The following letters are about a proposed chicken farm on Ackerly Pond Lane in Southold, which is currently before the Southold Town Planning Board for review of a barn on the property, which would be placed near Jasmine Lane.
Pictured Above: The fire hydrant and public hearing notice at the end of Jasmine Lane in January, 2026.
To The Editor:
The code has two principal means of reducing impacts. The first is distance. Our neighbor has 16 acres which allows him to move the operation far enough away from our established residential community to reduce negative impacts.
The other is plantings. The premise is natural and planted vegetation and trees act as a natural buffer. By allowing the cutting and removal of trees, the Town is going against years of its own site plan requirements and precedent.
While we understand his wanting to save money on infrastructure, every new business has start-up costs. His shouldn’t come at the expense of our equity, quality of life and our ability to enjoy our outdoor spaces. The covenant was not exclusive to agricultural land. It was also intended to protect the property’s compelling environmental attributes. That is not speculation, that is black and white language in the covenant itself.
Another principal goal of agricultural land use is “clustering”. Nearly every property the Town purchases the development rights to, identifies one consolidated area set away from neighboring properties for the very purpose of containing the more intense uses. While the covenant might not specify that, the comprehensive plan and years of precedent do.
At last night’s Planning Board work session, the applicant was seen laughing as my father and other residents were visibly upset, voicing their concerns. He displayed a lack of consideration and a clear inability to comprehend the burdens his operation will place on residents—his new neighbors—who have lived there in peace for years. That shows a lack of empathy and compassion, and a total disregard for residents who will have to live with rats, odors, and other impacts. That is not being a good neighbor when it’s in his power to change it. He has 16 acres.
Allowing this to move forward isn’t just an insult to us, it’s an insult to other farmers who have had to accept more restrictive easements in the past. If our neighbor is allowed to move forward as intended, it sends one clear message, sell your development rights first, then do what you want later.
The thing is our neighbor has options, we don’t.
Sincerely,
Leslie Herrlin
Jasmine Ln, Southold
Closest Adjacent Property Owner
To The Editor:
When “Agriculture” Becomes a Loophole: What’s Happening on Jasmine Lane
What’s happening on Jasmine Lane isn’t a misunderstanding. It’s not something that just slipped through. It’s the result of bad rules, unclear definitions, and a system that isn’t protecting the people it is supposed to serve. This is a working-class neighborhood. People moved here for stability, affordable homes, and a decent quality of life. Now they’re dealing with the fallout of policies that aren’t working. The Town of Southold created this situation by purchasing the development rights of the parcel and changing the zoning to agricultural. We moved into a new development of affordable residential housing, that did not have this parcel, yet zoned as agricultural, at the end of it. This isn’t about chickens. It’s about how the rules are being used, and how the government isn’t stopping it.
When “Agriculture” Means Anything
The big question is simple: what counts as agriculture? In New York, farming is protected. That makes sense. But those protections were meant for real farms that fit the area, not for anything someone decides to call “agriculture.” When towns don’t clearly define, how big is too big, how intense is too much, and what fits the neighborhood, they leave a gap. And in that gap, almost anything can be called agriculture. That’s not following the law, it’s getting around it. Courts have said zoning should match the character of the community. If something is labeled “agriculture” but acts more like a business or disrupts a neighborhood, that’s a problem.
Good Programs Gone Wrong
There are also programs meant to protect farmland, like Purchase of Development Rights and Transfer of Development Rights. They’re supposed to, save open space, stop overbuilding, and support farming.But when they’re written badly or loosely enforced, they can backfire. Instead of protecting land, they stop homes from being built, but don’t clearly limit what else can happen there.So the message becomes: you can’t build houses, but you can do almost anything else if you call it farming. That’s not preservation. It’s a loophole. And it creates unfair situations for neighbors who expected the area to stay residential.
Where Was the Environmental Review? Another issue is the lack of proper review. Under SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act), local governments are supposed to take a hard look at impacts like noise, smells, traffic, drainage, and how it changes the neighborhood.Putting an intensive agricultural use into a residential area is a big deal. It should be carefully reviewed. If that didn’t happen, or was rushed or minimized, then the process may be flawed. SEQRA is not a formality. It’s supposed to protect communities.
Property Rights Are Being Weakened
There’s also a bigger issue lurking beneath the surface. When government decisions change a neighborhood in a major way, affect nearby homes, and hurt property values, people start to lose basic protections.
Even if it’s not a legal “taking,” zoning decisions still have to be fair and consistent. If one property is effectively allowed to operate outside the constraints imposed on others, under the guise of “agriculture”, that raises serious equal protection and due process concerns. The law shouldn’t apply one way to one property and another way to its neighbors.
The Problem With One-Party Control
None of this happens without a political environment that allows it. When one party controls local government, oversight weakens, fewer people push back, and decisions don’t get questioned enough.
Concerns from residents are often brushed off, delayed, or ignored. Not because they’re wrong, but because leaders don’t feel pressure to respond. That’s the risk of one-party control. Things slowly stop being held accountable.
Why Jasmine Lane Matters
The people on Jasmine Lane aren’t asking for special treatment. They’re asking for fair zoning, consistent rules and decisions that consider real impacts. In other words, they want the system to work the way it’s supposed to. If that can’t happen on one small street, the problem is bigger than just this neighborhood.
What Needs to Change
Fixing this isn’t complicated, but it does take action. Clearly define what agriculture means. Set limits on size, intensity, and location. Fix development rights programs so they don’t create loopholes. Follow environmental review rules properly. Make sure leaders are held accountable.
Final Thought
The law is supposed to protect regular people. When it ends up exposing them instead, something is wrong. Jasmine Lane is not just a local dispute. It is a test. A test of whether government still serves the people who rely on it most. Right now, that test is being failed.
Rose Anasagasti
34 year resident of Jasmine Lane
Southold
Dear Editor,
Southold is known for its farmland, vineyards, and rural character — not industrial-scale animal operations. A proposed 6,000-chicken egg facility would move the Town in the wrong direction.
Concentrating thousands of birds on a single property is not traditional farming — it reflects an industrial model where animal suffering is built into the system. Labels like “pasture-raised” and “organic” may sound reassuring, but they do not prevent routine practices such as the killing of day-old male chicks who can’t lay eggs, severing the sensitive tips of birds’ beaks, or the slaughter of hens once their bodies are “spent” at a fraction of their natural lifespan. Organic standards even restrict animals from being treated with antibiotics when they’re sick or injured.
There are also broader community concerns. With avian influenza already impacting large poultry operations on the East End, including Crescent and Spring Farm, increasing the density of birds near residential areas raises legitimate public health and environmental risks.
Southold should support the forms of agriculture that have long defined the region — wineries, vineyards, and plant-forward farms that sustain the local economy and preserve its character. Industrial animal production facilities, regardless of how they are marketed, are not farming and are not compatible with that vision.
Best regards,
John Di Leonardo, MS
Anthrozoologist & Wildlife Rehabilitator
President and Executive Director, Humane Long Island
Riverhead
Letters to the editor may be emailed to editor@eastendbeacon.com with “LTE” in the subject line, or sent via U.S. Post to P.O. Box 665, New Suffolk, NY 11956. Please include your name, and a telephone number for verification purposes, and don’t submit letters under false names. The Beacon will print all letters that are deemed to not be defamatory, obscene or advertisements, and may edit submissions for clarity and grammar. Due to space considerations we are only able to print one letter per writer per month, and we may shorten lengthy letters to fit available space.
