Protecting the Whirled Peas Reserve (aka Butter Lane Farm) from its owner, Adam Shapiro.
New dumping of junk by Adam Shapiro just this week!
Yet he claims he really cares about agriculture . . .
This once pristinely kept Reserve, a beautiful tree farm, that also protected open space in its natural state for ALL to enjoy under a conservation Easement is under fire! Help us preserve it for generations to come!
Write the Planning Board and ZBA that you want the Easement and the Town Code Enforced as written.
The owner, Adam Shapiro, is asking the Planning Board, ZBA and Agricultural Advisory Board to toss aside and/or override the Easement provisions, Town Code and the long-recorded building envelope, and to remove the restrictions he knew about when he bought this property.
It is not about proposing a greenhouse to protect young trees (to date he’s filed no greenhouse plan) or a “modest” change to the building envelope for some run-in sheds and a chicken coop, the latest iteration in his public spin. The truth is Shapiro is not allowed to have the animals, let alone shelters on this Reserve and he built it all without permission or permits.
Even if in the name of agriculture, just because a landowner may engage in bona fide agricultural activities, doesn’t mean they should be permitted if an Easement or Town Code prohibit them. To be a community, we all need to be following the same rules! When landowners willfully and continuously violate the Easement and Town Code, Southampton needs to step in and act!
Community members and neighbors should not have to hire lawyers to ensure that our Easements and Town Code are enforced as written. There are too many special exceptions and variances being requested and granted, and they are now becoming the rule instead of an exception!
Debunking the Myths of Butter Lane Farm
Why have we put up a website?
1) We are committed to preservation and care deeply about agriculture, which is why we have opposed Shapiro’s plans starting from when he tried to develop almost half the Reserve for housing that resembled more of a mixed-use condo development than employee quarters. The two residential units, plus the paved roads, parking and turnarounds, outdoor kitchens, outdoor bathrooms and related hardscape, covered (and removed from possible production) 38%, not 2% as Shapiro publicly claimed, of the reserve according to his own submitted designs.
2) We want to see the Easement and the Town Code enforced as written. While Adam Shapiro claims that he just wants to be a “private person” and “grow his trees”, he keeps expanding his operations beyond what is permitted by the Easement and Town Code.
In six years he found little to no local community support - only opposition, including from community groups long-committed to agriculture and preservation such as the Bridgehampton Civic Association and Group for the East End.
Facing such tremendous and unanimous opposition, he is now selling the great harvest hoax to curry public favor for his position, embarking on a PR campaign designed to spin false narratives painting himself as the victim and misrepresenting both his own positions and those of his neighbors, including on a website he recently put up for this purpose and the most recent article in the Southampton Press.
He has left us no choice but to try and correct these misrepresentations publicly with our own website.
What is our position? We believe Shapiro should be made to comply with the terms of the Easement and Town Code just like every other landowner, no less and no more.
It has never been about wanting to see the Reserve preserved as an open expanse of lawn, nor nuisance, as was implied in the recent puff piece engineered by Shapiro, nor a greenhouse to protect young trees and a “modest” change to the building envelope to allow run-in sheds and a chicken coop, Shapiro’s latest spin; it has always been about Shapiro’s arrogant lack of compliance with and disrespect for the Easement and Town Code.
We feel the public has a right to know the truth and the community has a vested interest in seeing enforcement of Easements and code as written.
There is a long and complicated history and it is not simply a matter of neighbors objecting to a few Alpaca.
23 neighboring properties oppose Shapiro’s variance request for the livestock and other animals as it would forever change the character of the neighborhood and set precedent paving the way to allow livestock on all reserves in Southampton. Also note the sheer number of other farms and reserves surrounding these properties, while Shapiro’s, tiny in comparison, remains the only source of contention in the area.
It is clearly NOT about living next to agriculture or nuisance.
Alpaca and Other Animals Are Not Permitted
“The town is super clear on the definition of agriculture, which includes the incidental raising of livestock for personal use. We are absolutely entitled to raise livestock.” - Adam Shapiro
Not so fast. The Easement prohibits non-commercial agriculture.
What is the Easement? An easement is a voluntary agreement that once entered into stays with the land, and all future purchasers, including the Shapiros, are obligated to comply with its terms. Easements often impose additional restrictions that otherwise might not apply to agricultural properties in general.
Though they may be adorable and a “sight to behold” (to quote the Southampton Press), Alpaca (and bees and other animals, including the swine, horses and cattle Shapiro has threatened at times) as pets or for other personal use are NOT a permitted use. It is not up to the neighbors; the prohibition is in the Easement itself . Even if it was an accessory use under Town Code (and legal counsel disagrees with the landowner’s position), Town Code can not override an Easement but an Easement can be more restrictive than zoning code - in fact, that is the very purpose of a conservation Easement! In addition, the on-site production and use of the manure can not be accessory on THIS property because of its location within the Aquifer Protection Overlay District, where the storage of manure on-site is prohibited.
Commercial Use (Husbandry): Animals kept for commercial purposes, on the other hand, ARE HUSBANDRY. Husbandry is not limited to breeding. It is defined as the “raising of livestock, poultry, ducks, geese or fur- and wool-bearing animals as a retail or wholesale business.” Also, it was Shapiro himself (not those opposing the application) who first claimed “husbandry”, stating so in his variance application.
Husbandry is a special exception use (SE) under Town Code, which requires the landowner to meet other applicable sections of Town Code, which under Section 330-79 includes a minimum of 10 acres (which this reserve is NOT) and setbacks for shelters of 200’ and 150’ feet from property lines (which this Reserve cannot meet). Shapiro is requesting 50-75% variance relief, including only 62’ from neighboring residences where 200’ is required.
When first considered by the Planning Board in July 2022, every member present expressed concerns whether husbandry was an appropriate use on this property given its “undersize”, “heavy surrounding residential use” and “the significant setback relief required.” It was only after this meeting that the owner, Shapiro, shifted his arguments to personal use.
Make up Your Mind
In our opinion, Shapiro needs to make up his mind and not tell one Town board it is husbandry and another it is personal use. He needs to stop playing the boards off of one another, engaging in segmentation. Then he has to figure out if he can meet the requirements of both the Easement and Town Code for whichever one he picks. This is what the opposition objects to - not his agricultural production.
We believe he cannot meet either one when it comes to animals - the Easement restricts personal use and Town Code makes commercial use near impossible for this particular parcel because of its undersize, topography, location within the Aquifer Protection Overlay District, and heavy residential use surrounding the reserve on all sides., something the owner should have investigated prior to purchase. That said, there ARE hundreds of other good conforming commercial agricultural uses (other than keeping animals) that can be made of this property, including his current tree farming operation. We understand he wants animals, but zoning restricts all of our property rights. Why should this landowner be different?
The Long History of Code and Easement Violations
and Misuse of the Reserve
Shapiro claims to have been “restoring” the Reserve and “returning” it to agricultural production.
Here are some examples he didn’t share in the article on how he has “cared” for the Reserve since he purchased it.
We began documenting in 2018 at the suggestion of one of the Town’s Code Enforcement officers.
All photos have been legally taken from property we own or had permission to be on, or are from publicly available sources.
using the reserve as a race course causing significant damage to the vegetation and Class 1 soils
Using the reserve as a junkyard, storing discarded building materials and 17 (!) pallets of pavers for use at the owner’s residential property.
the way he has “cared for” and “restored” the reserve over the last six years . . .
a dirty soiled mattress and other junk that sat on the reserve for several years
damage caused by his son and friends using the reserve as a race track! (taken from Suffolk County GIS)
BEFORE - healthy buffer vegetation torn down on under the “guise” of removing invasive olive trees that are hundreds of yards from his specimen trees yet for decades never “invaded” neighboring landscaping mere feet away
cut down and mulched, regrading the property and now interfering with the natural drainage NW to SE
How it existed before he bought it. . .
This is a picture of the Reserve as it existed when Shapiro purchased, a beautiful and pristinely maintained tree farm for decades
(photo credit to the property sale listing)
How it’s been going . . .
If it was about clearing invasive species, why did he wait 8 years allowing it to flourish and grow in the meantime? Why was the far more invasive grapevine left, now exposed, to spread unchecked?
Children racing a UTV “farm” vehicle at the Alpaca to scare them for fun!
The illegal life-size playhouse, taking farmable land out of production in favor of personal recreational activities. Keep in mind that Shapiro told the Planning Board and the Ag Board it had been removed, but it is clearly still there
removing part of the reserve from agricultural production to expand his backyard lawn (taken from Suffolk County GIS)
And so much more
The Illegal Housing Development
Shapiro spent his first three years fighting to develop this Reserve with housing and hardscape that would have removed more than half the Reserve from agricultural production despite a very clear provision in the Easement that no residential structure or building could be built.
The 3000+ sq ft of housing included luxurious living space and amenities, including en suite bathrooms. He also proposed a large outdoor kitchen (238 sq ft) (which he claimed was for “crop propagation” but for those that know agriculture, what type of propagation involves cooking?) and outdoor bathrooms (238 sq ft) in addition to those contained in the housing. The hardscape and patios stretched the entire western half of the Reserve. He included paved roads, a large approx. 1800 sq ft parking lot (not located near the housing but along the north property line), and turn arounds. The design covered (and removed from production) 38% of the reserve, not 2% as Shapiro has recently claimed, and resembled more of a mixed-use condo development than farm. Most genuine famers try to maximize productive land over employee housing, not vice versa.
Who was the “ag labor”? In addition to an unnamed arborist (though his arborist is Brandon Prado who resides locally), Shapiro’s papers named his corporate chef with a new title “Director of Food Operations”, and interns from Yale who would study the trees, neither of which fall within definition of “agricultural labor“.
Opposing neighbors and community groups were able to provide studies that showed the scale and nature of the proposed housing far exceeded any other ag labor housing in the entire country, let alone the local area, and that the requests were excessive given most similar sized tree farms had no on-site housing (as trees unlike horses do not require overnight care and tree farming is considered low-intensity agriculture).
The Easement also did not allow the paved roads or the hardscape. Shapiro was only stopped when the Town Attorney issued an opinion that the Easement language was clear, no residence would be permitted. Intepreting similar language in an easement for another local property, the NYS courts reached the same conclusion.
If there is now suspicion as to what Shapiro is really doing with this Reserve it is well-founded and only the fault of Shapiro himself who refused to even meet with neighbors and community groups.
Despite this letter, Shapiro and his counsel continue to insist that Shapiro is somehow legally permitted to have the housing and, in the ultimate act of arrogance, in 2021 (2 years after the letter from the Town Attorney), Shapiro interfered with the potential sale of a surrounding home by insisting it is the neighbors who are confused, not Shapiro and telling the sales agent that any purchaser needed to be placed on notice housing was permitted (when the Town attorney clearly said otherwise)! THIS is what the neighbors have had to deal with for 6 years! Shapiro is no victim. The response was that being aware of the letter from the Town Attorney, no such notice was warranted or required. But neighbors should not be having to spend money and hire lawyers every time to fight plain wording of the Easement.
The design to the left would have taken up approx 38% of the reserve, and included not only kitchens and en suite baths within each of the two residences, but a large outdoor kitchen, 3 additional outdoor bathrooms, paved roads, parking and turnarounds, and hardscape landscaping.
The Great Alpaca Escape
All four Alpaca were found wandering in the middle of Butter Lane, where they could have been injured or killed or caused an accident or personal injury or property damage. It was only thanks to a neighbor that nothing bad happened. The neighbor not only herded the animals back to the safety of the private driveway, but babysat them until hours later the gate to the Shapiro residence was finally opened. Shapiro has never even so much as thanked this neighbor, apologized to the rest of the neighbors or actively taken steps to mitigate against another escape, other than since the escape, the Alpaca have rarely been seen out freely grazing.
The Request to amend/ignore a recorded instrument
“While there are other agricultural properties that provide for specific building envelopes, our research has determined that there are multiple agricultural properties that do not provide any such restriction. . .It is submitted the subject property, with a specific building envelope established for agricultural structures, is fairly unique and, thus, is unlikely to give rise to similar such applications.” -Adam Shapiro’s counsel
1) There are multiple agricultural properties that DO have designated building envelopes. This property is NOT unique. Moving/changing the designated envelope WILL set precedent for changes to ag reserves, easements and recorded instruments in the future.
2) The agricultural properties without specific building envelopes cited never had restrictions or designations to start. This is different than two decades later asking to remove or change a designated building envelope.
3) The landowner KNEW when he bought that THIS RESERVE had a designated building envelope. He also KNEW that its location, as well as setback restrictions within the Town Code, might limit what could be built (which is a good thing in terms of the Town’s goals of preservation of open space and agricultural production). A wealthy money manager, he made the decision to buy anyway. He could have (and perhaps should have) bought a different parcel, one without a specific building envelope and fewer restrictions.
A wealthy, NYC-based money manager for high net worth families, Shapiro’s unhappiness and self-created predicament should not be the basis for trampling the rights of the surrounding property owners or the community interest in seeing Easements, Town Code and recorded instruments enforced as written.
This has always been the only position of the opposition - that the Easement, Town Code and recorded instruments should be enforced as written.
Why continuously resist engaging in the
presubmission site plan review process?
To date, the owner of the Reserve has vehemently resisted submitting a site plan and engaging in the review process so that all of the proposed structures could be considered, instead deliberately submitting piecemeal proposals, interfering with a proper and complete planning review process. He has claimed he can’t submit a site plan until all variance issues are resolved, but there are dozens of examples of applicants who engage in the presubmission site plan review process while seeking simultaneous variances, which allows not only for feedback from the Planning Board, but also public input and coordinated review by all of the Town boards of the same, complete information.
By inverting the planning process and seeking variances without site plan review, which is required by both the Easement and the Town Code before any structure (temporary or permanent, agricultural or non-agricultural) can be built, the integrity of the planning process is being compromised. How can a zoning board determine the minimum relief necessary if the planning board has not made a determination on appropriate use and all structures?
Please ADD YOUR VOICE to urge the Planning Board to require this applicant to follow the procedures outlined in the Town Code and the Easement to submit to a comprehensive integrated review of all relevant information, like every other landowner and applicant.
The Very Odd Greenhouse
Claims of working with Cornell Cooperative
Shapiro claims his business is being “held up” by the ongoing issues with the greenhouse and the alpacas. - Southampton Press 1/17/24
“we’d have to move the animals to where they really don’t belong,” which would be where his proposed greenhouse would be built. - Southampton Press 1/17/24
“Since making our original proposal six years ago, we've tried to address neighbor concerns by moving the greenhouse twice towards the East.” - Adam Shapiro
Why has Shapiro been met with suspicions about the greenhouse?
Shapiro claims to be working with Cornell Cooperative, but it was Cornell Cooperative that was critical of the only greenhouse plans anyone has seen, as no plans have been submitted to the Planning Board.
There is nothing stopping Shapiro from submitting greenhouse plans for review, so it is not the neighbors or opposition holding him up but his own refusal for 6 years now (since first proposing a greenhouse back in 2018), to submit actual plans. Detailed renderings, including elevations and descriptions ARE required not only by Town Code but also by the Easement (see the Easement excerpt in the Site Plan issues section above). For 6 years, he could have begun the process. To blame the neighbors is completely disingenuous. Which makes this quote very interesting:
“If we had [the greenhouse] for six years at this point, it would be filled with young trees that we’d be tending, and we’d be germinating. We’ve been trying to grow the trees from seeds . . .” He could have possibly had a greenhouse - HE refuses to comply with the planning process.
Interesting statements, because since first proposing the greenhouse along side his proposed “housing” back in 2018, the greenhouse footprint has not moved materially, and if anything has moved closer to the west property line, not away. It is also not a given that shelters could be built as he would need 50-75% setback relief (the incredible arrogance and entitlement) and even if built, his own plans did not have the proposed shelters interfering with the greenhouse:
original greenhouse placement:
greenhouse with animal shelters within current envelope
1) Refusal to submit plans making it impossible to evaluate. The original plans (never submitted) included two chimneys, an enclosed roof and sides rather than glass, and other features that even Cornell Cooperative did not understand.
2) The architectual firm who designed it, Thomas Pfifer, specializes in modern housing, museums and cultural conference centers, not agricultural structures.
3) Despite the Town Attorney issuing a legal opinion otherwise, Shapiro’s attorney has stated and written on numerous occasions that Shapiro is “entitled” to housing and intends to build it despite the Easement prohibiting on any residence on the property.
4) As a community, we have all seen the basketball courts and guest houses disguised as barns.
The greenhouse as originally proposed is oversized and out of scale for such a small reserve (3000+ square feet and 30’ tall - about 3 stories), out of character with other agricultural properties and greenhouses in the area, and would stick out like a sore thumb, especially the two chimneys, with plans to screen only with immature trees that might, in 20 years, offer some screening or canopy. All of these are reasonable objections that every farmer and landowner faces and addresses as part of the planning process. Shapiro should be no exception.
According to his website, Shapiro seems to have new plans with an elaborate heating and cooling system but these plans only appeared out of the blue in the last two months and only on his website. These “new” plans have not been submitted to the Planning Board or shared publicly. We support his submission of the actual greenhouse plans to planning board review, and look forward to working cooperatively during the review process.
Shapiro also does not seem to understand that even if he is entitled to a greenhouse, like all farmers who propose greenhouses, the size and design are subject to planning board review, including to ensure it is not out of character with the area/neighborhood in term of size/scale, design and proportionality to the size of the reserve. Note the person for scale - how many greenhouses are 30 ft tall? how many greenhouses have chimneys?
False Claims of being accommodating on structure location
Shapiro claims to have made multiple offers to move the agricultural structures, but as you can see from below, the proposals are all immaterial., small adjustments to the original proposal.
Shapiro claims he is open to moving the envelope, but turns out that’s true only really insofar as it still remains as far from his property as possible.
To remain more consistent with 1) the intent of the original subdivider, who believed the agricultural structures should have been placed nearest the anticipated farmhouse (which was at that time the property most west), and 2) most farmstead setups in Southampton, neighbors proposed shifting the agricultural structures closer to the property that ended up being the “farmhouse” (Shapiro’s property). He rejected the plan instantaneously refusing it any consideration.
He wants the structures, and doesn’t mind if they impact neighbors, as long as they don’t impact his own backyard or views.
original building envelope
Shapiro’s 2ND proposed location
changes from proposal 2 to 3
Shapiro’s 3rd/latest proposed location
Yet another new one on 1-31-24
Proposal from the neighbors more consistent with farmstead setups - REJECTED BY SHAPIRO
““There can be no greater issue than that of conservation in this country.”
— Teddy Roosevelt
Let’s meet up in real life to share in the beauty of the natural world.
Sign up to be the first to learn of developments regarding our efforts to ensure this Reserve is maintained and preserved in accordance with the Easement, Town Code and the recorded plat map.