Concern, Criticism Arise Regarding Requested Change to Agriculture Easement in Bridgehampton

Attorney Martha Reichert didn’t mince words during a hearing before the Southampton Town Planning Board on March 23: “This board is being misled,” the attorney representing a neighbor of the agricultural reserve located at 625 Butter Lane in Bridgehampton said.

Representing another neighbor, attorney Jeffrey Bragman echoed the assertion, stating the applicant’s representative, Southampton attorney John Bennett has told different boards different things about the request to alter the building envelope on an agricultural reserve to allow for a greenhouse placed in the center of the site.

A handful of neighbors came out in ardent opposition to the proposed change to an easement dating back to the 1990s, speaking both in person at Town Hall and via Zoom teleconference.

Bennett was first to the podium. He explained that the applicant, Adam Shapiro, is seeking variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals that would allow for agricultural structures. As part of the process, the applicant needs to pursue avenues that could eliminate the need for the variances, which includes the application to the Planning Board. Should the Planning Board fail to approve amending the covenant on the land to move the greenhouse to the center of the property, he said his client would simply return to the ZBA.

Reading a letter from Shapiro into the record, Bennett said the land was “a failed tree farm” when it was purchased in 2015. The goal is to transform the land into “a thriving farm” with specimen trees, hens and alpacas, shelters for the animals, storage, and a greenhouse.

An earlier proposal to build worker housing was withdrawn when confronted by objections from neighbors, Burke said. Town Attorney James Burke also objected. In a 2019 letter to Bennett, he noted the covenant on the property specifically prohibits the construction of any housing on the reserve and doing so would represent “a material breach” of the easement.

Bennett said the request to move the building envelope was an attempt to “shift the pain,” suggesting neighbors feel agricultural structures on farmland are objectionable. During an earlier hearing last summer, he looked askance at the notion of buying a home adjacent to farmland and objecting to farming, calling it “surreal.”

Not true, neighbors said. Dr. Michele Green told planners that she specifically wanted her property because it was adjacent to a farm. Prior to Shapiro’s purchase, Green said, the land was home to “a beautiful tree farm, it was breathtaking.”

It was “an attractive place of pastoral peace,” Reichert added.

The new owner let the land deteriorate, Green charged.

Meredith Berkowitz said she wanted to have a farm herself. Lacking that, she purchased the property on Cody’s Lane next to the reserve.

“This easement was an attraction to the neighbors,” Bragman, her attorney, said.

Buying property next to an ag reserve is one of the most attractive — and valuable — purchases to make in the Hamptons, realtor Gary DePersia said. Green was a client of his and he estimated misuse of the reserve, hits the value of her property by “well over $1 million,” in addition to “the peace and enjoyment she’ll never have.”

“My clients are not opposed to farms,” Reichert said. “What we’re against is a process done in a disingenuous way.”

“I believe this applicant told different boards different stories,” she said.

Opponents spoke to a raft of code violations at the site, for building structures without the benefit of review and permits. “Like a thief in the night,” Green said, the property owner built structures on the property during the COVID pause.

Attorneys for the neighbors, as well as Robert DeLuca of the Group for the East End, called for a full site plan review of the property — one that shows structures, like a child’s playhouse and housing for the animals, already on the land.

Reviewing bodies have “never” seen a site plan for the whole property, Bragman said.

DeLuca echoed a call for a full inventory of the site, as had been recommended by the town’s agricultural committee.

Neighbor David Reinbach, who has lived on Chase Court adjacent to the farm for 35 years, believes a playhouse, located about 200 feet from the eastern boundary of the property is about 1,000 square feet and has electricity. It’s not shown on the map presented at the hearing and is, said Reichert, “very clearly not an agricultural structure.”

There’s been “some equivocation” about what’s happening on the land, Bragman maintained. Are alpacas on site because the applicant wants to engage in animal husbandry — a use prohibited on a parcel under 10 acres — or are the animals pets? The answer is different depending on which board Bennett’s in front of, Bragman said.

Berkowitz reported that last Thanksgiving the alpacas escaped and were running loose on Butter Lane until a neighbor herded them back and a service contractor let them onto the property. It appeared to her no one was looking after the animals who were grazing openly outside all weekend. Another time, she reported seeing children chasing the animals with a farm vehicle, “tormenting” them.

“The owner has behaved in a manner that suggests he’s not serious about agriculture,” Bragman continued. For example, he said, red cedar trees planted near fruit trees are “damaging” to them.

Like his neighbors, Niko Elmalleh said reserves next door are “why I bought the house in the first place.” Repeating a question raised by opponents, he wondered about the true purpose of the greenhouse. Bennett said it was to cultivate tree species that wouldn’t survive the winter. Green countered that experts from Cornell Cooperative Extension reviewed plans for the greenhouse and said it didn’t resemble traditional metal greenhouses. It’s wood, with a roof with a skylight and walls, plus two 30-foot-tall chimneys — “an enormous building larger than the Apple cube in Manhattan,” Green said, insisting the plan is to build a house.

Housing for staff on an agricultural reserve is the focus of litigation in Sagaponack that’s wending its way through the courts. In 2019, developer Lloyd Goldman sued the Town Board and the Planning Board after planners refused to process an application to turn an existing barn into housing for farmworkers. Debate over uses permitted in an agricultural easement on the property was the key issue — the developer said staff housing was allowed, town officials said the easement prohibits it. The town denied the proposal and the property owner sued.

Bennett suggested his client may pursue a similar path, while Green said she’s aware of builders, contractors, and lawyers who are waiting to see the decision of the Planning Board on the Butter Lane case.

“This is a watershed moment, because if you allow them to build housing on this reserve, Bennett will have tons of business and so will the other contractors,” she said. “Everyone’s watching this case.”

Pamela Harwood of the Bridgehampton Civic Association wondered whether the decision could set a precedent for other agricultural easements that preserve farmland.

Reading a letter from Robert DeLuca, Marina DeLuca spoke of the vulnerability of small agricultural reserves throughout Southampton, urging the Planning Board to act firmly to uphold the long standing and legal commitment to protecting the town’s agricultural heritage. The Group for the East End called for a full assessment to determine the actual use of the property

Bennett said putting the greenhouse in the center of the property protects more prime agricultural soils than the current building envelope allows. Green said that “a whole host of valuable top soil” was trucked off the site during the pandemic.

“This is a developer, not a farmer,” she declared.