Baiting Hollow Farm Vineyard again fails to gain planning board approval

A proposed site plan for an expanded tasting room and other improvements at Baiting Hollow Farm Vineyard failed for a second time to win approval from the Riverhead Planning Board in a 2-2 vote with one abstention last night.

The site plan failed to gain majority support from the planning board in a 3-2 vote in December. The vineyard came back to the board in January, after a change in board membership with the appointment of Joann Waski to replace former chairperson Stan Carey, who retired in December.

A revised resolution containing new restrictions on operations of the vineyard, drafted after the town received more than two dozen letters from nearby residents urging planners to hold another public hearing on the expansion plan before putting it to a revote — or its outright rejection — was before the board last night.

The restrictions met with fierce pushback from vineyard owner Sean Kelly, who said they would put his business at an unfair disadvantage among other similar businesses along the Sound Avenue corridor. Kelly, an attorney, also argued that the restrictions imposed by the revised resolution were unconstitutional, overreaching and lacked the required rational basis, and would therefore be thrown out by a court.

Kelly’s strongest objections centered on the revised resolution’s ban on outdoor music and its requirement that the tasting room and all other activities on the property close no later than 9 p.m. These restrictions would result in financial losses for the vineyard, Kelly said and would be an unconstitutional “taking” of private property without just compensation.

But the new planning board chairperson pushed right back.

“Two weeks ago, when I met you for the first time and heard about you basically described it as very unique, almost… a quaint spot… “ Waski said. “I was curious about it, so I went online and I did a little bit of research. You never mentioned the beer garden that you have, the almost outdoor sports bar with all the beer that you have with the outdoor televisions. Suddenly I started looking at it quite differently,” Waski said. “You did not want to be compared to the Ciderhouse or Jamesport (brewery), but in essence you’re you’re kind of in the same category there with what you’re trying to do, and the restrictions that have been put on the Ciderhouse and Jamesport Brewery is that they are not allowed to have music outside.”

If they are having music outside, they are violating their site plan approvals, Waski said, and the planning board, which is not an enforcement authority, has no control over it.

“Our job is to make sure that the residents have the best quality of life,” Waski said.

“We’re getting letter after letter from concerned residents that are opposed to it,” she said.

Waski also said the business operation Kelly wants would have “a huge impact” on traffic on Sound Avenue.

Kelly objected, pointing to the town’s SEQRA determination of non-significance that said the tasting room was not expected to create a significant increase in traffic. “So with all due respect,” he said, “you could have your opinion, but this was an issue that was already addressed..”

Waski would not concede. A beer garden, a sports bar and a wedding venue will bring in more vehicles and more traffic, she said.

Kelly said he had a petition with 1,300 signatures on it in support of the vineyard. His brother and vineyard manager Steve read emails of support into the record.

Board members also heard from several residents who voiced opposition to the plan as well as several people who said they patronize the venue and supported the vineyard’s application.

Gary Danowski, who said he grew up in the house across the road and still lives there, said the vineyard is like having a neighbor who throws a block party every weekend with loud music and crowds. “I would like a neighbor — like you or anybody would like — a neighbor that that works with you know, like let’s see what we can do, give and take, you know, try to work it out and I don’t feel we’re getting that,” Danowski said.

Brad Blair of Baiting Hollow said this vineyard is being “singled out.” He said if they don’t have music they won’t survive. “I go there all the time. I go to a lot of places on Sound Avenue. And I just don’t see the attraction of sitting outside in silence, when I can go to a bunch of other places,” Blair said. “I’m really at a loss here as to why this is such a big deal.”

Greater Calverton Civic Association President Toqui Terchun asked the board to hold another hearing before voting on the resolution.

Terchun was followed to the podium by Barbara Blass of Jamesport, who also asked the board to convene another public meeting. Blass, a former councilwoman, former planning board member and one-time chairperson, said the vineyard’s operations as described do not meet the requirements of guidance from the State Department of Agriculture and Markets.

“The primary purpose of activities and events at an agricultural operation must be to sell the farm’s products and the marketing is to be consistent with that premise,” Blass read from the guidance document.

“Baiting Hollow Farm Vineyard describes its operation on the website as, quote: ‘One of the most talked-about destinations on Long Island’s East End. Baiting Hollow Farm Vineyards is open all year featuring great food and Long Island’s top entertainers on weekends with up to five bars in season. During the weekdays we always have our great sound system providing a cool type in what is always a warm and friendly place to shop, hang out, enjoy wine and eat,’” Blass read. “I didn’t even hear the word farm in there. We’re supposed to be promoting farming operations. It did mention the word wine once,” she said.

Blass stressed that the planning board has imposed similar restrictions on other agritourism operations, including Riverhead Ciderhouse, which she said was “precedent-setting.” The decision articulated in the resolution is consistent with that prior determination, Blass said.

Former Councilwoman Catherine Kent also addressed the board. She said she has lived about a mile north of the site her entire life and she can hear the music from the vineyard. “I can hear the music and I can hear people talking on the loudspeaker and it sounds as if it’s in my yard,” Kent said. “When you have farm fields and open spaces, the sound does travel.”

When the vote was taken, Vice Chairman Edward Densieski voted no on the resolution because, he said, “I think it was a little bit too restrictive.” Densieski said his priority is “protecting individuals’ property rights.”

Member Richard O’Dea voted no without comment, Member Joseph Baier voted yes without comment and Member George Nunnaro abstained.

Waski voted yes.

“I don’t feel that anyone being singled out here,” she said. “Standards have been made with recent rulings. And I respectfully would like to continue to have a scenic route and preserve what’s left of the land.” The residents in the neighborhood in the surrounding areas “deserve to not have interference via noise and traffic” more than they already do.”