In seven years at Group for the East End, I have seen my fair share of development proposals. Some are reviewed through an open and productive process with results that complement our communities. Some get approved, but end up destroying the character of the community and/or put stress on public services and natural resources.

For me, the stickiest proposals have always been the Planned Development Districts (PDDs).

The original purpose of the PDD law in Southampton Town was “to facilitate increased flexibility to achieve more desirable development … of residential, mixed use, commercial and industrial areas than [was] … achievable under conventional land use techniques and zoning regulations …”

According to the town code, PDDs are supposed to “preserve, adapt and improve existing open space, land uses and communities, consistent with the recommendations of the Town's Comprehensive Plan.” 

Sounds great, right?

Unfortunately, over the years the review process for non-agricultural PDDs (i.e., those not aimed at protecting farmland) has muddied what was once the main focus of this land use tool — the public benefits. The flexibility this law was designed to provide has, in some cases, been translated into a free-for-all that allowed developers to build more than was originally allowed on a parcel of land without assuring the set of public benefits the law promises.

Over the last few years, Group for the East End has been an active partner with concerned citizens and Southampton Town officials to improve the PDD review process. Southampton Town residents can now count on additional opportunities to provide input, a clearly defined process for identifying public benefits, expanded public oversight of each approved project, and a chance for the Town Board to simply deny a PDD project early in the process if it is not the right fit for a community.

Despite these recent positive developments, public trust in non-agricultural PDDs remains low and there is more work to be done.

This fall, Group for the East End and conservation partners advocated for a ballot referendum that, if approved, will require a supermajority (4 of 5) vote of the Town Board to approve non-agricultural PDDs.

Given the significance of these projects and their permanent impact on the community, the Town Board should demonstrate the highest level of certainty before approving PDDs. The new proposal for a supermajority vote provides that additional level of certainty, but we need your help to make it a reality. State law requires that this proposal be put before the public in the form of a ballot referendum.

Here’s where you come in.

On Election Day (November 8^th), be sure to flip over the ballot and VOTE YES, if you agree that PDD applications should only be approved with a high level of certainty.

The text for the above-referenced referendum will be on the back of the ballot and will read as follows:

"EXCLUSIVE OF AGRICULTURAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PDD) PROJECTS, SHALL A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE OF THE TOWN BOARD BE REQUIRED FOR THE APPROVAL OF A FORMAL PDD APPLICATION, OR THE AMENDMENT OF AN APPROVED PDD PROJECT?"