Letters

Are you in favor of land being used for agriculture and growing trees? Do you like alpacas? Several responders to a recent article about the activities at 625 Butter Lane in Bridgehampton [“Butter Lane Tree Farm Sorts Through Issues With Town, Neighbors,” 27east.com, January 17] answered “yes.” I, too, answer in the affirmative.

But, as this property is overlaid with an agricultural easement, these are misleading questions. The relevant question is: “Are you in favor of landowners sidestepping or receiving variances for the deed restrictions placed on their land, which came with the property when they purchased it?” I answer “no.”

What is such an easement? According to the American Farmland Trust website, farmlandinfo.org, “A conservation easement is a deed restriction a landowner voluntarily places on their property to protect resources such as productive agricultural land, ground and surface water, wildlife habitat, historic sites or scenic views. They are used by landowners to authorize a land trust or public agency to monitor and enforce the restrictions set forth in the agreement.”

The property 625 Butter Lane was purchased with an easement in place. It came to my attention when the owner applied for a variance to build employee housing. Why is this a problem, when the town code allows farms to have employee housing? Because the easement adds an additional layer of regulations, including “no residential accessory or structure shall be erected within or upon said premises.”

At another hearing, neighbors produced photographs of a large children’s playhouse behind a wall, indicating private recreational use and an attempt to conceal the structure. The owner also submitted plans for a greenhouse with fireplaces and stone walls that various agencies thought might not fit the description of a commercial greenhouse.

At another public hearing, when Planning Board members did not have a copy of the easement’s wording to compare it with the application, the owner applied for setback relief to build shelters for alpacas and chickens, which he said were for personal use, and to put a greenhouse in the center of the property.

But any livestock on this reserve, as well as all agricultural activities, must be for commercial purposes. Therefore, at some point, you should demonstrate that you are actually selling trees, crops, livestock or their products, etc., and not keeping pets and chickens or growing trees for personal use, including because the owner is probably enjoying tax advantages for having 9-plus acres restricted by the easement.

Wouldn’t a more suitable property be the answer to this owner’s aspirations? And if a conservation easement authorizes “a public agency to monitor and enforce the restrictions set forth in the agreement,” why is it only the neighbors who seem to be monitoring the activities on this reserve, and maybe others as well?

Pamela Harwood

Bridgehampton Civic Association