A group of homeowners on Further Lane between East Hampton Village and Amagansett is suing the town over the loss of a view that the town itself was supposed to preserve.
Until a thick hedge was planted this year, the property at issue was perhaps the last piece of visible agricultural land on the south side of Further Lane. In the 1980s, Brian and Judith Little, the then-owners, built a house at the ocean end of the land and granted to the town easements that were supposed to conserve the fertile alluvial soil, as well as the long view of then-plowed rows. For more than 30 years, passers-by have enjoyed the vista. Neighbors, by their own admission, have enjoyed the elevated property values, as well as the view, of course.
That began to end in the spring, as landscaping crews started installing hollies along Further Lane. Eventually they planted three rows of the thick, evergreen shrubs, as well as a handful of trees, radically changing the character of that portion of Further Lane.
The history of the site’s easements is notable. While seeking permits to build their house, circa 1987, the Littles assured the town that they would want to do everything in their power to maintain the treasured farmland and make sure that it remained visible, sharing the views with the public. In effect, the Littles wanted to build, but they also sought to leave the community a gift. From what we understand, the final approval of their plans was conditioned on their agreeing to the town’s perpetual oversight for portions of their land.
Easements like those on the Further Lane property often are the result of the give-and-take between local governments and property owners. Often, they are created at no cost in exchange for officials looking favorably at a specific project. But sometimes easements are paid for, as in a recent $20 million deal at Georgica Pond to prevent development of about five and a half acres of waterfront. Another was a $12 million deal in Amagansett south of Town Lane to prevent houses on about 15 acres of farmland. And, in addition to straight-up land protection, East Hampton Town has, from time to time, paid property owners to preserve historic structures. But easements are only as strong as subsequent town boards’ willingness to uphold them, and a number have been forgotten over the years. In this sense, the Further Lane neighbors’ legal action is reflective of a long-overdue reinvigoration of the town’s restrictive covenants more broadly.
In recent decades, the town has been coming up with the cash for easements with money from the community preservation fund, which now risks not just ignoring legally binding agreements but wasting public money as well. Enforcement has been uneven when it has taken place at all. There has been a sense that the lawyered-up rich can get away with apparent violations but less-well-off property owners are penalized, even for minor issues. Fair or not, many residents believe that the town picks on the weak to give the impression of work, while letting the more-critical matters slide. In a rare action last year, the town won a court order to remove a walkway on a Montauk beach — but even here, the town had no choice but to sue, thanks to multiple layers of jurisdiction all the way to the Army Corps of Engineers.
There has been a long trend of property owners assuming they can wall off land and views and seek permission after the fact. In the Further Lane matter, the new owners are seeking permission to add a variety of outdoor features. This should give the town leverage, should officials care to use it, to make sure that the easements are protected. In any event, the neighbors’ lawsuit is going to be a very interesting case, one with important implications for the town.