Letters

In prior letters, I described the manipulation and half-truths surrounding the agricultural reserve at 625 Butter Lane. We are seeing it again.

Gabi Morris proposes to build a stable for 26 horses, 16 duplex townhomes for “workers,” a garage for multiple horse trailers, and riding rings on an open field she doesn’t yet own at the southeast corner of Lumber Lane and Scuttle Hole Road [“Proposed Bridgehampton Horse Farm Clears First Hurdle,” 27east.com, October 2].

This field is specifically identified in the town’s Master Development Plan for preservation for its natural beauty, open space and scenic vistas. Southampton spent millions of taxpayer dollars to acquire the development rights, putting an agreement in place called an easement that allows the land to be used for equestrian activities, but only privately. All commercial activity is strictly prohibited.

Yet, just like 625 Butter Lane, we are hearing double-talk.

Multiple times, including at the public hearing, Ms. Morris (and her attorney, Wayne Bruyn) insisted that all 26 horses belong to her and the facilities are for her personal use. Many members of the Planning Board and public seemed skeptical, but she persisted.

Then, suddenly, only after the public comment period ended, Bruyn told the Planning Board that Morris was planning commercial boarding. More troubling, Bruyn claimed that “commercial boarding” is a private endeavor. Huh?

A possible explanation is that to take advantage of favorable tax benefits, Morris needs $10,000 in commercial sales. But the easement doesn’t allow for a commercial operation. So, they are double-talking.

She’s also planning 16 townhomes but admitted that only nine groomers and one caretaker are needed. Why the extra units? Why two-story townhomes when industry standard is a smaller footprint with shared bedrooms and facilities, especially when many of her groomers travel south with horses in winter?

Two Trees, one of the precedents cited by Bruyn, is in litigation over its own easement violations. Campbell and Edge of Woods are also not analogous. They do not have this same easement wording, and just because it was allowed before doesn’t mean it needs to continue, especially when we have seen our hoped-to-be protected farmland be developed in ways that do not comply with the Master Plan.

Christine Scalera, the deputy town attorney assigned to the Planning Board, didn’t even mention the prohibition on commercial activities. What good are the protections, the millions spent, if our town attorneys, led by James Burke, are not enforcing the easements they negotiated?

How can Southampton, which had the “good sense” to save the Topping Field (28 acres of prime farmland), now give the go-ahead to Morris, especially with an air-tight easement in place?

Meredith Berkowitz

Bridgehampton Civic Association