Dan's Papers - November 7, 2008

Dear Dan,
I know that you probably don't even recall writing this piece, but while surfing the web I came across your article on Bridgehampton 30 years ago from August 2007. You talked about the 'Woodshed' turning into 'The Grotto of the Purple Grape.' When I was 18 years old, the very first place I played (scared to death) as a singer and guitarist was 'The Grotto.' Later, I moved on to bigger and better venues such as 'The Hanson House' in Southampton, and 'The Driver's Seat' on Job's lane, or the 'Salty Dog' in Sag Harbor.
I keep telling people that the Hamptons was painfully beautiful, just potato fields and a few cool stores back in the '70s, but no one believes me. Sigh.
Thanks for the trip down memory lane. Now I'll go play some Joni Mitchell and skinny-dip in my bathtub.

Remember the Hampton Drive-in next door? - DR

Dear Dan:
I've written a few letters to The Southampton Press and The Independent concerning agricultural reserve easements. At the risk of repeating myself, I'd like to discuss this issue within the context of the October 17 article entitled "Should Deep Hollow Ranch Be Saved."
A while ago, a standard subdivision plan to build 12 houses on 2 l/2-acre lots in East Quogue was rejected by Southampton's Planning Board allegedly because it didn't contain enough open space, even though the minimum lot size for that parcel was actually two acres. After revisions, the final plan approved by the Board allowed the developer to build 13 houses on 1-acre lots (off a l.6-acre cul-de-sac) and to create a 14.75-acre agricultural reserve easement, which the developer could sell. The Planning Board called this subdivision a Planned Residential Development or PRD.
Not only did Southampton allow the maximum number of houses to be built, but allowed a for-profit business to operate on the easement. This dual use of a parcel of property (which wouldn't have been allowed under the original standard subdivision plan filed by the developer nor allowed under the Community Preservation Fund program) effectively increased the yield, an important consideration for a rancher in need of financing.
Additionally, Southampton allows any developer to build large structures, outbuildings, parking lots, trailer facilities, etc. on the agricultural reserve easement, also an important consideration for a rancher who operates a for-profit business.
Furthermore, the easement apparently doesn't even have to consist of open space. It may meander between houses, thereby making parts of the easement similar to any standard subdivision, the only difference being that in a standard subdivision the open space between houses is not open to the public, whereas in a PRD the space between houses may be owned by a business.
If I remember correctly, law from grazing livestock on an easement next to houses precluded Deep Hollow Ranch. However, if Deep Hollow had created a Southampton-style easement, then the Ranch would have been able to hold cattle drives between houses...that is, if Southampton's easements are fair.
In my opinion, a PRD can be a very effective vehicle for preserving open space at no cost to taxpayers as long as the open space is not given away to developers to sell. A classic PRD that creates a large meadow around which houses are built is a very desirable and therefore very profitable vehicle for developers. No reason exists to allow any developer to sell the open space as a separate business.
Conversely, agricultural reserve easements are intended to restrict development. However, in Southampton they have become vehicles for increasing development when made part of a PRD. In my opinion, Southampton's failure to use PRDs and easements in the manner in which they were intended by law and by Code may be a "crime" of greater magnitude than East Hampton's misuse of CPF funds. Perhaps someone at the next highest level of government (County or State?) should investigate Southampton's questionable use of easements since, in East Hampton, a rancher who appears to have obeyed statutes governing easements now appears to be at a disadvantage.

When farms are saved, the farmer on it can still run a farming business - but ANY business? I will look into this. - DR

Dear Dan,
My name is Whitney and I am a resident of Sag Harbor. This photo was taken today 10/31/08 around 3 p.m. Law or no law, I am concerned because this is the second time I have seen this woman on [what appears to be?] the cell phone while directing traffic in front of Amagansett school.
The first time I witnessed her on the phone, she put the phone between her shoulder and ear so she could hold traffic with both hands while nodding to the children to cross with her head at the same time she was holding that phone between shoulder and ear. Do the math. It's very sad an employee of the town of Amagansett has such an important call to distract her from the safety of the children she is there to protect!