down there, not necessarily at the speed they should, and
so I just felt that it was safer to have it on the flat area where everybody could see
comings and goings, whether north or south.
Heather Lanza: Okay. The building has dormers, are you intending to add a second
floor?
William Ackermann: No, we have very light, you're probably familiar with them, picking
baskets and picking bins and things of that nature, and I just wanted to make use of
some cubic space.
Heather Lanza: So there is a second floor? Or not?
William Ackeri,:ann: It's a loft, it's just a loft above a barn_ No access from outside.
Heather Lanza: Is that in any of the materials we have?
William Ackermann: Any of the materials, what do you mean?
Heather Lanza: Like the drawings or anything, because I didn't notice that, but it could
be that I aidn't notice that we had it_ That there was going to be a loft? I see a floor-
William Ackermann: I gave you the floor plan and the detailed drawings.
March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting
because we're trying to he wants to decide between Belted Galloways and Red Devin's. We're
getting input on that. I'm reluctant in getting into livestock a little bit. I think it's a lot more
work than Bill might think it is but we have good friends that are livestock growers out here
who are helping to you know help us understand the process so I guess then the next question
would be how many head of cattle can we foresee maybe and it's a two year cycle so over the
next three or four, five years so say it's half a dozen. So then I guess we'd have to find out what
equipment and supplies are would pertain to that and add that to just the eight acre vineyard
and that would be the size of the barn so I think yea I mean absolutely. Maybe we can just go
look at somebody else who's got a comparable sized farm and see what their barn looks like.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Again site specific.
GWEN GROOCOCK : Yea site specific. I mean I can tell you a thousand square feet is probably
way too small you know is seven too big probably. That would you know that would be ideal
but it is also large for sure so somewhere in there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess what the question the probative question here is if on
development rights sold land you were farming whether its agricultural, whether its viticulture
or livestock it's still farming according to our code what's the equipment and the scale you
would need? I don't think the real question is about farming the subject property the question
is using that scale and number of pieces of equipment elsewhere throughout the town on
development rights sold property housing it there. So, that's kind of I think the essence of the
question that the Planning Board has put before us whether we like it or not we have to grapple
with it so is there anything else that's what I'm going to propose actually Ken and Gerry that we
adjourn this to the Special Meeting. There's a lot of things that have been submitted to us in
writing. We also I want to have a complete printout we have to give it to our transcriber. I want
to be able to review the Planning Board's public hearing transcripts and our own and I think you
should have an opportunity to see what's been submitted in writing in case you and Mr.
Ackermann would like to respond in writing to any of them or that you would like to provide
additional testimony. By adjourning to the Special Meeting in two weeks we all have some time
to take a deep breath, look at everything and see where we need to go with this. If at the time
we have no further questions or we have no further request from anyone we'll probably close it
and then we will have from that point sixty two days in which to make a determination. We
generally don't take that long you know but this is complicated and it has potential precedent
setting you know component to it so we want to be extremely cautious and careful and
thorough and open minded so we need to digest a lot of stuff. Yes please go ahead.
GWEN GROOCOCK : I just want to say on that precedent setting aspect from looking at it it's
quite it could cut both ways really. Setting a precedent that this is not agriculture could be very
7
EEY
Nov.4,2016 101V 0 f -}0
Planning Board Office
Town of Southoldrrrair� r �a
Re: Request for Information,Ackermann Agricultural Barn,Alvah's Lane Vineyard. Phaniiiag Soars;
I am in receipt of your letter dated Nov. 1,which arrived after I submitted information for the file on
Nov.3,so please add this to the file also.
North Fork Viticultural Services owns,leases and manages a number of vineyards.I grow and sell fruit
from my own vineyard,plus grow and sell fruit from leased blocks at other vineyards,and
manage/consult for non-leased areas of other vineyards.
o Alvah's Lane Vineyard,1350 Alvah's Lane —l own 23 acres;9 acres in vines,10 more acres to be
planted in vines.
o Clovis Point Vineyard,1935 Main Road,Laurel—lease 1 acre, manage 6 acres.
a Jason's Vineyard, 1785 Main Road,Laurel—lease 11 acres.
o Anderson(Onabay)Vineyard, 1600 South Harbor Lane,Southold—lease and manage 20 acres
(ratio between lease/manage varies by harvest,according to what fruit Onabay keeps for its
own wine,and what fruit I sell.)
o Hounds Tree Estate,2600 Oregon Road, Mattituck—lease and manage 27 acres,varies as above.
a Pindar Vineyards,37645 Peconic—consulting managerfor 223 acres,lease varies as above.
Pindar Vineyards uses its own equipment; I oversee and direct the vineyard management
program.
o Lieb Vineyards, 13050 Oregon Road, Cutchogue—consulting manager plus seasonal spraying
services for 90 acres.
To summarize,the proposed barn is to store equipment that is used to manage my own Alvah's Lane
vineyard, plus vineyards that I lease/manage. I do not own a separate set of equipment for each site
because that would be prohibitively expensive;the equipment rotates around in season,and sits in
storage in the.winter.ALL of the equipment is also used on site to manage my own vines and proper
The equipment will be stoned at Alvah's Lane regardless,as I have purchased the property to be a
working farm,.not as a public service to provide scenery for the neighbors.Equipment in a storage barn
will be far more attractive than equipment stored outside or under a large,plastic,round truss-type
temporary shelter.Proper shelter will also prevent damage and deterioration to the equipment,which
could cause unnecessary expense and create a potential hardship.The ongoing success of North Fork
Viticultural Services and Alvah's Lane Vineyard relies very strongly on the equipment being in good
working order.A working farm needs a barn.
Under section 100-220 of the Southold Town Code,our farm practices are protected from interference
by adjacent owners.It also declares agriculture to be desirable,and supported by Southold Town.
Denying a barn to shelter essential equipment that is used on-site would be in direct conflict with this.
Furthermore,the Land Preservation Committee,which deliberates on appropriate uses for preserved
land, has already assessed our proposal and approved in writing the basic principle of having a good-
sized storage barn on this site.Section 25-30 of Chapter 25 of the Southold Town Code explicitly states
that land In agricultural production shall include equipment storage buildings,and there is nothing in the
law about development rights sold land that prohibits a storage barn.(see attached from Land
Preservation C mittee). ��
Regards, '
William A in,NFVS, LLC_
ZONIPAG FINC)ARD OF APPEALS
Lt.-
March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting
GWEN GROOCOCK : Yea pretty much again like a major spray is something that happens maybe
four times in the season or five times.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea if it rains or whatever the case might be.
GWEN GROOCOCK : So if you have the sprayer moving around and if it takes a week to.get
everywhere then that's what it does and then
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : So it never comes off the trailer except when you're leaving them the
project.
GWEN GROOCOCK : Exactly and often it stays where it's got to it stays where it is to finish the
next day or whatever.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Well the question is where is that equipment kept now?
GWEN GROOCOCK : In begged and borrowed barns. We have some stuff over at Lieb, stuff in
Anderson's barn. It's literally it's been in a few places and pretty much the whole point of
buying our own piece was to have our own barn and have our stuff centrally in one place. The
act that this is a vineyard is just perfect and quite frankly it never occurred to us that there
would be a question that this is true agriculture otherwise you know we could of easily bought
one of the acreages like the two acre piece nearby or whatever and put the barn there cause
they're all AG zoned but not development rights sold so there's a number of parcels in that area
that could we could of bought instead to put a barn on it if we realized that there's going to be
a question as to whether what we're doing is true agriculture or not. We certainly didn't expect
this so Oil
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me try and clarify and then I think Ken had some questions
he wanted to ask. What we're trying to ascertain here is, the activities that you're engaged in
are all farming activities that's not the question really. The question is is this proposed barn and
the equipment proposed to be stored within and intensification of use on development rights
sold property which generally permits this kind of use to farm the subject property. When you
go off to farm other properties using that equipment where's the line between what becomes a
business a kind of commercial services farming services business and your right to farm as a
farmer on your property. We know there's a history of people sharing equipment and loaning
equipment and so on. You know I think in fairness there was a lot of testimony that happened
before you arrived. You came very late to the hearing and
GWEN GROOCOCK : I'm sure I've heard it before.
S17.20,
M171--irkri M L A1023SESSS-8f, OFF—U.
RT 'WFCjRV%,!A—'10N�To ;3a compleled ;--i A pficant Cr sponso--'
..............
p.
A-PUC.*ff;1SPOM$OR I? PROJEC7MAi'-4E
1p'
Qou0j
4-. PRECISE LOGAT ION(Stmet addreSS 2Pd rOFE: ex cr pm%dda rnspl
Zg U
15. PROPOSED ACT 10.14 IS: yy
I E--pansion 7. z-w
6- DESCRIBE PROJECT BREFU'
nm
AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED:
acres Uitimalely
B. VVILL PROPOSED ArCT ION COMPLY WITH EXISTIFIGZONIING OR OTHER FAISTING LANEMSE RES-MOCTIONS?
i%t' if Na,dssortits!)iieliy
E] ricu I b OF-;IL-oresgOpen Space Fj ouiier
A
-;rj. GOES AC7j-.1--Z)iLj INIVOLVE A PERNU s APPROVIA-1,-M.FUNDIMIG.NOW OR UL71 M&ATELY F-P.Mil ANY OTHER GO1VERM1MEW.;"-L AGEiqC%.-
(FEDERAL.STi ATE OR LOCAL)?
EjYes Ej !u If Yes,list aggency(s)name and peFn,ii/approvals-
DOGS;W"�'-4-SPECT OF T HE AC'nOM 14AVE A GURRE- LYN ALI—PEPM OR APPROVAL?
NQ 1 Yss,list agamy(s)nameand penrWapprov,21s:
Iff
-Aws i's T-0 S-M- ELAM
iZ- A5 A RESULT OF PcY ACT ION WILL EXISTING PEPMITIAPPRO'VAL P—EQUIRE-MODIFICI-mow!
io
Daie:
Signature:
-N:t'h,9 ae- on Is ipa thle Coals a[An�@. anc]l you are a SWke 1@9 anm'y i=hs
qjA e M
Southold Town Plannin Board Vltork. Session - Se tember 12 2Q16 - Pa e 3
_ _ ... r5195 Wrner ocation, OProject Name: unta Old North Road, 420' s/w/o County Road 48 & Old North Rd
Sou
hold
. .. This Plan is for the proposed construction of a 30' x 90' (2,652 sq. ft.)
Description.
addition to an existing 71' x 90' (6,422 sq.ft.)wine production building to
expand the current uses of wine production and storage (not open to the
public) on a 0.76 acre parcel (SCTM1000-51-3-5) with an existing single
family dwelling and nine (9) parking spaces. The subject parcel is
proposed to be merged with an adjacent 2.7 acre reserve area
(SCTM1000-51-3-4.11) which is attached to ±18.8 acres of farmland
(SCTM1000-51.-3-4.14) with Development Rights held by Suffolk County
in the AC unto District� m..__ ._... _. -. ......
Status New A ication
Zon ..,. ...�.�.. .
Action: Review for completeness __ _..
Attachments. Staff Report p ......
sect Name Ackermann Aw ricultural�Bar
-_. 1350 Alvah..
o n SCTM# 1000 102-4 6 1
Locations _Mmm„w s Lane, 1175 n/wlo N S Rt. 25 &Alvahs Lane, �stc og!
Description: This Amended-Site Plan is for the proposed construction of a 7,142 sq. ft.
agricultural storage barn on Southold Town Development Rights land;
g District.
w 22.8 acres in the A-C Zonin_.�.�_._.....�.. _. ..�..
Adios New A Iica
n. Review for cg_T leteness
�...t Staff Report. ._- .. '
Attachmerrs-_._�.._ ..W.,_ �.. .-_._r.._..p..._.. _...�. _..� ._..
-.Project Name 55 Cox Neck at Ro.-- .on roxi ._ .........._ .-._ ,_ _ .._.
..- � _yalton � Road M# 1000-113-7-19.23
Location. Road, on Cox Neck R pp imately 490' north of
Sound Avenue, Mattituck _
Description: This-
l is for a Standard Subdivision of a 36.9 acre p arcel�LL �into--
12
lot where Lots 1-11 equal 0.7 acres, and Lot 1
_
2 equals 12 acres,
located in the A-C Zoning District. This subdivision includes 15.2 acres of
° ._ eu ..for a.� owed-road �..
� space and 1.7 acres
Status. Conditional Preliminary Plat 1 royal
Action: Review legal documents.
Attachments: Staff Report
-....� James Creek La
µ.w ndin _ _ _ M# 1000 122 3 1 4
Location: � west side of Main Road, approx. 280 �
Pro t,Name � SCT
' h� °f New Suffolk Ave.,
Mattituck
you
Desttt° ._ALLM-gym This is_a Standard Subdivision of a split
zo
Subdivision . --zoned parcel into five lots. _
_n. Review submitted nary Approval
Actio mdocuments
.µStatus: � � , Conditional.._.�_Preliminary
e i _ .._ ...,_. .__�...�.._.� ._.� ...._. .�.._�... ___....... . . _ . .__....._.___......w...
Attachments: Staff Report
Discussion:
Draft Planning Board Monthly Report for August 2016
4
Southold Planning Department Statf Report
Site Plan Application Work Session—Completeness
Date September 12, 2016
Prepared By: Brian Cummings
I. Application Information
Project Title: Ackermann Agricultural Barn
(formerly"Belle River Properties")
Applicant: William C. Ackermann
Date of Submission: August 29, 2016
Tax Map Number: 102.-4-6.1
Project Location: 1350 Alvah's Lane
Hamlet: Cutchogue
Zoning District: A-C
11. Description of Project
Type of Site Plan: Agricultural
Acreage of Project Site: ±22.7 acres Town Development Rights;
Building Size 7,142sf
This Amended Site Plan is for the proposed construction of a 7,142 sq. ft. agricultural
storage barn on Southold Town Development Rights land; 22.8 acres in the A-C Zoning
District, Cutchogue.
III: Completeness Review
See attached checklist for Site Plan Requirements.
IV: Analysis
1. Existing: planted vineyard and pasture;
Expired site plan for Belle River properties (March 2015)for horse barn and
stables;
2. Proposed: ±7,142 "equipment storage and warehouse" building with a proposed
area of disturbance of 26,702sf;
Staff: the language used for the type of use should be removed from the
site plan and provided as agricultural storage building (which is what is
permitted on site); the storage building must be accessory to active
agricultural uses on site and cannot be used for general storage or
-*
warehousing;
3. SEQR: Type II -Agriculture
NK
w
m ID O C (D V
2
U
�7p-3 � Q
3 H ((''�� a row+yr 4 ,nn.v; Yw."rom..,•a�p"iw.e k"r•.ds,.+a �.y a �
y, I
d m m wI „w"�,d",,`'y„'"""' d �w+'diVP�u�rIN �°'�
3 a ty a 6 9 9x 4E 1 ALroellu _
{ o
00
CL
to
03
=r
ID
g 14'x 12'D ead Doors
n
I
J,
m
mow° w
dr^ a
mu d, , ,r A 7 +
✓ft, 7. y m+ m N �.r
m
m ♦
m
I �
i A
X
�J P
°°a.r fit: PtiY
L-1 Ix,9Z ral(v�dg 03dfl +L-090LYY mZDerl
C '" k YD
to 'gpry
® I
NI
� '.,gin.-�r...............
I
r_ v1-1� J.,JVV vw Juu 11cov y vuLy Pl%t NUP a ui.n, `GJw.0 f
,2 trailers (30x8.6 )
4 Utility Trailers (17x8.6')
1 Kubota L6060 Tractor with loader and a plow (22x8.6')
1 Kubota L4400 Tractor with loader (17x8.61)
2 Kubota L6040 Tractors with Rotary Mowers (22x8.6')
3 Kubota L7040 Tractors with LIPCO Sprayers (25x8.6')
1 Kubota ID5S00 Tractor with CIMA Sprayer (2Sx8.6')
2 Herbicide (8x6')
2 Vicon Spreaders (8x6')
3 Flail Mowers (8x6')
2 Hedgers (8x6')
1 Leaf Remover (8x6')
1 PTO Wood Chipper (12x6')
1 Chipper and Vac (18x8.6')
2 Post Pounders (8x6')
0
Ish
...._. .. ...... �, �t�'i 'w�vri�ac�s iEg•'ram. • mrn+lrk'rs�o a artzo 9e e�gem. Omp
ujCIO
IL
xi's
pJ> N t,
✓ � th
✓�
�y
N r
MOO
IU
IN
Hi
4 4 ,,,. s f •m A f.
r
" d �� f
~v„
Ay s
Ott '
rw ;y
fin. "" �� `' � t' m �; ,r .,,� �r �,.•.
alizy
t
' y
woo
+r
M
mw-z. � 2TF ar
Murcpe- o
�.s r
c Ip
w � Q
SO
ilk
w
va W o t 7.
�6 S
a
a � °
e
e � m
o
o "m <
utl
e® W
u a_
� s
J"' 3
! 5 wJ o
_ v v
„ti Y
a
d w S s =�
z
� G
TiocmrMW70-1 rtilayypnv 2S xS6 •�'""""�•"""•'.. �•� � � e g
p b m m x o = o $
P -
<
m �
a.
0
cav+casun.... z zr•sc•�� (°
n
n
'v
°-f ce>aaam Gn�,Y'* zr�cs
a
A woo
"Rill
OATO
,µpp, Pf 4� N P �.. .-• n ui�— n< '44 n
\V//1 i
Man!
LLL ,10 U
d
�7o I "ssY�sY"x➢`m I W G'y s fl 1 I �
u � r a . p
y i
ur �
'P� 1 Evil!
ta��' M °! oil
�
2s
s _
C�
yq M
lit Y sE
w,u,. & _. a ._........ ............, .. ..., Y. .r.... .., ....,._. ..,.. ..,,......,.�.�:, :..
a. w
I
1 " 0 1rN a Rr. a, N
Nib
r a I
.......,..
r
w
1 1 GNof) ! ti
i
fa II L
w N N
ro $� V R Imo) k u
„i
C` ^tl
r
N 04
y. C .
i
i
pp
it
!°
1114
In
3
H r5as7 11
a
Nlihi
ED
4g� rv„y. d n�✓�«� e A� � � ��3
.a
'�,,�r.�,,�--^.'� •�e �� .ark",,�`� �� � y,
a
Multi�g m
Ej
61
OFFICE LOCATION:
MELISSA A.SPIRO Town Hall Annex
.ND PRESERVATION COORDINATOR 54375 State Route 25
melissa.spiro@town.southoldny.us (comer of Main Rd&Youngs Ave)
Southold,New York
Telephone(631)765-5711
Facsimile(631)765-6640 SAILING ADDRESS:
P.O.Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971-0959
DEPARTMENT OF LAND PRESERVATION
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
REQUEST FOR AGRICULTURALT T' E PL&CEMENT ON,
ND SUBJECT TO TOWN DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS EASEMENT
Tax Map No. 1000- � d
I am the owner of the property described below and on which the Town purchased a development
rights/conservation easement on or about (date).
Ce
iNarne of Owner(please print): t
Name(s) of previous owner: �-� -
(Yr applicable)
r
Mailing Address: �� %� ,� �Na n o
1
Phone Number: ` * - w_
e-mail,address:
rj r I I 'P,,I�r u.k w .....;
Property Location. ;t
�_5 '�
C ,_Zt J f
List type,size, and use of each agricultural structure proposed:
AL
- !
*Attach location r1a, (survey, tax map, or sketch plan) showing placement area of agricultural structure(s),
distance from property boundary lines,and any readily available information relating to your request.
You may talk with the Coordinator at (631)765-5711 to discuss questions or to arrange to participate in any of
the regular meetings of the Land Preservation Committee.
Applicant Date
Please return the completed form with attachments toe
Town of Southold a Land preservation Department
`All attachments must be signed and dated by property owner.
11
WIT 1
.. ........
W „
p:
m^:
fi
T
.y
i
1
1
f
1
1
1 +y
i •�•1
1
f[
{: A
1 �
1
1
r
Imwl=
«Tux 1 �
fw� 'mw yM1p
e, x
i
In
.a'
pp
The Zoning Board of Appeals staff is available to assist applicants with selecting and
completing the correct application form.
PURUC.-H-C-ABINA RRO- CU5
Once a completed application has been received by staff,with the required number of
copies, the application will be scheduled for the next available public hearing date and a
Cegal notice will be placed in the Suffolk Times.Applicants will be supplied with a yellow
Notice of Hearing card that must be posted on the property in publicly visible area. The
office will also provide a list of adjacent and nearby properties that must receive written
notice of the hearing from the applicant prior to the hearing date. Each Zoning Board
member will personalty inspect the property before the scheduled hearing. If an interior
inspection is required,the office staff will make arrangements with the property owner or
their agent.At the hearing the applicant and/or their agent must personally appear before
the Board of Appeals to present their application and answer questions from the Board.
During the hearing,testimony about the application will be taken from all interested parties
present and wishing to be heard. Once a hearing has been closed,the Board of Appeals
must render its written decision within 62 days but most decisions are made two weeks
after the hearing at the ZBA!s monthly Special Meeting.
May 23,2025
�13 LL�J'�l T r k3C� 1"t G
To:Southold Town Planning Board r
RE:Concerns to the site plan application by North Fork Viticultural Services SOUTH0LD TOWN
PL NN'GNG BOARD
(NFVS) AT 1350 Alvahs Lane,Cutchogue
Dear Chairperson and Members of the Planning Board:
I write to express my concern over the current application by NFVS for the construction of an
'AGRICULTURAL'storage building on the 22 acre protected farmland at 1350 Alvahs Lane in Cutchogue.
This is land that was owned and farmed by my grandfather Paul Kaloski. His wish was for that land to be
forever undeveloped and kept to its natural state.
The proposed 7,000-square foot, 35' high building is huge. It does not look like a barn and does not
appear designed for only the modest piece of farmland. Im sure you are well aware of the owners
other business of maintaining other vineyard properties. He is planning for ALL of his farming
equipment's storage there and I am concerned about storage of toxic pesticides. Alvahs Lane aqua flora
is already tainted with Temik from use before it was determined to be detrimental and ruining our
environmental resources and wildlife.
Alvahs Lane is one of the prettiest on the North Fork and a proposal of the magnitude will have
significant and irreversible impact on this beautiful place.This land must be preserved properly. My
grand father specifically sold development rites at a loss of revenue other than developmental
property which would have earned him much more for its value.. His belief in the encouragement of
farmland preservation was to do just that.To PRESERVE the farmland on Alvahs Lane. When did this
developmental aspect become affective??
I respectfully urge the Planning Board not to approve this application. I believe it is an adverse action to
the men and women who settled here and established the North Fork as their home.
Sincerely,
Darlene A Zelinski
4%` vb1-
4S, HL-i /.,f T 13CJZVtC
MY 2 2 2025
Date: Tuesday May 20th, 2025 SOUTHOLD TOWN
�'l. aNNING�O �kCD
Application that was denied last year and the pending Site Plan Application b North Fork
Re: The Building Permit App y P 9 PP Y
Viticultural Services, LLC for the farm located at 1350 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue (SCTM# 1000-102.4-6.1).
From: Nancy Sawastynowicz
To: The Land Preservation Committee, and Land Preservation Executive Assistant Lilly McCullough; The Planning
Department, and Planning Director Heather Lanza; The Planning Board, and Chairman Donald Wilcenski; The
Building Department, and Chief Building Inspector Michael Verity; The Town Board, and Town Attorney Paul
DeChance.
There will be no future without the past.
The beginning of this review process was in 2017, not in 2024. This development request is not about an
"Agricultural Barn", it is about an industrial garage.
In the NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL dated February 13, 2025, why did the Building Department call the
building an "Agricultural Barn"?And, why didn't the Building Department reference the original application for the
proposed building?
In the Memorandums dated March 28, 2025 referring this matter to The Land Preservation Committee and
to The Town Board, why did Senior Planner Brian Cummings call the building an"Agricultural Barn"?And, why
didn't the Planning Department reference the original application for the proposed building?
On behalf of The Land Preservation Committee, Land Preservation Executive Assistant Lilly McCullough
wrote to Senior Planner Brian Cummings in an Opinion dated April 17, 2025 that"... the Committee determined
that the proposed use is consistent with the recorded easement." Neither the Opinion Letter, nor the Minutes of the
April 8, 2025 Land Preservation Committee Meeting, contain facts to support this conclusion. In fact it is expressly
admitted that the Committee did not consider the size of the proposed building and it is apparent that the
Committee did not make findings regarding the proposed use as claimed by the applicant vs the probable use
considering the history and present use of the subject property.
The Zoning Board Appeals Opinion in the 2017 proceeding is the authorized interpretation of the
Development Rights and the portions of the Town Code applicable to the instant proceeding. In 2017 The Planning
Board followed the ZBA Opinion, The applicant did not appeal from the Decision of the Planning Board in 2017.
Shouldn't the Land Preservation Committee have reviewed the size, location and use of the proposed
building? Shouldn't the Land Preservation Committee and the Planning Board apply the ruling of the 2017
application to the current application?
G3GC�GUMC D
MAY 2 2025
LAND PRESERVATION DEFT
Town of Southold
MAY 0 6 2025
May 5, 2025 =PLANNtNG
Thank You to the Southold Town Planning Board for hosting this public hearing.
On the Development proposed by William Ackerman of North Fork Viticulture Services,
and
On the Development Rights owned by the Town of Southold.
The applicant bought this farm on Alvah's Lane subject to development rights that
belong to the Town of Southold. Who is appearing for the Town of Southold in the
current application to protect the development rights?
The application in 2017 initially was for a 8,162 sq ft agricultural storage building. While
that application was pending it was modified to 7,142 sq ft. Now in 2025 he is proposing
a 7,000 sq ft. "barn".
In 2017 the applicant said there were 8 acres of vineyard on the 22.8 acre property. He
admitted that the other 14.8 acres were not suited to grow vines, and said he would use
them to grow grass for grazing cattle. After numerous meetings and research, based on
the opinion of the ZBA, the Planning Board denied the application for a site plan for the
proposed Storage building.
I was recently told the 2017 decision is a final decision. So how is it that eight years
later Mr. Ackerman is back before the Planning Board with plans for a very similar 7000
square-foot storage building on the same preserved land with just 8 acres of Vineyard
and the rest in use as grazing land for cattle.
In his 2017 application he admitted he would use this building as a base of operations
for a business that manages vineyards in other locations in addition to the 8 acres of
vines on this property. He then did an about face and submitted a new letter saying he
would not store equipment from his management business. This proves his intentions
for the currently proposed 5 door, 7000 sq ft building will also be to use it for North Fork
Viticulture Services. A vineyard management business should not operate on preserved
farmland.
If a building this size is approved on this size parcel of farmland it would set a precedent
for all preserved farmland on the North Fork. It's imperative that Town Code restrictions
be enforced on DRS farmland. Development Rights restrictions are permanent. Please
continue to follow the ZBA ruling and deny this oversized application again.
Irril Sawasty Ncz
5 .
re.
1 I.-
�
To Southold Planning Board: AY 0 6 025 Monday May 5th, 2025
My name is Nancy Sawastynowicz. I live in CutchogSOUTHOLD TOWN
LANNING EoA@D
I'm trying to understand what the proposed site plan is for. It is not clear from the application if the use
being proposed now, in 2025, is different from the use proposed 8 years ago in 2017. The current
floor plan shows lots of empty space...
Does this application show the Planning Board what all that space will be used for?
Is the building now being proposed, a barn for farming on 1350 Alvahs Lane? Or, is the building a
garage which will be used for "management" of vineyards all over the North Fork? Barns usually have
only a few doors. The five big doors on the proposed building make it look like a garage.
If the building will be a garage, then this application is substantially the same as the 2017 application
the Southold Planning Board denied, and this application must also be denied.
Alvahs Lane was already used as a location for industrial agriculture by Satur Farms. Satur Farms
was different from NFVS, but the Planning Board should be careful not to permit any industrial
operation on Alvah's Lane.
In 2017 Southold Planning Board denied the site plan application based on the Town Code
Interpretation by Southold Zoning Board of Appeals:
WHEREAS, on May 8,, 2017, the-ZBA issued the following Code Interpretation
"The use as proposedby North Fork Viticulture Services (NFVS) to erect a barn
for the storage of equipment used in a business wherein NFVS manages vineyards
unrelated to the agricultural operation on the subject property, is not an allowed use or
accessory use, pursuant to Section 280-13(A)(2) of the Town Code of the Town of
Southold"
Has the Town Code changed?
The applicant is still "North Fork Viticultural Services". NFVS sure sounds like an industrial agricultural
use which is not allowed where development rights have been sold to Southold Town to preserve land
for farms growing crops.
This applicant has sold development rights to Southold on other properties, so he knows that his
ownership rights to use this property are not unlimited. But, this applicant has tried before, and will try
again, to violate the restrictions.
If the building proposed this time will be for use as a barn only, Then before approving the site plan,
this Board should set conditions to enable enforcement of the development rights owned by the
public. Once a building is built, it will be hard to know what happens inside it. Who will monitor and
protect the public interests?
r. � 1
From:
Sent:
To: Michaelis,Jessica 73 -� w
Subject: Written Comment for NFVS Holdings LLC meting 5/5/2025 @ 5:01 PM - . .......
MAY 0 6 2025
Please confirm receipt of the following letter SOUHiOLD r0VdN
P'LANNING 1::4OAPD
To Whom It May Concern:
I would like to submit the following comments for the application for the property SCTM#1000-102.-4-6.1
submitted by petitioner/winer NFVS Holdings LLC. NFVS Holdings is proposing to construct a single story 7,000
square foot "storage barn" allegedly to support the property as it is currently used. As most know, NFVS was
formerly known as North Fork Viticulture Services and is a company that provides vineyard maintenance and
installation services. It is my concern that this storage building is going to be used to support his commercial
business rather than the vineyard and cattle farm on the property. As it stands now,the land is already likely
being misused.
Currently, Mr.Ackerman's for hire commercial vineyard maintenance company uses the agriculturally zoned
property for storage. NFVS moves farm equipment used for the NFVS maintenance business on and off the
property on an almost daily basis. The land isn't being used "exclusively for agricultural production." Mr.
Ackerman's business NFVS currently stores approximately 20 tractors including 4 spraying tractors on the
property, several transport flat bed trucks, a mobile harvester, several pickup trucks including one with a fuel
storage tank used to refuel machinery and equipment. One does not to need to be an agricultural business
expert to know that this equipment isn't just being used for maintaining the 22.8 acre "vineyard and cattle
pasture". Given the disproportionally large number of pieces of equipment currently on the property it is obvious
that Mr. Ackerman has already been conducting his commercial business on the property. It is evident that the
proposed building isn't just for"storage of equipment and feed for vineyard and cattle pasture" and will not be
used "exclusively for agricultural production".
Additionally, the size of the building is disproportionately large as compared to the size of the property. The size
however is perfect for the storage of over thirty pieces of commercial farm equipment. The intended use is
clear. The building will store the 30 plus pieces of equipment used by his commercial vineyard maintenance
business. Also of concern is the height of the building. The proposal describes the building as a 1 story building
but the architectural drawings show that it will stand at nearly 35 feet high which is on average 10 to 15 feet
taller than an average 2 story home. The height of the building is not appropriate for the surrounding area.Will
there be regular inspections to ensure that Mr. Ackerman doesn't enclose the loft area thereby creating a 2nd
story office/living space? Also concerning is that the orientation of the building's garage doors was
conspicuously left off of the architectural plans. If the garage doors face east, then the nature of his operations
will be shielded from public view. Without the ability to view activities from the road Mr.Ackerman will have the
ability to hide any illegal operations.
Regarding the cattle pasture. Mr.Ackerman, the owner of North Fork Grass Fed also processes his cows for
meat and also operates what he has coined as the "beef garage" (see screen shot) out of his home adjacent to
the property. Will he be moving those operations to the proposed building?
Should this proposal be successful, it will set an extremely dangerous precedent. The previous application was
denied in 2017 and Mr. Ackerman's business has only grown since then. It is imperative that Southold Town
preserve the land's intended use. There needs to be a very distinct line between agricultural production and
commercial business operations.
i
I respectfully request that this submission remain anonymous.
Bill Ackermann ,.
January 13 Q
Happy New Year! Hope to see you all sometime this year at the beef garage! y
„
rr
PP/,
r
r; r
/
�
M1-
��
oiii//
oioar oil/r o
0#1����
/i
W/
%/�
„%/oi,,,, „
r
ONE
a
I+
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown
senders or unexpected emails.
2
Submission Without a Cover Letter
fy
_ dI p
DI
.. L\N'^ PM 0Name: a o p (�
C, 1 0 6 2025
SOUTHOLD TOWN
Project Title: n L�k�NaBOARD
SCTM#: 1000 - D 2 -— 4 - (e - 1
Date: 'Is-[ [ , 5-
Details of Submission:
V0-V-[Vwc> dvCu,wtu4s r e Co-4-C c 4 6-n
547 EAST A4A1\ S7R}:>JI-
_ RIVERHEAD, NEC YORK 11901
LONG ISLAND
PINE BARRENS F: (631) 369-3389
S O C I E T Y WWW.PINEBARRENS.ORU
Mr. Brian Cummings
Planner
Town of Southold
53095 Main Rd.
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
November 17, 2016
Dear Mr. Cummings,
The Long Island Pine Barrens Society writes in opposition to the proposed development, described as
Ackerman Agriculture Barn and Agriculture Pump House TMN 102.4-6.1 in Cutchogue.
There-is no dispute that the development rights to this parcel were sold to the Town of Southold in 1999.
It is not germane that they were sold to the town by a previous owner.
It is also clear that the proposed use does not constitute permissible agricultural use. The applicable
standard reads: "accessory to active uses on site and cannot be used for general storage or
warehousing." The applicant's use is intended to involve off-site business use of a general service nature.
Especially concerning is the precedent that would be set, were the usage to be permitted. Southold's
Purchase of Development Rights program enjoys an excellent reputation for protection of farmland,
fertile soils and rural tradition. Approval of the Ackerman application would permanently undermine this
noble program.
Thank you for your consideration,.
Sincerely,
4411-\
Richard Amper
RA/hs
CC:
Heather Lanza, Planning Director
Mark Terry, Assistant Town Planning Director
Supervisor Scott Russel
The Zoning Board of Appeals staff is available to assist applicants with selecting and
completing the correct application form.
Once a completed application has been received by staff, with the required number of
copies, the application will be scheduled for the next available public hearing date and a
legal notice will be placed in the Suffolk Times. Applicants will be supplied with a yellow
Notice of Hearing card that must be posted on the property in a publiclyvisible area.The
office will also provide a list of adjacent and nearby properties that must receive written
notice of the hearing from the applicant prior to the hearing date. Each Zoning Board
member will personally inspect the property before the scheduled hearing. If an interior
inspection is required,the office staff will make arrangements with the property owner or
their agent. At the hearing the applicant and/or their agent must personally appear before
the Board of Appeals to present their application and answer questions from the Board.
During the hearing,testimony about the application will be taken from all interested parties
present and wishing to be heard. Once a hearing has been closed,the Board of Appeals
must render its written decision within 62 days but most decisions are made two weeks
after the hearing at the ZBA's monthly Special Meeting.
Not Found
HTTP Error 404.The requested resource is not found.
4 1 MAY 11, 2017 1 SUFFOLKTIMES.COM
-,Wff.A&Mf� I&Adft jopft tot&
Acke][7 ;'6111111 bar1l not itilow- led
Property owner sought to build structure on land where development rights had been sold
BY KELLY ZEGERS "If Mr. Ackermann was peeking E
STAFF WRITER variance or a special exception permi'
before this board or site plan approva
The Southold Town Zoning Board before the Planning Board, these is.
of Appeals ruled last Thursday that a sues would be relevant and importan
controversial plan to build a storage considerations;however,they are Sim-
barn on a Cutchogue property where ply not relevant to the limited issue
the development rights have been currently before the board of appeals,'
sold would not be allowable. Ms.Weisman said.
The m
applicant, North Fork Viticul- When reached for comment Friday
tural Services, was proposing con- Long Island Pine Ba ens Society exec-
struction of an 8,162-square-foot stor- utive director Richard AmPer said tht
age barn with attic space at a property group agreed with those who thought
onAlvah's Lane.The equipment stored the barn project should tiot happer
there would also be used to maintain because the development rights were
more than 20 agricultural properties sold.Tkie society has taken the stance
elsewhere,the applicant has said. that there should not be developmem
The ZBA ultimately concluded that of any sort on land for which develop•
building the barn there to store equip- KRYSTEN MASSA FILE PHOTO ment rights have been sold.
ment for use on other properties is not There are eight acres of vines on the Cutchogue property where the storage bam is proposed. -1 i the result is a goon one,re-
permissible under the code. gardle-ss of how it was determined,"Mr
"The use as proposed by NVFS to The storage barn was proposed for Much of the testimony from the Ammer said."It would be an abuse o,
erect a barn for storage of equipment a 22-acre property in the A-C zoning public related to the development the intent of maintaining agriculture.„
used in a business.wherein NFVS district that includes eight acres of rights, as well as the impact the barn Following the decision, wendor
manages vineyards unrelated to the grapevines and three fields under de- could have on the property and the leis Groocock, who has appeared a
agricultural operation on the subject velopment as cattle pasture, accord- surrounding area, which the ZBA hearings on behalf of NFVS ocvnei
property is not an allowed use or ac- ing to the applicant. deemed not relevant based on its ju- Bill Ackermann, said the board did
cessory use,"ZBA chair Leslie Kanes The ZBA found the"limited"issue at risdiction. not ansWer the question of what the
Weisman said in reading the decision hand was whether the proposed barn During a Planning Board public business is allowed to build on it,,
last Thursday morning. is a commercial use or contractor's hearing in November, neighbors op- property.
The Planning Board had requested yard as opposed to an agricultural use posed the proposed barn, concerned "We own a farm,we lease farmland
a ZBA opinion on whether agricultur- on land in the A-C district.The board about "industrial" looks that could and Produce grapes," she said. "WE
al equipment storage for a vineyard found it had jurisdiction only under the change the character of the area.They need a barn.What are we allowed tc
management operation is a permitted town's zoning code to make the deter- argued that the barn does not fit the do?That's not the answer."
agricultural use on land for which the mination and noted that development agricultural uses allowed on protected
town owns development rights. rights are not within that authority. farmland. kzegers@timesreview.com
Write the Editor Send Us a Tip Advertise Classifieds Contact TR Digital
e ➢ � � :,m., r.al °jai.,..;•>
is
(iY
-
� .
� a k.EF r N 'I�
w � Hu try
rr r t r C i f,� t� 4� u, .,a
:MR GRAN 631 848 7730
f - ' ' i iNAMOMMI lfi1 i" /111\ 4 �.
Featured Story a �o����
Recent Posts l� !�iiu%%�/G�i�l
ZBA: Ackermann agricultural barn is not ZBA:Ackermann
a permitted use agricultural barn is t
not a permitted use h
br Kelh,Zcgers 0 5104/201 7 1 2:10 PM
LIRR plans to
double train service " �'
to the North Fork
Greenport Village
The Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals ruled Thursday that a controversial Board approves
plan to build a storage barn on a property in Cutchogue where the development $10.6 million "
rights have been sold would not be an allowable use. budget,tax rate to... "" isasa lip kAa'��Grrrtu pon.Nv nBK
9 i rr r
If
The applicant,North Fork Viticulmral Services,was proposing to build the 8,162 Cops: 'MS-13'
square-foot storage barn at a property on Ahah's Lane.The equipment stored there graffiti found on
bathroom door in Ej�laffolk Times Newsletter Sign Up
would also he used to maintain more than 20 agricultural properties elsewhere,the peconic
applicant has said. Village residents Your Email Address....
The ZBA ultimately ruled that building the barn to store equipment for use on other voice concerns Over
properties is not permissible. housing plan for
shuttered church
"The use as proposed by NVFS to erect a barn for storage of equipment used in a
ld's
business wherein NFVS manages vineyards unrelated to the agricultural operation upgraded
ry
Kona nhcs Wbismanr aidrin reading the decisi n Thursday omin_„ZBA chair Leslie runni g hanks t h /� CA,� F w w D
i _ n
donation
The Planning Board had requested the ZBA interpret whether agricultural
equipment storage for a vineyard management operation is a permitted agricultural New vicar will lead
storage use on]turd for which the town owns development rights„ two North Forkchurches
-� Blotter: Mattituck
man charged after
Ct tntvC his pit bulls kill dog
The proposed NFVS project calls for an 8.162 square-foot storage barn,which Village Board
formally signs
includes an attic space on the 22-acre property,which includes eight acres or agreement for
grapevines and three fields under development as cattle pasture,according to the underwater cable to
applicant. Shelter...
The ZBA found the"limited"issue at hand was whether the proposed ban is a Greenport asks
commercial use or contractor's yard as opposed to an agricultural use on land in the county to impose 1
landing fee'on Live
A-C zoning district.The board found it had jurisdiction only under the lown's , //���/��"����/(lp�
North Ferry
zoning code to make the determination and noted development rights are not within
that authority. Former Mattituck
classmates open Fish
architecture firm
where their start
RELATED STORIES began
Guest Spot: Battle over proposed barn continues An'Aldo's too'retail
store proposed for Greenport
Greenport ?w;
Planning Board hosts hearings on additions to wineries.vineyards
` Southold honors
dispatcher on his of We
final day for 32 Drink
Much of the testimony from the public related to the development rights,as well as years...
the impact the barn could have on the property and the surrounding area,which Southold Town
according to the ZBA,is not relevant based on its jurisdiction. adopts new
Neighbors during allovember Planning Board public hearing opposed the proposed agricultural f
ba,-n,concerned about`industrial"looks that could change the character of the area definitions ( I'lvin niC
They argue the barn does not fit the agricultural uses allowed on protected l 3c's T(ltlllll)1ttFlj
Romeo pleads guilty 1)l,�m„It
farmland. to lesser charges in (01)734-7923
fatal limo crashr
"If Mr.Ackermann was seeking a variance or a special exception permit before this �
e '
board or site plan approval before the Planning Board,these issues world be Planning Board
relevant and important considerations,however,they arc simply not relevant to the Notes:No drop-offs
at proposed
limited issue currentlybefore the board of appeals,"Ms.Kanes Weisman said. p P �
PP Cutchogue winery?
Following the decision,Gwendolen Groocock,who has appeared at hearings on Group explores
behalf of NFVS owner Bill Ackermanm,said the board did not answer the question changes to
of what the business is allowed to build on its property. Southold Town
Code related to
"We own a farm,we lease farmland and produce grapes,"she said."We need a barn. beverage...
f'f f 9fi tJl � tJi lt`,�
What are we allowed to do?That's not the answer." Village to install �
kzegerswtimesreview.com plastic bag
C, receptacles for dog
walkers �,j." il ran rt
Comments
Congressman j
0 comments Zeldin spars with -- t
constituents at �lK re
0 Comments Sort by oldest 'community forum'
84 Lumber selling mut"f
tiny houses,but
they don't meet
Add a comment... local...
. bt a ;;i iin'isid.,I'tr;phi Recent Facebook Posts
ackermann agricultural barn,Bill Ackermann,North Fork Viticultural Services, LIRR plans to double train service to the
Southold Zoning Board of Appeals North Fork I Suffolk Times
'We're moving forward and making very good
progress,'Greenport Mayor George Hubbard
Jr.said.
Electricians 3 0 -1 hour ago
Ocean Electric
Southhampton 15th Annual Teeny Award nominees
0158 County Road 39 announced
Congratulations to this year's nominees!
0 0 •2 hours ago
Kitchens ZBA:Ackermann agricultural barn is not
Cancos 191e a permitted use I Suffolk Times
Riverhead The ZBA had been asked to interpret
01179 Old Country Rd whether agricultural equipment storage for a
vineyard management operation is a
permitted agricultural storage..
0 1 -5 hours ago
Home Improvement
Atlantis Home northforker
Builders Squid in Greenport Harbor!
Southold
01065 Hummel Avenue
13
Landscaping And Gard...
Soundside
Landscaping a 2 -S hours ago
Greenport
967575 Main Road Fast End Arts'Music by the Bedside
program brings joy
°I just thought it was a beautiful thing to be
able to come in and just light up someone's
day,'16-year-old singer Maddy Seides said.
Music._
Previous Post Next Post>
Court:* No
exceptions .
I "
on prelservea tarmland
Victory for environmentalists in six-year case
BY PAUL SQUIRE rights program, declaring the code"null and void
SENIOR STAFF WRITER and of no further effect."
Smithtown attorney Jennifer Juengst, who has
Special permits and so-called hardship excep- represented the Pine Barrens Society,in the case
tions,which allowed farmers to develop preserved since its 2010 filing, said Friday that."it's been a
farmland,have been deemed illegal, according to six-yeas haul." She said the Legislature's actions
a NewYork State Supreme Court ruling. circumvented the will of the voters by creating a
The decision, made Sept.28 by Justice Thomas "'back door" for development on protected:laird.
Whelan, carve in response to a case brought by Long Island Pine Barrens,Society executive di-
the Long Island Pine Barrens Society against Suf- rector llichard rnper bailed they ruling as a major
folk Cr` LInty.`7he lawsuit argued that the county victory,saying the county had no right to change a.
shotildn't allow development on preserved farms publicly approved program i;ri order to allow more
where public funds were used to purchase deved- developnent.
opment rights. "The court made it clear that politicians cannot
Specifically, the Pine Barrens Society targeted alter pro,grarr.ts approved by the public,"Mr.Atriper
amendments to the program approved by the Suf_. said.It's obvious that the public would never vote
folk County Legislati.tre in 20,10 arid'2018,which the to use public funds to prevent development only to
sprit:describes as"expansive permit and exemption allow farmers to develop the land anyway."
loopholes" ffiat allowed farmers to build on land Suffolk( otrrity attorney Dennis Brown said his
that should not have been developed. office is reviewing the decision and has not yet de-
It wasn't immediately clear at presstime if any cided whether it will appeal the ruling.
farmer has developed on land preserved by the legislator Al Krupsld( -Cutchogue)was among
county. 16 legislators who voted in favor of the 2013
Suffolk County's development rights program, amendment that was struck down.In an interview
enacted in 1974, offers farmers and landowners Friday, Mr. I rupski said the legislation had been
money in exchange for a legally binding agreement debated publicly before it was adopted and was
that the land won't be developed.Subsequent ref- meant to help farmers meet changing,needs on
erendum votes have enhanced the program. their properties.
In the Supreme Court's 10-page decision,Justice "Production changes a lot,"he said."You need to
Whelan stated that development allowed by spe- be able to adapt
cial permits and hardship exemptions"constitute Mr. Krupski said the criticism of the provisions
a substantial intrusion upon the public's right to came from a"lack of understanding" about what
prohibit development." He also said exemptions kind of development farmers had requested,such
allowed the c;ourity"s WrIiland committee to"gran t as greenhouses construction he said was sup-
a host of carte blanche deviations from the very posed to help their farming operations.l;'le added
objectives"of the original state farmland preserva- that the county is"working on a response" to the
tion statute upon which the county based its laws., ruling.
As hart of his decision" the justice threw out the
two amendments to the purchase of development psquirePtimesreview.com
Ii.F ii d=saw
t lions of dollars to keep such "It's obvious that the public and economic climate — is
' t faan�land in use solely for di- would never vote to use public vital to Many operations and a
r ,fir , '� _ "agricultural production" funds to prevent development, farmer's ability to stay in agr'i-
� � sect
3 [rrt that 4voukl preserve its natural, only to allow farmers to de- culture," Carpenter said.
r jcl.l rt 1� lay�co i scenic l e nt-Y for the public. velop the land anyway,"he said. Vanessa ]laird-Streeter,
Whelan in his ruling sail, in all, Suffolk has 39,000 .spolcogwom n for St f3olk
h state Supreme Court "The development allowed ... acres of farmland, of which County Executive Steve Pela
justice in Suffolk constitutes a substantial intru- 10,000 are:in the farmland pro.- lonc said the adnamist-ration
without fanfare late sion upon the public rights to gram, which began in 1974. received the soling Frviday and
last month issued a prohibit'development as the ex- Planning officials could not was revievinng it to determine
Wi-Pl.,svreep r decision strt g openness =_. is d,tt in- provide statistics Friday on whether the county will ap-
that shakes the county's land- ished,if not e;xtinl ursht d...lay how many farms have gotten penal_
mark farmland-preset-vation the erection of_structures." pvruilts or excm Lions for cote- L.egis. Al r runsld (D--
pr°o ram to its roots after lour Whelan also ruled that pro- ;struction in the bast six years. Cutcho-rue) a 1-sTorth Fork
decades. visions of the original farin- Rob Carpenter, the Long Is- farmer hi;rrself,s=tic] Cite county
justice Thomas Whelan land-preservation frog;am land Hann Bureau's executive should appeal the ruling or the .
threw out two laws passed in cemnot be changed by the administrator, declined to industry Nvill,wffbn
2010 and 2013 that allowed farm- cot nby Ieg=sltt u e alone, and comment: on Whelan's deci.- It's a good Program, a his- L
ers to get special-use: permits Can only be authorized in a %ion because he had not re- toric.progymn,"Krupsid said of
and hardship exemptions to public referendum, viewed it fully. However, ex- the preser ki rim program. "But t
build structures such as green- Richard Am per, the soci- parts say fttf°raters, who once the industry has changed a lot 3 , U
houses, barns and solar and ety's executive dt,cctvr, called simply slipped produce to and the growers need to have
wind gener•rttors on land where the ruling "a major decision," wholesale marl t%, now need the -flexibility to make
the public had bou;ht out farm- saying it protects the Integrity more infrastructure because cltatl
ers'right to batld z tythittt. nf.' the f'arn:il and program. they sell directly to constutte_° E`er n€per countered, The farm- :t l
he Long Is a-rid Dine Bar- Aniper said that allowing the and local markets. ers can't have their cake and
revs Society,,vhicl brought the laws to stand would have under- "The ability for farmers to 'eat it too.If they go industrial,
lawsuit,culled the t ro laws ille- cut the public's faith in all land- hravc structures on their-prop- Ithen they can't take preserva- r
gal,saying to payers spent mil- preservation programs. erty — especially in this clay Idon money at the same time."
t _ VA
m
THIS INDENTURE, Du4a this Sth(Jay of February ,, 190
'm o BETWEEN 'r Z llmsK Air Execuft of th&Efflat i'i �
d, 1, iding ?i M Myshs Lane, Cut tits, New'Yar t M? Of the
; ,
� r
AND the TOWN OF SouTHOLD, a murtix ipoi wrpam,gen having ite office
x�
wid principal P12,08 of bulift-11688zt spin Road, 'Town of Sauthold, County of
olk glild State ce, Now,York. ply of ttie second part;
WIT'NESSETH, tt t q pajjy of iha first part, in ant9deratlon of Five
u l 5rdw to Thom t TWO Hundred Seventy i Dolts ° 'i No Collis
(jk517,275.00)IM141,11 money of the united States and other good and voivabie
coraide Lion paid by the P^of the second part,
DOES HEREBY GRANT AND RELEASE unto t� p �. of tile
its �d �r i for ,,THE t3EVELOPMENT RIGHTS, by
which is migov'A'.
f the parmo,wnt 10 l intamt and right, its authorized b f section 247 of
tt've t "
o t t i i Law,M,�r� Tided, to permit,
mwi Y o 160 t t of tiro pr rni jj ciusively for agricultur l
is primmily defined In Chaptw 25 of Vm Town
r.
9 4
r fa
a ".✓,..,���� ..�. ,✓ � ,«;_ v r�.r.».,,...�,.....,-,...�,rw..»�„ r..,-.✓%^.,�, EPr"�"",' r��ww.re..r.,.'..�, „w r,,
roc_.."..�,. b.A� u ... ..".,.µ »„�. i
r
Code cf the Tow of Sou €ld, and ft right :0 uM%� � � r !► ��
:)l on '-fir for any other proWl state el use,
O'"g..,�,�:l%i wal r ;k '?;'fion- arcs;
� 'Pi;' :'fu�uaau fl „vrvv,.rn fdPirm�•/ -,r✓
N Ntl.�+ 4m�uUism A(pf dl f{ kniiHiA(G G✓Q y A; C4./+rim
a
ALL tlftf,t sin P10, Or i"J"r9 of sand, situat@3 1ping and being 6n
Siji,'fok and '4ie of
desefibed as
!11 ✓y P s P ✓ ���� of ^ " �;.la� w wr
' r�z
df
rrr
J Y
i;
ii
u,
w
a
91
p
i;
�a
�r
Y�
c
e � s
R
MAILING ADDRESS:
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS P.O.Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971
DONALD J.WILCENSKI A,"
' a
Chair
� ��� �'lo ' '!%'� ������� „� OFFICE LOCATION:
T i r fi ,
WILLIAM J.CREMERS
Town Hall Annex
54375 State Route 25
PIERCE RAFFERTY c
JAMES H.RICH III w (cor.Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.)
MARTIN H.SIDOR "N r ru ° Southold,NY
Telephone: 631 765-1938
www.southoldtownny.gov
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MEMORANDUM
To: Leslie Weisman, ZBA Chairperson
Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals
From: Donald J. Wilcenski, Chairman
Members of the Planning Board O
Date: December 2, 2016
Re: Interpretation of Proposed Use of Barn
Proposed Amended Site Plan for Ackermann Agricultural Barn
Located at 1350 Alvahs Lane, Cutchogue
SCTM#1000-102-4-6.1 Zoning District: AC
The Planning Board is currently reviewing a Site Plan Application, referenced above, for
an 8,162 sq. ft. barn (7,142 sq. ft. footprint and 1,020 sq. ft. attic storage) proposed for
agricultural equipment storage. The fact that the barn is located on land on which the
Town owns development rights for agricultural uses has raised the question of what
qualifie s�� rip ul q„r 1.storage,:,,°-I °t6 re,,case,°thee eppl�ic ntstates°ti at-the 'arge,,,s'
ite
is required to store their vineyard management equipment, and that their
business is to manage hundreds of acres of vineyard located elsewhere. They also
f�J
state that the amount of equipment they need to store would be the same to manage
only the 8-acre vineyard on the subl rcp ,„o ......,,.
Board is requesting an interpretation of the use of this barn as a base of
operations for a business that manages vineyards in other locations in addition to the
eight acres of vines on this property. During the Public Hearing, it was questioned
whether the use for this building is a commercial use or contractors yard rather than an
agricultural use, given that the business model is based on managing vineyards that are
not owned by the applicant.
so
Ackermann Agricultural Barn Page 2 December 2, 2016
The applicant has provided information regarding the equipment they propose to stare
here, and included a schematic to demonstrate the need for the sire of the barn. See
attached. All information pertaining to this application can be found in Laserfiche and
Municity. Please let us know if you need any additional information. Thank you for your
attention to this matter.
Encls.
Site Plan
Site Plan Application
Schematic (showing storage of equipment)
First and Second Floor Plans
William C. Ackerman and Planning Board Correspondence
2
March 2,2017 Regular Meeting
head. I think it's roughly about fifty tons of grapes are ours last season that's how it worked
out. So, whatever else beyond that would be owned by the land owners themselves. If you
want the actual breakdown to say how much you know how much is like us farming and how
much is us farming for somebody else I can get you those that breakdown for sure but we'd
have to go into the computer and get the charts and you know.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you give me a rough idea of the annual income for your
agricultural businesses we'll pluralize it.
GWEN GROOCOCK : It's just the one business.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so about what percentage are you actively engaged in farming
the Alvahs Lane property?
GWEN GROOCOCK : Yeah absolutely the eight acres of grapes plus the pasture land and as I said
in the letter we've changed it to livestock fence. We've planted pasture grass and we are pretty
much settled on cows. uJe were going to do sheep for a little bit but that's
LCHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well certainly you wouldn't need that amount of equipment for
culture for eight acres if you were just doing your own eight acres particularly since the rest
the acreage is now being proposed for cattle which would require a different kind of
'� "� w !Y ✓97 Phlm '�'/+w'WPGUM!��i�J rt(W�k mAlfi�wl�?Hall lmb+N9i IH l�kr4d/✓�il4W✓/A(/EJr'iPyJf✓✓✓J,Fbau(AIPI✓�'a'�
situa � �° t� gpm�t°'` � Ih� o used on oer property ftth,
are leasing it or you're providing services for others.
EN GROOCOCK : We
tried to explain this to the Planning Board as well. We provided t - 'i
�td �°sh .. o,.
.. i -sc° in ftwthe equipment ment would fit in thu barn. Ii all the equipment„,,,
g ' q " P t t
we own there's probably a couple of machines that you know a couple of the smaller tractor
around the same size are used for the vineyards so if they need to tend to Alvahs Lane that'
where they're going to be. We don't again we don't have multiple sets of these you know fiv
hundred thousand dollars pieces of machinery at each of our sites. They move around so aga"n
if you want exactly for example the eight acres what precise machines were used this pass d
growing season and is that all of our own equipment or is that seventy five percent of i or
whatever then that we can try to do that breakdown as well. It's lust tha a vineyard-wilt, ake
'ri eturirrrent its just if its" arer it"grill tie"ids e time to o u and down the rows.
g p s You
don't have like two giant three giant sprayers all going at once in a big vineyard unless you're
not on the North Fork anyway.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's think what else, did 1 hear you correctly that you said that no
repair of equipment is done will be done in this proposed storage building?
March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting
because we're trying to he wants to decide between Belted Galloways and Red Devin's. We're
getting input on that. I'm reluctant in getting into livestock a little bit. I think it's a lot more
work than Bill might think it is but we have good friends that are livestock growers out here
who are helping to you know help us understand the process so I guess then the next question
would be how many head of cattle can we foresee maybe and it's a two year cycle so over the
next three or four, five years so say it's half a dozen. So then I guess we'd have to find out what
equipment and supplies are would pertain to that and add that to just the eight acre vineyard
and that would be the size of the barn so I think yea I mean absolutely. Maybe we can just go
look at somebody else who's got a comparable sized farm and see what their barn looks like.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Again site specific.
GWEN GROOCOCK : Yea site specific. I mean I can tell you a thousand square feet is probably
way too small you know is seven too big probably. That would you know that would be ideal
but it is also large for sure so somewhere in there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess what the question the probative question here is if on
development rights sold land you were farming whether it's agricultural, whether it's viticulture
or livestock rt' st,L if what's the equipment and the scale you
rtiblu needy q din t think the real question rsrabout fa
,
rming the subjecf' r... t -e'-q`Ue" t,
is using that scale and number of pieces of equipment elsewhere throughout the town on
development rights sold property housing it there. So, that's kind of I think the essence of the
question that the Planning Board has put before us whether we like it or not we have to grapple
tltw"ids �"ffi e-'anything else that's What] rn at we
adjourn this to the Special Meeting. There's a lot of things that have been submitted to us in
writing. We also I want to have a complete printout we have to give it to our transcriber. I want
to be able to review the Planning Board's public hearing transcripts and our own and I think you
should have an opportunity to see what's been submitted in writing in case you and Mr.
Ackermann would like to respond in writing to any of them or that you would like to provide
additional testimony. By adjourning to the Special Meeting in two weeks we all have some time
to take a deep breath, look at everything and see where we need to go with this. If at the time
we have no further questions or we have no further request from anyone we'll probably close it
and then we will have from that point sixty two days in which to make a determination. We
generally don't take that long you know but this is complicated and it has potential precedent
setting you know component to it so we want to be extremely cautious and careful and
thorough and open minded so we need to digest a lot of stuff. Yes please go ahead.
GWEN GROOCOCK : I just want to say on that precedent setting aspect from looking at it it's
quite it could cut both ways really. Setting a precedent that this is not agriculture could be very
A
s .
RECEIVED
MAR 16 2017
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
To: Leslie Weisman, ZBA Chairperson and members of the Zoning Board of Appeals
From: William-G. Ackermann, Owner, North Fork Viticultural Services (NFVS)
1, William C. Ackermann, am a longtime North Fork resident and grape-grower and
owner of NFVS. I have an amended site plan application before the Southold Town
Planning Board to build a 7,142 sq. foot agricultural equipment and livestock supply
barn on my 23-acre farm located at 1350 Alvah's Lane in Cutchogue (SCTM# 1000-
102-4-6.1). The land was purchased in February of 2016. The parcel is zoned AC,
development rights sold (DRS) to Southold Town. It has 8 acres previously planted in
vineyard and about 15 acres in NFVS refurbished_pasture area and paddocks (see
photos attacfied}
IPS is a grape growing/vineyard management/vineyard consulting company with a
umber of clients on the North Fork. Some clients are managed by NFVS and utilize
. : � � �, ,, ..vineyards agrow. r�_sell_ r�a saheir
NFVS equ� ment some clients are engage on a purely consulting basis and use
own equipment exdi0si al , NFVS also�ases t -g pe �.
Currently, leased vineyards are equivalent to about 50 acres with additional leased
vineyard acreage under consideration. Leased acreage is in addition to the 23 acres
NFVS owns outright, 8 acres of which are currently vineyard; all fruit is sold to third
parties. NFVS DOES NOT PRODUCE ANY WINE.
NFVS has also begun to improve the Alvah's Lane farm for livestock; approximately 15
acres. Older and weaker wood fencing has been replaced with general livestock wood
post and mesh wire fences. The north field and south field have been cleared of over-
grown brush, disked, graded and planted in cover crop and pasture grass. Stands of
small trees where retained and improved in the south block as natural shade areas for
livestock (see attached photos). Water lines have been installed for vineyard and
pasture irrigation, as well as livestock drinking water. Half the perimeter on the north
and east side was already fenced in deer fencing; we have installed the remaining east
and south sides with deer fence to protect the vineyard
The barn is intended to house NFVS equipment for use on Alvah's Lane, hay for
livestock, livestock related supplies and livestock shelter. The concept right now is to
raise a small number of grass-fed cattle for non-commercial use. I have been in talks
with local livestock growers and several breeders of heritage breed grass-fed cattle over
the past two years. I have narrowed the livestock selection down to Red Devon or
Belted Galloway grass fed breeds.
KCLLI a�v
MAR 16 2017 Ito 31
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
dhen this barn proposal was first submitted, the livestock project was mentioned, but
not discussed at length with the planning department, because the Alvah's Lane
property had just been bought and plans were not firm at that time. Given the feedback
NFVS got from the Planning Department, it did not seem necessary to provide further
justification for a barn on a farm. However, the livestock fencing was installed in the
early summer of 2016, and the grading, disking, seeding, irrigation lines and mowing
done in the summer and fall, with equipment designed to be used on the Alvah's Lane
farm, long before the Planning Board's public hearing in November.
it is important to understand that the equipment to be stored in the barn is ALL used on
the Alvah's Lane farm, some of which is also used on the leased vineyards, as it is not
feasible to have separate sets of equipment for leased property. Please rote that
e yf meat used on "mana ed vide ardsll is Doused in rented barns on a se aratp
parcel of lard. Running a farm or vineyard of any size requires the same equipment;
more acreage simply means more time spent working. NFVS is a relatively small
company compared with much larger farming operations in the area. The operations of
the Alvah's Lane farm and NFVS leased vineyards depend on well maintained
equipment in good working order. A barn is essential to the protection of agricultural
equipment. I have attached schematic showing equipment in a winter storage
configuration; this schematic has also been provided to the planning department.
Please be advised there are NO plans for retail, manufacturing, or anything that is not
allowed on development rights sold land, according to Southold's own code.
PRIOR ACTIONS:
The Land Preservation Department reviewed the application and approved it. This
department exists in part to ensure that development rights sold land is used
appropriately.
Planning department staff at first said that the application seemed straightforward.
However, at the public hearing, some non-farming neighbors protested the barn, saying
it was not in keeping with their neighborhood. They compared it to an "industrial site";
this is farthest from reality as the attached photos show the agricultural land has been
improved for the sole purpose of"FARMING".
NFVS pointed out that there is nothing in the Southold Town code that limits,
determines or uses a formula to dictate the size of a barn on DRS land, nor the amount
of equipment a farmer of DRS land may own. The DRS deed for 1350 Alvah's Lane
references the Southold Town Code which states that development rights sold property
is limited to agricultural use, INCLUDING storage of agricultural equipment.
nUu—1 vfj�l'r�
�r_'C-
SUBMISSION TO PLANNING BOARD
1350 ALVAH'S LANE BARN-NFVS,LLC./WILLIAM ACKERMANN srpualtiToem
planning Board
RE: PUBLIC HEARING
To address the concerns raised at the public hearing on Oct.3,1 offer the following information:
e First,It is Important to understand the operations of NFVS.We manage our own 23-acre Alvah's
Lane site, plus vineyards that we effectively lease to grow fruit to sell,as well as vineyards
owned by others.To do this,we use equipment such as sprayers,tractors,hedgers,netters,
mowers and bins.In the growing season,from early spring through late fall,such as right now,
the equipment is out in the fields.It Is moved around to the different sites as needed.We do not
own a full set of equipment for each site.When not in use,it either remains on site,or will be in
the barn.In the winter,none of the equipment is In use and it all needs to be under cover.This
equipment represents a large Investment for the company,and it cannot be left outside.So far,
we have been leasing barn space month-to-month,but this a temporary solution at best.
Size of barn—7,142 sq.ft.This barn,Including the loft,Is for storage only.The size is necessary
to accommodate the equipment already owned by NFVS,as you can see on the schematic
provided.The lot coverage relative to the size of the property is very small.The Alvah's Lane
property P i ,to build tbl ,barn for agricultural use,as we 1,as,t Eger
ro erty was urchased r�ar1
�irnco ftn the vines,The equipment owned by NFVS is typical for managing any vineyard,so
even IF we were only managing our own vineyard on this site,we would STILL need this bard 1"„
n& �aemi�diprnront u' ny s �lrlhs rrinaltr�ral ub bn this 3 a � rd�ety�equlres a g�aod-sized
barn.
e Daily use of barn-There is no regular day-to-day activity taking place,such as processing.Our
field workers will no
t park��oh h fie�ldcrw will onlybe there
they are working on�the
do not pr id+e transport.
GPM.
llvah's Lane vineyard itself.NFVS Chemicals such as pesticides are delivered roughly every ten
days in the summer,as needed,and used immediately,not stored in the barn.The truck and
trailer will make one or two trips to the barn a week. So,there will not be much daily active
rvaa
=Ahe,ba,
a Style of barn—We are using a reputable barn-building company,and the style and colors are
attractive,traditional,and in keeping with the rural nature of Alvah's Lane and the North Fork.
a Location of barn—We considered all the possible locations on the property very carefully,
including impact an the neighbors,and this is the best site.We need a level,well-drained area
that has safe access to Alvah's Lane.The selected location is level,with open visibility up and
down Alvah's Lane to facilitate safe ingress and egress.This area also has a buffer of vineyard
between It and the neighbors to the south and east,and is furthest from the neighbors to the
north.The other sites are not as suitable.The northwest corner of the property has a steep
slope,and poor visibility to the road,making ingress and egress extremely unsafe as I reported
to the Planning Board in the previous meeting.Any other location for the barn would also be
much closer and far more visible to the adjoining.neighbors.
4
M\
EE � E
Nov.4,2016 NOV €) 4 Nql%
Planning Board Office
Town of Southold South€ld Twan
Re: Request for Information,Ackermann Agricultural Barn,Alvah's Lane Vineyard. Planning Board
I am in receipt of your letter dated Nov.1,which arrived after I submitted information for the file on
Nov.3,so please add this to the file also.
North Fork Viticultural Services owns, leases and manages a number of vineyards.I grow and sell fruit
manage/consult for non-leased areas of other vineyards.
• Alvah's Lane Vineyard,1350 Alvah's Lane —1 own 23 acres;9 acres in vines,10 more acres to be
planted in vines.
o Clovis Point Vineyard, 1935 Main Road,Laurel—lease 1 acre, manage 6 acres.
Y Jason's Vineyard, 1785 Main Road,Laurel—lease 11 acres.
W Anderson(Onabay)Vineyard,1600 South Harbor Lane,Southold—lease and manage 20 acres
(ratio between lease/manage varies by harvest,according to what fruit Onabay keeps for its
own wine,and what fruit I sell.)
• Hounds Tree Estate,2600 Oregon Road, Mattituck—lease and manage 27 acres,varies as above-
0 Pindar Vineyards,37645 Peconic—consulting manager for 223 acres,lease varies as above.
Pindar Vineyards uses its own equipment; I oversee and direct the vineyard management
program.
0 Lieb Vineyards,13050 Oregon Road,Cutchogue—consulting manager plus seasonal spraying
services for 90 acres.
To mmarize,the proposed barn is to store equipment that is used to manage my own Alvah's Lane
vineyard,plus vineyards that I lease/manage. I do not own a separate set of equipment for each site
because that would be prohibitively expensive;the equipment rotates around in season,and sits in
storage in the winter.ALL of the equipment is also used on site to manage my own vines and property.
The equipment will be stored at Alvah's Lane regardless,as I have purchased the property to be a
working farm, not as a public service to provide scenery for the neighbors.Equipment in a storage barn
will be far more attractive than equipment stored outside or under a large,plastic,round truss-type
temporary shelter.Proper shelter will also prevent damage and deterioration to the equipment,which
could cause unnecessary expense and create a potential hardship.The ongoing success of North Fork
Viticultural Services and Alvah's Lane Vineyard relies very strongly on the equipment being in good
working order.A working farm needs a barn.
Under section 100-220 of the Southold Town Code,our farm practices are protected from interference
by adjacent owners.It also declares agriculture to be desirable,and supported by Southold Town.
Denying a barn to shelter essential equipment that is used on-site would be in direct conflict with this.
Furthermore,the Land Preservation Committee,which deliberates on appropriate uses for preserved
land, has already assessed our proposal and approved in writing the basic principle of having a good-
sized storage barn on this site.Section 25-30 of Chapter 25 of the Southold Town Code explicitly states
that land In agricultural production shall include equipment storage buildings,and there is nothing in the
law about development rights sold land that prohibits a storage barn.(see attached from Land'
Preservation rnittee).
Regards,
William A n,NFVS, LLC.
;;��
iJ F C 's y. L
ZONING BOARD,OF APPEALS
C E E
SUBMISSION TO PLANNING BOARD NOV O ZO16
10
1350 ALVAH'S LANE BARN-NFVS, LLC./WILLIAM ACKERMANN SolhaldTOVIn
ill(imInq Baud
RE: PUBLIC HEARING
To address the concerns raised at the public hearing on Oct.3,1 offer the following information:
a First, It is important to understand the operations of NFVS.We manage our own 23-acre Alvah's
Lane site, plus vineyards that we effectively lease to grow fruit to sell,as well as vineyards
owned by others.To do this,we use equipment such as sprayers,tractors,hedgers,netters,
mowers and bins. In the growing season,from early spring through late fall,such as right now,
the equipment is out in the fields. It Is moved around to the different sites as needed.We do not
own a full set of equipment for each site.When not in use,it either remains on site,or will be in
the barn. In the winter,none of the equipment is In use and it all needs to be under cover.This
equipment represents a large investment for the company,and it cannot be left outside.So far,
we have been leasing barn space month-to-month,but this a temporary solution at best.
• Size of barn—7,142 sq.ft.This barn,Including the loft,Is for storage only.The size is necessary
to accommodate the equipment already owned by NFVS, as you can see on the schematic
provided.The lot coverage relative to the size of the property is very small.The Alvah's Lane
property was purchased primarily to build this barn for agricultural use,as well as to generate
income from the vines.The equipment owned by NFVS Is typical for managing any vineyard,so
even IF we were only managing our own vineyard on this site,we would STILL need this barn
and the equipment.Any serious agricultural use on this 23-acre property requires a good-sized
barn.
• Daily use of barn-There Is no regular day-to-day activity taking place,such as processing.Our
field workers will not park there, because they park at the vineyard sites where they work.We
do not provide transportation.The field crew will only be there when they are working on the
Alvah's Lane vineyard itself.NFVS Chemicals such as pesticides are delivered roughly every ten
days In the summer,as needed,and used immediately,not stored in the barn.The truck and
trailer will make one or two trips to the barn a week. So,there will not be much daily activity at
the barn.
• Style of barn—We are using a reputable barn-building company,and the style and colors are
attractive,traditional,and In keeping with the rural nature of Alvah's Lane and the North Fork.
• Location of barn—We considered all the possible locations on the property very carefully,
including impact on the neighbors,and this is the best site.We need a level,well-drained area
that has safe access to Alvah's Lane.The selected location is level,with open visibility up and
-10
down Alvah's Lane to facilitate safe ingress and egress.This area also has a buffer of vineyard
between It and the neighbors to the south and east,and is furthest from the neighbors to the
north.The other sites are not as suitable.The northwest corner of the property has a steep
slope, and poor visibility to the road,making ingress and egress extremely unsafe as I reported
to the Planning Board in the previous meeting.Any other location for the barn would also be
much closer and far more visible to the adjoining neighbors.
h
During meetings we had prior to the Committee review, you clarified that the "Home in Phase 2"
was not proposed to be located within the area subject to Town Easement, and would be
proposed only on an adjacent 0.35t acre lot known as SCTM# 1000-102.-4-9.1. This lot is not
subject to Town Easement, and you are looking to purchase and merge this property with the
property subject to easement. If the purchase and merger occur, you are proposing to construct
the house, and to attach same to the Barn/Workshop area, by constructing the additional
building area shown as proposed "Garage w/Office Above." Due to the fact that the"Home in
Phase 2" is not proposed within the area subject to Easement,the Committee did not review
the"Home in Phase 2." In addition, the proposed"Garage w/Office Above"was not reviewed or
approved, as this part of the structure is not part of the current application since the adjacent lot
has not been purchased or merged with the subject property.
The Committee's review consisted of review of the "L" shaped Agricultural Barn building
(estimated from floor plan as being a building of approximately 96t'x 47' and 41'x 40) and the
separate Pump House structure (16' x 20') shown as including the following uses proposed for
agricultural purposes:
Equipment Storage.
Workshop w/Small Bath
Pump House: Chemical Storage, Fuel Storage & Irrigation System Shed
The recorded easement for this property restricts the use of the premises exclusively for
agricultural production as defined in Chapter 70 to the Town Code. Section 25-50-C. (2) [3]
requires that the Committee serve as a review board for the granting of permits for the
construction, reconstruction and additions of and to structures in or on agricultural lands in
which the development rights,have been acquired by the Town.
The Land Preservation Committee members concluded their review and found that the
agricultura'f uses described above, shown as llocated within the "U''shaped Barn building and'
the Pump House, are agricultural uses consistent with the purposes and other terms and
conditions of the recorded easement.
Please note that the Committee's approval of this use within the easement does not mean that
such use or buildings will be approved or permitted by other departments or agencies. The
Committee's approval allows you to proceed with pursuing any applicable approvals that are
required by Town Code.
If you have any questions, please call.
Sincerely,
Melissa Spiro
Land Preservation Coordinator
enc.: application w/attachments
cc: Building Department w/enc„
Planning Board w/enc.
IVA
Southold's water-depende"t uses and prorno�te siting or ne,,v vvjj ter-devend exit uses in
Polk"
s. See UN'TT SectiOrl M- '-Fol'cSes; Pages 47h�,tOugh 56 for evalu2don CWr!
,quit,oble location
Dyes ❑ No YNot Applicable
.4-tach—adldong she---E,—ifllecCssarjy InG marine resources in Long!S12-Id Sound,the Per-onic Estuary
policy 11. promote sustainable use of livi 0 62 Tor ev2luatiOla P�--ntera-
and ?'own-waters. See-If-;'NRP Section Tu Policies; Pages 57 throul-=111
E] --k.1P plicable
Attach additional nee-Ls if necessary
-pages 62
n the Town of Southold. See LVVRF SectionPolicies;
o cv 12. rotes Cr- ,Oricublura! lands L
through 65 for evalulltiOyl cl-'te-"a'
70 L
EOTIyes ❑ ❑ Not Applicable e CJ-ej
-P rnp--p4
ej
-2-
Awl
Attach addiuionaalsheets if necessary rl—U and miner?d resOuFces- See :4:v"RF
policy 13. Promote appropriate use and development of crie
Section T c -policies-. Pages 65 through. 68 for eVJjjjatjon V-riteTla.
Yes F] No [jrNot Applicable
Cj7
Ar
Location of action:,11- D
Site acrea`e:_,__, ....�a._ ,
Gh��. _.
present land use: s 'h ,, x � a }
Present zoning classxfica on..� - Town of Southold agency, the following
y if an application for the proposed action has been filed with the
information shall be provided:
(a) Name of applicant: � ��
�f . .,
P."�
l `
(b) Mailing address: F
------------
c Telephone number:Area Code
(d) _A.pplication numbe-,if any:�� _ �. __n.-
Will the action be directly undertal-en,require funding,or approval by a state or federal agency?
. ...�.-.
L
T f es,which state or federal agency?
Yes ❑ To y
, Evaluate thin project to ulae folloving policies by analyzing how the project will further support or not
the policies. rovide all proposed Best Mataagera ant Practices
a letior�at will further each Policy-
support
L�acotr�plete �ns%�°ens-will require uhRt the form be returned for P
DEVELOPED CS "POLICY
i 1. "caster a� pattern of development in the Strutown of e,ma es that beneficial use of communityenhances o stall location Band
policy p
preserves a.)pen space,in�altes efficient use of taafl aastrueture,mattes
minimizes adverse effects of development. See Lam' Section . - Policies:page Z for evaluation
criteria.
`es #ApIatl�le
® ...,,-....:%w.•�„^...,.7�................... ...r� / ')n P'M Ake�H� �M'
C _ . .
tv
�.
.�AILA -1 ci�
a
w _ F
Policy 2. Protect and reserve historic a LW
-and archaeological resources of the gown of Southold. See RP
P
Section III—Policies Pages 3 through o for evaluation criteria
!_. I Yes 11 No Not applicable
March 2, 2017 Regular Meeting
MARIL SAWASTYN WICZ : Two GMC 3500 Denali heavy duty pickup trucks, 2 traders„(30 x8.6%
4 utilj; "'trailers (17x8.6 ), 1 Kubota L6060 tractor with loader and a plow (22x8.6'), 1 Kubota
L44 0 tractor with loader (17x8.6'), 2 Kubota L6040 tractors with rotary mowers (22x8.6 �q,,
,okubota L7040 tractors with LIPCO sprayers (25x8.6'), 1 Kubota JD5500 tractor with CIMA ,,.
sprayer (25x8.6'), 2 herbicide (Sx6% 2 Vicon spreaders (8x6% 3 fail mowers (8x6'), 2 hedgers
tR
(8x61, 1 leaf remover (8x6'), 1 PTO wood chipper (12x6% 1 chipper and vac (18x8.6% 2 post
pounders (8x6% 2 net masters (8x6% 1 perfecta disc (8x6% 2 bucket grapplers (8x6') and 2
clemens (8x6') whatever that is. That's quite a lot of equipment for one as he stated in his own u
words was only going to be eight acres farmed on that property.
" 1 'P`E`RSO�NWENS� d„ Okay would you submit that to us and then we'll make sure a �""tle
rest of the Board h bdrrs rec rve�wcro ies anyone"p y ne l ?
RICHARD MATTHEW : Madame chairwoman, members of the Board, counsel my name is
Richard Matthew. I am the deep pockets that just bought the lot for over$150,000 an acre up
the road from the subject property. I also am an attorney on the South Fork. I have served as
counsel to the Zoning Board for the town of East Hampton. I've also served as chair on the
Zoning Board of the Town of Southampton. My practice is limited to real estate and land use
matters. You might I think I have some experience in zoning I hope that you won't think that I'm
wrong. I think the very asking of the question that the Planning Board has sent to you is this a
permitted use shows that it's not a permitted use, shows that it is not consistent with our
agricultural practices as they were know in 1999 or as they're known today in 2017. Clearly as a
barn built a house some forty eight pieces of equipment are not intended just for the purpose
of farming on that eight acres or that eight acres of that twenty two and a half acre parcel. I
think Ms. Wickham has pointed out very clearly and very appropriately that the business that
the applicant or that the owner of the property has the person who's application is the subject
of this hearing has another business which is using contracting labor and or equipment in other
places. I think that he's made mention of that in his applications to the Planning Board. He's
also said things about the tried to bootstrap his application to qualify as agricultural. He's talked
about the potential for having livestock or other equipment or other production on this
property. However there's been no attempt to do so notwithstanding his (inaudible) to the
contrary. I think that the question before us is, is this consistent with agricultural practices. I
think that the counsel has asked the question about 280-13 and looked at is a barn a necessary
customary accessory use to a farm. Of course it is you couldn't say that it isn't. However, when
you had your farm and you have a barn for your tractor whether you use it on your farm alone
or you're lending it to your neighbor or till your neighbors field as a favor or for money is
different from having a commercial agricultural warehouse garage where you have forty eight
pieces of equipment that you're taking out specifically to other places. I think that the list of the
equipment is very telling in this case. I have a couple of letters from Benja Schwartz, Nancy
1.4i
Southold Town Planning Board P a g 27 October 3, 21,.
Chairman Wilcenski: So there are three on each side?
William Ackermann: Yes, plus windows.
James H. Rich III: The elevation shows four?
Heather Lanza: Or five?
William Ackermann: There is a sliding door in the middle so that 1 can drive through it
and then close it up.
Chairman Wilcenski: So there are actually five doors?
William Ackermann: If you want to count the sliding door, yea.
Chairman Wilcenski: Okay, alright we have a couple of questions. What are the
intentions for the proposed use of the land?
William Ackermann: The land itself or the barn?
Chairman Wilcenski: The land.
William Ackermann: The land itself, it's a vineyard now and it's going to stay a
vineyard.
Chairman Wilcenski: Is it your vineyard?
William Ackermann: Yeah.
Chairman Wilcenski: Okay.
William Ackermann: There's roughly 8 acres of vineyard, the rest of the parcel, its
22.8, is not conducive to putting a vineyard on. So it'll just be grass.
Chairman Wilcenski: So 8 acres of planted vines and 22 acres of-
William Ackermann: Its 22.8 total, of which 8 are vines, and then there is buffer area
too, I don't know how you want to count that. Its 22.8 acres in total.
Chairman Wilcenski: Okay. Anybody else have any questio,is? Heather?
Heather Lanza: I do. There are just a couple things we want to have for our record.
One of the questions was, we see that the company is called North Fork Viticulture
Services, and that is actually the address of it, do you intend to run the business out of
this building?
William Ackermann: It's where I am going to store the tractors at.
s
Sent:m. Karen S, th <kasm525 38 PMline.net> N. "
Monda
To: Michaelis,Jessica `�y i
Subject: Comment on proposal for barn on Alvahs Lane,Cutchogue,NY MAY D
SOW"I•i6:1LD I'OWN
PLANNING PGApp
To the members of the Town of Southold Planning Board:
I have read over the plans for the proposed 7000 Sq ft agricultural barn and am concerned over many aspects of this.
The size being my biggest concern. An average barn size in Cutchogue is approximately 2,400 sq ft. This parcel of 23
acres with only 6 acres being used for a vineyard and the rest for cattle doesn't warrant a need for a 7000 sq ft barn.
This land was sold to the town of Southold for land preservation. A structure of this size would be detrimental to the
idea of land preservation. Alvahs lane is a quiet residential street. A 7000 sq ft structure with its contents would
destroy the quality of life of the residents with the nonstop noise, endless traffic in and out of this structure and make
it dangerous for pedestrians. The fact that there are 5 huge garage doors would mean big heavy equipment being
stored there plus chemicals.
Please reconsider advancing this proposal any further and deny this application.
Thank you for your time;
Karen Smith
Sent from my Whone
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown
senders or unexpected emails.
1
Sv�
Re. Application - SCTM#1000-102.-4-6.1 �LaMBC CSC
"Concerns regarding the Orientation of the Proposed Building and OW[E[q)
Missing Information on the Site Plan and Drawings." MAY 0 3 2025
SOUTHOLD TOWN
PANNING BOARD
Dear Jessica,
I'm writing to follow up on my earlier inquiry, specifically regarding the orientation of the proposed building—an issue
that, in my conversations with staff, remains unresolved. This aspect of the proposal is critical and could significantly alter
its nature and impact.
When I reviewed the plan with your office's project manager, it became apparent that he assumed—as I initially did—the
building faced west. (meaning the proposed building's 5 large overhead garage doors would face the existing
parking/staging area in the western corner of the property). However, closer inspection of the site plan- specifically the
location of the dry wells,the way the building is labeled and the preservation of an existing shed- suggests the building is
intended to open to the east instead. The architectural plans do not help to clarify this as they are not directly referenced
(or "keyed")to the site plan and do not have a north arrow,nor are the elevations property labeled N/S/E/W. These are all
normal drawing conventions that are conspicuously absent.
Obviously a 7,000sf building raises questions about the nature of this proposal, but which way the building faces matters,
too!
Option 1: If it has a West-Facing Orientation:
If the garage doors open to the west—facing the existing parking and staging area—the proposed structure would be
supportive of the property's current use. It would:
• Support the existing staging operations,
• Maintain the scale of these operation that are meant to be accessory to the primary use of the land,
• Minimize the impact on the existing pastures and vineyard
• Confine the more mechanized activities to an area already in use for such purposes and that are well
screened from the surrounding residential properties, and
• Help preserve the scenic views that make Alvahs Lane one of the town's most beautiful roads.
The building's design also would:
• Be positioned along the line of existing vehicular area and angles the structure from Alvahs Lane,
softening the visual impact of its large scale, and
• Have a profile—with a central volume flanked by smaller, stepped-down sides—that reduces its visual
bulk.
In addition, a few minor design recommendations could enhance its this current design further:
• Along with the Board's recommendation to add shade trees along the southern boundary, add a hedge of
some kind at the edge of the western corner of the property along Alvahs Lane along the hillside
bordering the existing parking/staging area. This would help protect the integrity of the neighboring
views and views from the road.
• In lieu of painting the building's wood siding white, leave the white cedar shingles unfinished to weather
naturally, as this would help a large-scale barn structure blend into the landscape more,
• Add a cupola or cupolas along the ridgeline to break up the profile of the building and offer a more
refined appearance that would be in keeping with the traditional barn architecture characteristic of the
area.
Option 2: If it has an East-Facing Orientation:
If, however, the building is oriented eastward toward the existing cattle pasture,the nature and impact of this development
is very different and several serious concerns arise.
If the building were to be oriented to the east, it would not face the existing parking area nor be a natural extension of it,
but instead it would establish an entirely new,distinct and separate area rril'rise.
This would lead to:
• The creation of a second, distinct staging area, over doubling the size of the vehicular zones on the
property,
• The unnecessary loss of pastureland,
• And the disproportionate development of the majority of the property's 620' road frontage, and as much
as 3 acres (nearly 20%) of land that directly fronts to the road.
An east-facing building also brings with it other significant concerns:
• Facing the garage doors to the east would put a new staging area for vehicles and machinery between the
road and the cultivated farmland interrupting the public's view of the farmland rather than preserving it,
• Locating a new staging area to the east would put it on higher ground (not in the hollow where it resides)
making visual screening and mitigating noise to the surrounding residential properties very difficult.
• Expanding the combined parking and staging surrounding the new building would run nearly 400 feet
along Alvahs Lane, with the possibility of multiple entrances, and would a profound and adverse impact
on a quiet country road.
Because this application process does not require a detailed site plan illustrating the proposed vehicular use—as a
commercial development would—we need to imagine how this new area would be used. Converting existing farmland to
create an additional area of vehicular activity would be an expansion that is disproportionate to the size of this property
and not in scale with an accessory area supporting an established and protected agricultural use.
If this is determined to be the proposal, it would run counter to the conservation easement protecting this land, which
prioritizes keeping it as much as possible open farmland. Without a stated justification from the applicant for a need to
expand operations with such a large facility, we must ask: why is such an expansion be necessary? Why double the size
of the areas supporting the existing vineyards and pastures? How could this be warranted if pasture land would be
removed to create this new use, too? Without any explanation it leads to a broader question: is this facility really meant
to support the current land use, or is it intended to introduce a new one? And if so, what are those new uses? Would they
be allowed under the current easement?
The absence of any explanation raises obvious concerns, and questions that should be answered especially given an earlier
application from this same owner; an application that the Board denied in 2017 over similar concerns.
I believe we all sincerely hope this is not the applicant's intention. However, due to the ambiguity of the current plans, I
cannot support the proposal as it stands. I urge the Board to withhold approval until these vital issues are clarified and
properly documented in the application materials.
Finally, I would like to reiterate my request to extend the public review period. The application materials have not been
accessible on line with the Laserfiche system (due to reported security issues), which has severely limited the public's
ability to review the plans in a thorough and fully considered manner.
Thank you for your time and consideration regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Alex Compagno
1100 Alvahs Lane
From
To: Michaelis,Jessica
Subject: Comments on proposal for barn onAlvxh's Lane,[utchoguewv
SOUTHOLD TOWN
PLANNING BOARD
To the rnenlb8[G of the Town of Southold Planning 0O@[d:
|vvOuid Like to comment on this proposal and express my concerns about this 7,000 Oq ft b8[O'The fact that
this project was denied in the past brings up some prior i8Gu88'The property was 8Oid for preservation.The
proposal is exceedingly Large for the maintenance of 23 acres. It should be located in an industrial zone, being
this size.What else will b8 stored in this barn?What about chemicals &fertilizer 8tc.? |8 Mr. /\CkerOl@On8tiii
planning to use this barn to maintain the other 6 or so vineyards he maintains?
What about the traffic in this rural area?WiLL it be affected by all this equipment;will the noise issue of such @
Large barn with generators running constantly affect the neighbors and wildlife?
Please take into account what i@Dd preservation means to all the farmers that signed up for it in the first place.
It's to preserve the i@Od for future generations and keep the p88C8fui nature Of our community.This COUid set
precedent for future proposals On Land pr888P/8tioO which vvOUid defeat the entire idea of this.
Get
Thank you for your time,
Susan Johnston
243 Elm Ave
Flanders NY
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. C>O not open @ttoohDl8nt8 Or click On Links from UnkDDxVn
senders Orunexpected ern8iiS.
1
Sv
From: alexcompagno <acompagno.architect@gmail.com> ri3M
�,gSent: Friday,May 2,2025 2:25 PM LTo: Michaelis,Jessica;Angelica Compagno ICE
Subject: Alvahs laneWJN
RO
Hi Jessica- I'm sending this via my Gmail, see if this works. i
Thanks for speaking tome this morning. And thanks for the Just to follow up with my questions :
1. It doesn't seem clear tome from these documents what is the orientation of the building(which way it faces). Can
you please find this out? Can this be added to the drawings, so it is clear?
2. The plan locates the building in the context of the existing conditions but shows no other improvements or
changes to the site i.e. regrading, paving,vehicular access to the road, plantings....etc... Can this information to
be provided? Is it required for approval?
3. I understand your website to access these files is still down. Since the full application has not been available
online for review, can the timeline for the public review and comments period be extended? Seems only fair.
Regards,Alex
Sent from my Phone
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown
senders or unexpected emails.
i
s�6�
To: Town of Southold Planning Board MAY 0 1 2025
SOUTHOL,D TOWN
From: Stephen Tettelbach, 1530 Crown Land Lane, Cutchogue PLANNING BOARD
Re: Comments on proposed agricultural barn for property on Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue:
SCTM# 1000-102.4-6-1
After reading over the Site Plan for the proposed agricultural barn,the big question that comes to
mind is: Why does this barn need to be so big?
The stated use, "Barn for storage of equipment and feed for vineyard and cattle pasture", implies
that storage would be just for activities related to existing uses of the property.
However, at the proposed 7000 square feet, with the single story at 16 feet high and a roof peak
at nearly 35 feet high, this really seems like overkill for the size of the existing vineyard and the
number of cattle currently on site.
Do the owners plan to expand the vineyard? Or increase the size of the cattle herd?
Do they plan to store agricultural equipment from other sites; i.e. those that don't serve the
named property?
As the driveway to the proposed facility is located at the base of a steep hill on Alvah's Lane,
there is potential concern over the egress of large, slow moving farm vehicles from the property.
All of these questions/concerns need to be addressed.
Thank you,
, 9
Stephen Tettelbach
1 May 2025