Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Disturbance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Southampton hearing draws broad public support for land-disturbance ordinance, residents urge tighter language and no solar exemptions
Summary
Dozens of residents, environmental groups and town committees urged the Southampton Town Board to adopt a new land-disturbance ordinance to curb clear-cutting and protect mature trees, while some asked for clearer definitions and limited exemptions for wildlife refuges and small lots.
The Southampton Town Board on April 28 heard more than an hour of public comment on a proposed land-disturbance ordinance that would require permits for significant tree removal and other clearing across the town.
Janice, the town’s land management administrator, and the planning board told the board the ordinance aligns with the town master plan, recommended an education program for applicants, and asked staff to assess the resources needed for administration. The planning board also recommended concurrently reviewing the Aquifer Protection Overlay District to ensure consistency.
Residents, local nonprofits and members of the town’s Sustainability Committee urged adoption. “This ordinance stops that indiscriminate destruction,” said Jimmy Mack, president of the Southampton Town Trustees, who described developers clearing lots and replacing native canopy with lawns that increase nitrogen runoff. “It defines significant trees as anything 18 inches or larger and requires a permit before they can be removed.”
Speakers representing conservation groups and residents asked for clearer legal language and stronger enforcement. “This legislation is a welcome first step,” said Meredith Berkowitz of the Bridgehampton Civic Association, while cautioning that the town should tighten wording to avoid loopholes used by land-use attorneys. Mark McIntyre, co-chair of the Sustainability Committee, recommended defining terms and clarifying standards for permit decisions so applicants and reviewers have consistent expectations.
Several speakers focused on a proposed solar installation at 172 South Country Road, urging the board not to exempt solar projects from review. “If it’s not exempt, great,” attorney John Lynch said, adding that solar developers should apply for the same permits as others so the impacts can be evaluated.
Board members debated whether to close the hearing and proceed to adoption or to keep the record open for additional edits. Town staff said final adoption requires a clean copy on members’ desks for 10 days, but changes discussed on the record can be incorporated before final adoption. The board voted to close the public hearing after discussion; members said they expect follow-up work sessions and a six-month implementation check-in to assess effectiveness.
The hearing produced a range of suggested clarifications — from protecting tree roots and small lots to bolstering penalties and requiring revegetation — that the board and staff said they will review before any final vote.
