Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Disturbance Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Southampton planners endorse public education, 50% threshold as draft clearing ordinance is refined
Summary
At a March 12 work session, staff and outside presenters urged the Planning Board to pair a new site‑disturbance permit with an outreach campaign and clear exemptions. The board signaled support for a 50% vegetation‑disturbance threshold that would route significant clearing to the board and for clearer grading thresholds, but took no final vote.
Southampton’s Planning Board spent the bulk of its March 12 work session shaping a draft land‑disturbance ordinance that would require permits for clearing, grading and other site disturbance and expand the town’s ability to review projects before large‑scale changes take place.
The presenter summarized the rationale: “the first item was just that you recognize that this is a good idea,” and said the ordinance should be paired with education so residents and contractors know when a permit is required. Board members and staff repeatedly pressed for clarity on what would and would not require a permit, with one member urging an FAQ or “myth and fact” sheet to spell out routine exemptions such as single‑tree trimming.
The draft would import existing grading triggers — anything over an acre would still require a grading plan — and add a mid‑range threshold that board advisers proposed would flag lots where 50% of the natural vegetation is disturbed so those applications route to the planning board rather than being handled administratively. As the presenter put it, the 50% threshold would “kick the planning board into it” so larger clearings would receive public scrutiny rather than only office‑level review.
Board members also discussed enforcement and monitoring tools: aerial imagery maintained in‑house for periodic reviews, requiring site photos at time of property transfer or permit application, and using the town’s ability to hire outside experts (engineers or arborists) where technical review is needed. Staff noted that drainage impacts are a key concern — “you really can screw up drainage,” a member observed — and recommended that significant grading continue to require engineering review and SWPPP (stormwater pollution prevention plan) compliance.
On appeals and administrative routing, staff described a proposal where smaller disturbance permits would be managed in the building/land‑management office while applications that disturb a defined share of vegetation would come to the planning board for review. The board did not vote on the ordinance at the session; members asked staff to draft clearer definitions of “grade change” and “site disturbance,” prepare educational materials for landscapers and real estate professionals, and return with a companion code amendment and process map for a future meeting.
