Letters

We are seeing a disturbing trend on the East End and particularly in the Town of Southampton.

It is perplexing to witness extremely wealthy buyers, ones with resources to fund endless, years-long legal battles, to the detriment of neighbors and community, purchasing land with known restrictive easements, only to later express frustration over, and seek to have the town override, the very conditions they agreed to.

These restrictions, often put in place to protect natural resources, maintain historical integrity, or uphold community standards, are not hidden surprises but clear stipulations.

When they buy a property subject to an easement, these owners enter into a contract fully aware of these limitations. Complaining about it afterward seems not only disingenuous but also disrespectful to the processes and agreements that were transparent from the outset.

Two recent examples are the owners of the ag reserve at 625 Butter Lane, Adam Shapiro, and the couple who purchased Two Trees [“Equestrian Couple Want To Revive the East End Equestrian Community With a New Show Series, but They Face an Uphill Battle,” 27east.com, July 5].

Adam Shapiro bought the ag reserve at 625 Butter Lane knowing that a conservation easement allowed some but not all types of agriculture on the parcel, mainly because it is undersized, is completely surrounded by residential properties and its location within the Aquifer Protection Overlay District. Yet he has repeatedly ignored the conservation easement (and the aquifer provisions), virtually consequence free, and files application after application asking Southampton to override the restrictions he willingly agreed to.

Now, the new owners of Two Trees want to do the same — override the provisions of conservation easements they also knew about when they purchased the property. Despite specific restrictions on nuisance, for example, they want to host horse shows — and not just one, a series, with all the noise, loudspeaker announcements and traffic that go hand in hand, just because it would be great for the equestrian community, but with little to no regard for the impact on neighbors or the larger nonequestrian community.

We must uphold the integrity of these conservation easements regardless, as they serve broader community and environmental interests. Rather than seeking to undermine these agreements, property owners should respect the commitments they willingly entered into and be held accountable. After all, the terms were clear from the beginning.

This is a watershed moment for conservation and preservation. Southampton needs to hold strong.

Meredith Berkowitz

Bridgehampton Civic Association