Southampton looks to regulate land clearings that pave way for new homes, renovations

The whine of chain saws and sudden thinning of woods have become a familiar — and jarring — backdrop to life on the South Fork. Towering oaks and dense thickets that buffer homes and define the region's rural feel are being cleared for luxury homes. The trend has fueled unease among residents who say their neighborhoods are changing in real time.

Currently, most properties in Southampton Town can be cleared and regraded without restriction. But town officials say they are looking to change that with a bill that will ensure large trees, vegetation and habitats are not removed unnecessarily during the construction process. The town issues thousands of building permits annually, including 184 last year for new homes and 695 for renovations.

The proposal would require the town's land management department to review and issue permits for any major clearing, regrading or excavation, save for several exceptions. Clearing more than half a property would require the planning board's approval. 

“The sheer physical beauty of the land and the water [on the East End] is extraordinary. And yet, if we continue to cut down mature trees, that character of various hamlets [and] communities start to disappear on us,” Mark McIntyre, co-chair of the town’s sustainability committee, told Newsday. “It's part of what makes the South Fork so special."

Those activities are already restricted in other South Fork communities, including the Town of East Hampton as well as the villages of Sag Harbor and Southampton. In those municipalities, a permit or building department approval is typically required to remove trees and clear land.

Councilman Michael Iasilli, one of the bill's sponsors, said he was driven to act after years of complaints from residents who said their neighborhoods are being transformed “dramatically” by “McMansions” and other new construction. The town received 55 clearing-related complaints from residents last year through its online system and has logged 16 more since the start of this year, he said.

Trees and vegetation are an “integral and irreplaceable part of” Southampton’s character, the bill states. Their removal is harmful to wildlife habitat and means there are fewer trees that can capture greenhouse gases, which can worsen the effects of climate change, Iasilli said.

But opponents say the proposal would give the town too much control over private property and could lead to delays in real estate deals and construction timelines. Councilwoman Cyndi McNamara, the board’s only Republican, opposes the measure. She said it will bring “more red tape" and is "another permit to get" for residents and contractors. The requirement could cause delays for contractors and strain the department's staff, she said.

“I just don’t think that this captures what is a laudable goal — we don’t want people clear-cutting properties just to clear-cut properties — but at the same time, people have property rights,” she said in an interview.

Conflicting views

The proposal was criticized by several people in the real estate and construction industries during a recent public hearing. Existing laws protect environmentally sensitive areas, and a new permit process could increase costs for homeowners, they said. 

“The ordinance requires costly surveys, engineering and architectural services, and detailed revegetation plans with mandated plantings,” Shannon Bradley, a permit expediter, said at the hearing. “Additionally, it introduces duplicate permit fees and imposes stricter regulations, all of which collectively increase expenses for individuals seeking to responsibly manage their land.”

But supporters said the protections are reasonable and important to preserving woodlands and mature trees.

Developers are clearing large tracts of land, even before town officials have seen or approved building plans.

“We came to find that a lot of people clear and prep sites indiscriminately in advance of asking for any permit from the building department,” Janice Scherer, the town's planning and development administrator, said during a recent hearing on the proposal.

Clearing on portions of a roughly 30-acre property in Eastport in late 2023 to expand a mobile home park drew complaints from residents and helped spur the proposal, Iasilli said.

May Zegarelli, who lives nearby and owns an adjacent farm, said the loss of trees changed the character of the rural neighborhood. The tree removal altered wind patterns and has disrupted how she grows her crops, she said.

“I would hope that this type of legislation would help prevent things like what happened to us, but also keep the [East End's] character intact,” Zegarelli said.

Complaints spur proposal

Southampton Town has sued JGF Surf Shack LLC, which owns the property, alleging in State Supreme Court  the company began construction without town approvals and ignored stop-work orders. The company, affiliated with the Farrell Companies, a Hamptons real estate development firm, has denied the allegations and is seeking to dismiss the lawsuit. 

Attorneys for the company said in a statement: “The properties at issue possess preexisting, nonconforming, legally permitted rights, and have never been subject to any clearing restriction.”

Since acquiring the properties in 2023, the company has “continuously sought to transform a long-neglected site — previously characterized by abandoned or dilapidated trailers, debris, and unsafe conditions" for affordable housing.  

Officials have also cited complaints of a recently cleared property on the corner of Butter Lane and Montauk Highway in Bridgehampton. Woods were demolished to make way for two commercial buildings and a home. Sybille van Kempen, whose company owns the property, said in an email Southampton approved the project, which includes landscaping. The property was “filled with brambles, and diseased trees,” she said.

Under the proposal, property owners on residential lots spanning 0.46 acres or more would need a permit to clear or disturb more than 800 square feet. On commercial parcels that are 0.92 acres or larger, the threshold would be 1,000 square feet.

Certain activities would be exempt from those requirements, including clearing for wildfire safety buffers, home gardens, removal of invasive species as well as infrastructure projects.

Violations would be considered misdemeanors, punishable by a fine of up to $3,000 and a $100 “blight mitigation surcharge.” The town could also require property owners to restore vegetation that is improperly cleared.

Disparate impacts

McNamara said the penalties would hit ordinary homeowners hardest, while contractors may treat fines as a cost of doing business.

Clearing is restricted in wetlands, near water bodies and across 43,000 acres within the town’s two designated Aquifer Protection Overlay Districts, which are designed to safeguard groundwater resources, officials said. It’s also heavily regulated in the pine barrens, where some areas overlap with the protection districts and include large wooded tracts.

Outside those areas, clearing remains legal and unregulated by the town, leaving parts of Southampton vulnerable, Iasilli said.

Town officials will incorporate revisions based on comments from the public, Iasilli said.

The Village of East Hampton does not require permits for clearing.

In East Hampton Town, clearing and land disturbance is tightly regulated. Total clearing is allowed on residential lots smaller than a quarter-acre, while larger parcels are subject to limits based on size.

Land disturbance must be minimized in wooded and waterfront areas, which are protected by overlay districts meant to preserve water quality.

“This is not just for aesthetics,” East Hampton Councilwoman Cate Rogers said in an interview. “These are important parts of our natural infrastructure that allows us to live here.”