Letters

Why, if Butter Lane Farm is farmland, can’t Adam Shapiro farm as he pleases?

Shapiro’s letter [“Fact vs. Fiction,” Letters, February 29] doesn’t address how provisions of town code and an easement restrict the way this land can be farmed, and that he has a long history of violations. Using inflammatory accusations to deflect doesn’t change the facts.

This property’s easement is crystal-clear that personal agriculture, including animals, is simply not permitted on this parcel, no matter how laudable, self-sustaining or regenerative. The relevant passage from the easement is posted on our website, savebutterfarm.org.

An easement is a voluntary agreement that, once entered into, stays with the land, and all future purchasers, including the Shapiros, are obligated to comply with its terms. Easements often impose additional restrictions that otherwise might not apply to agricultural properties in general.

Shapiro points to the code’s general definition of agriculture (§330-5) to say that animals are permitted. But a definition can’t override an easement, nor can it confer rights; it must be read with the other provisions of the town code and the easement to establish what is and isn’t permitted. Tennis courts are permitted generally — that doesn’t mean we can all have one.

It doesn’t matter if the alpaca are a “joy for friends and family,” or that he is using the manure, if they are not permitted. Being in the aquifer protection overlay district, he is prohibited from storing manure.

As for the pig farm reference, I and others who heard it truly believe it was intended as a threat; adding “No one’s going to do that” just made it passive-aggressive.

I will not dignify his other wild, baseless accusations with a response, other than I never set foot on his property, nor have I met him or any of his workers.

A rational and reasonable person would have long ago worked this out with neighbors and agreed to stay within the four corners of the law and easement. If we do not put a firm definition around what Shapiro can and cannot do on this reserve now, he will continue to push limits.

Our opposition has always been only about Shapiro’s noncompliance and unreasonable requests. It is not personal nor anti-agriculture, and giving in to his requests to essentially nullify long-standing provisions of the easement and town code has broad implications well beyond this one reserve.

We too look forward to a resolution.

Meredith Berkowitz

Bridgehampton