Letters

I was elated to see the Southampton Village Zoning Board of Appeals call out attorney John Bennett regarding chicanery tactics [“Southampton Village ZBA Hearing Leads to Back-and-Forth With Attorney Over Board’s Scope,” 27east.com, August 14]. I, too, have seen Bennett try to shift the burden to boards or those opposing an application to prove detriment to the community. State law, however, squarely places the burden on the applicant, requiring an evidentiary showing, rather than mere assertions/opinion.

Too often, the Southampton Town ZBA grants variances, particularly to wealthy applicants, without requiring the evidentiary showing. At a recent hearing, an applicant requested 100 percent relief from frontage requirements. No evidence was presented, no studies, not even the intended use required to be disclosed. How can the ZBA assess impact without knowing use?

Bennett makes a mockery of the variance and planning process. In the 625 Butter Lane reserve, he inverts it, starting with the more flexible Town ZBA before the Planning Board. He segments, playing one board off another, telling each a different story, threatening the integrity and transparency of the entire process.

In 625, he seeks variances for animal husbandry, though the parcel can’t meet the minimum 10 acres required by code and would require 75 percent setback relief. Despite knowing both were a code violation, shelters were erected in March/April 2020, violating the governor’s COVID moratorium, without permits or approvals, and animals were introduced.

The variance request came two years later, and without any prior site plan review. The variances seek not only to keep the illegal structures but more, all of which threatens to eliminate the open space of this “open space agricultural reserve.”

It is notable that Adam Shapiro, the applicant, is a wealthy real estate financier who bought this reserve knowing of its “open space” requirements, its size, and the related zoning and contractual restrictions. Shapiro is simply dissatisfied because these provisions do not align with his personal “vision” for the property. His discontent, however, should not serve as a valid basis for overriding town code.

Bennett told the ZBA and the Ag Advisory Board that the animals were for husbandry, but told the Planning Board they were “pets.” Where does the truth lie?

Bennett made the unusual request to reopen the matter, to reverse an Ag Board opinion. The request was curiously the one item omitted from a FOIL submitted by opposing neighbors, allowing presentation unopposed of a one-sided, factually incorrect story. Omissions like this not only obstruct the public’s right to access information but raise concerns about objectivity and fairness.

It is my firm belief that impartiality and transparency are fundamental principles of good governance, and it is essential that the ZBA and Planning Board adhere to these principles and follow codified process to maintain public trust.

Meredith Berkowitz

Bridgehampton

Berkowitz is secretary and a director of the Bridgehampton Civic Association — Ed.