The effort We launched last winter to defeat the CPI Shinnecock Canal PDD has broadened: bringing many together to demand a repeal of the PDD law as our case proceeds through the courts. Read "Kill "the Hills!" Repeal PDDS Now Enough is Enough" ( Southampton Press, Eastern Edition October 15, 2015, page A7, http://olive.pressnewsgroup.com/Olive/ODN/SouthamptonEast/PrintPages.aspx?doc=SPE/2015/10/15&from=7&to=7) And, this weeks Editorial (copied below, page A12) titled "Hit Restart" The other shoe has fallen, with a deep thud. Local environmentalists had voiced concerns all along about The Hills at Southampton, the private golf course and housing complex pitched for the largest undeveloped tract on the South Fork, nearly 600 acres in East Quogue. But they seemed willing to listen, to be wooed. With a serious slap to the face, the seduction is over. An impressive list of activists, elected officials and others have lined up to formally oppose The Hills—and, further, to call for the repeal of Southampton Town’s law allowing the approval of planned development districts, or PDDs, special zoning designations created by the Town Board to supersede the limits on development of certain properties. The strong stand comes on the heels of two projects, affordable housing in Tuckahoe and a redevelopment of the Shinnecock Canal area, that involved PDDs. Town Supervisor Anna Throne-Holst in particular has celebrated these projects as victories, both for the town and its residents, but it’s telling that both have ended up in court, with many of those very same residents outraged at the town’s willingness to work with developers to subvert zoning. And they have a point. Unless there is a drastic course change, such as the repeal of the PDD law, The Hills is more than just another example, it’s a bellwether of what’s to come: more and more proposals pitched to blow up existing zoning and allow a much more expansive, intense and lucrative use. The “public benefits” that are supposed to drive the PDD law will continue to evolve into trinkets thrown out to buy silence from neighbors. That is the main reason why the PDD law, last modified in 2011, needs to be scrapped this time. Ms. Throne-Holst is now pitching another reboot, but the town doesn’t need some sort of PDD Version 3.0. Like bad software, it would require nearly round-the-clock updates, and there’s always the risk of pesky viruses—exploitation of weaknesses, not by hackers but by highly paid attorneys whose specialty is dissecting malleable legislation to meet the needs of well-heeled clients. There is a good idea at the heart of the PDD legislation, the notion that zoning can be adjusted, sometimes significantly, if there is a public benefit to doing so. Alas, the cart and horse have flipped positions: Public benefit still drives some PDD proposals—the Tuckahoe housing, for instance, and the Bridgehampton Gateway proposal—but more and more PDD applications are taking on the appearance of an episode of “Let’s Make A Deal”: Here’s the proposal, and now let’s find the public benefits, deep down in that purse, with the nail file and the stick of gum. If all else fails, how big a check do we need to make this right? As developable land grows more and more scarce, the vultures are circling. There’s no need to put raw meat on stakes. Let them work for their meals instead of laying out a buffet. At worst—and The Hills might well qualify for that in the end—approval could bring permanent changes, and not for the better. No, the only solution is to purge all remnants of a fatally flawed law that, with each passing application, sees developers becoming more and more aggressive with their demands. Ah, The Hills—what to do there? In theory, the town can simply walk away from the table, since a PDD is not an as-of-right development option. But the supervisor, and others, seem less than eager to do that. Why? It might be because the town itself, more than a decade ago (in an earlier frenzy of seeking to “improve” zoning), decided that a golf course development would be perfect for the property in question. Since then, town officials have learned a lot more about nitrogen loading and other factors; the fact is that the property was upzoned to the most protective zoning available in the town, 5-acre residential, to protect it from precisely the sort of intensive use now on the table. But the 5-acre zoning came with a caveat: a private golf course development also might be nice. Walk away now, and Discovery Land Company—whose proposal is drafted in language strikingly similar to the town’s own study recommending that use—might well use some of its massive resources to ask the courts to find that decision to be “arbitrary and capricious.” Might not win, but could be costly. Even if the PDD law is pulled off the books, it might be harder to stop the train that is The Hills at Southampton. The town really should stay committed to following the review to its conclusion—and then to have the fortitude to reject it if that’s what the facts show is prudent. That said, most of the negotiation is rooted in simply mitigating its own impact—on the school district, on the environment and provides little, in the end, that resembles a “public benefit.” If the goal is to limit the impact on ground and surface water, it could well be that the upzoning that’s already in place will be far preferable to a golf course, no matter how “organic,” and accompanied by greater density. In that case, working with the existing zoning might prove more beneficial than a PDD. Imagine that."