Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Covenant Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owner asks board to let horse‑farm activity be centered on Ag Reserve; planning staff to seek ag‑advisory input
Summary
Attorney Robert Fischetti and owner Larry Schmidt told the Planning Board they want to move all horse‑farm activity onto the Ag Reserve and remove language that ties the farm activity to Lot 11. The board treated the matter as a work session, asked for covenant language and historical documentation, and agreed to refer the proposal to the agricultural advisory committee for input.
An owner seeking to simplify long‑standing farm‑and‑residential parcel arrangements described the application to the Southampton Planning Board on March 12 and the board agreed to review the proposed covenant amendment as a work session item rather than approve it that night.
Attorney Robert Fischetti opened the presentation, describing the property's history and the requested change: "This is a property that was subdivided in the eighties... the use of the horse farm on the ag reserve was linked... We just don't wanna have any horse farm activity on Lot 11." Owner Larry Schmidt told the board he and his wife plan to keep the operation but to “dial things down,” remove the residential‑lot barn and move activity to the Ag Reserve while keeping ownership and operation common.
Board members pressed for the legal and historical record: what the original covenants required, whether the agricultural easement on the Ag Reserve protects long‑term farming, and whether removing the accessory‑use language might allow future separation of the lots. Mr. Schmidt said the easement and current approvals would continue to require common ownership while a horse operation continues: “as long as the horse farm is operating… they would have to be sold and operated together.”
Planning staff suggested a two‑part path: draft precise covenant language to reflect the applicants’ intent and refer that text to the agricultural advisory committee and to the town’s legal/engineering reviewers. The board agreed to return to the matter after advisory comments and after staff prepares a formal application packet.
No board vote was taken; the item remains a work session referral and staff indicated it will prepare a covenant amendment and a special‑exception review for the horse‑farm use in the usual sequence.
