Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEast MarionWlCKHAM, WICKHAM 8, BR£SSI. ER, ~.C. MAIN ROAD, P.O. BOX 1424 MATTITUCK LONO ISLANO FEB 2 8 1986 February 27, 1986 Southold Town Board Town Hall - Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Herbert K. Mandel Gentlemen: Herbert R. Mandel has asked me to write to you regarding the proposed rezoning of his C-1 zoned property on Rocky Point Road, East Marion, to R-40. The premises contains a garage which has continuously been used for vehicle service and repair or auto body repair for many years. To change the zoning now would be incon- gruous with such long standing use and would result in severe financial penalties to the owner. It would also result in the creation of a non-conforming use which good planning policy seeks to avoid. The continued maintenance of the C-1 zone is in accordance with good planning because the availability of C-1 zones is limited, and the Code should take advantage of the existing C-1 uses. Moreover, the nature of the surrounding uses would not be adversely affected by the continuation of the present use. We therefore request that you reconsider the proposed re- zoning and maintain the existing zoning category for this property. Very truly yours, AAW:emu CC: Herbert R. Mandel Abigail A. Wickham 145 Lakeview Terrace PO Box 357 East Marion, NY 11939 April 22, 1986 Dear Supervisor Frank Murphy Councilwoman Mrs. Jean Cochran ~Justice Raymond W. Edwards Councilman George Penny IV Councilman James Schondebare Councilman Paul Stoutenberg Exec. Adm. Victor Zessard, Building Dept. Supt. Ray Jacobs, Highway Department Pres. of Town Trustees, Henry P. Smith Southold Town Clerk, Judith Terry On March 1, 1986 I submitted to the Town Supervisor and the Town Board _ __ a scenario based upon rumor and a few facts. The rumors became fact on Thursday morning, April 17th. Between Thursday and Friday afternoon, four (4) pieces of plastic pipe and four (4) sets of 3 wire cable were placed in a trench on Bay Avenue in East Marion. The trench was dug between the four (4) well connections on the Schimatz- Schmtdt property south to Lakeview Terrace and backfilled. The Town Clerk's Office, not the Highway Department as I had originally presumed, has issued a permit for Gary Tabor to dig a trench on the east side of Bay Avenue in the ROW from the Schimatz - Schmidt property south to Rabbit Lane, a distance of app~0x~mately 1200 feet. A trench is then planned to run 150 to 390 feet east on Rabbit Lane to specified pieces of property. It is a run of approximately ~ of a mile from a good quality · a water source to property which h.s had salt water intrusion for at least forty (40) years. That ms my primary concern. In the Board's presentation of the Master Plan, it was pointed out that five (5) acre zoning was necessary south of Route 25 in Orient to prevent or to decelerate salt water intrusion to the property. Are you being, consistent and fair if you pe~m$~ the proposed ¼ mile water pipe run agd you did not present lm as an alternative to five (5) acre zoning? Are you not encouraging people to purchase property on the east - west center line of the North Fork for the water rights to be sold or leased rather than home development? You will be encouraging a hodgepodge of small and large, individual and c~mmunity water systems, hopping 0vel'oho another always inland to secure a source of clean water. A'chaotic situation is arising in the immediate future. I resented my going to the Supervisor's Office on Friday aft&~n6on, A~ril 18th, to sign my March 1, 1986 memorandum to tndica%e that it was my memo and I was serious. My name and ad- dress'were thereon and could have been checked by a telephone call. I felt insulted and I am even more serious about the me- chanics of the situation. From telephone conversations on Thursday and Friday of the week past with the Town Clerk's Office, I ascertained that the trenching permit did not specify what was to be placed in the trench and how. It was suggested that I call the Highway De- partment to obtain the answers, but I had called the Highway De- partment earlterto be informed that only the Clerk's Office is- sues trenching permits. It was interesting te note when I asked that there was no notation that a bridge on Bay Avenue over Marion Lake might cause a problem. What data are required on a trenching permit? In my memorandum of March 1st, I indicated that no DEC application was on file as of the end of January and that Town wetlands are involved. The DEC permit is in the name of the Rab- bit Lane Association, the trenching permit - Gary Tabor, the Town wetlands permit application - Gary Tabor, and the Board of Health permit - Schimatz or Dowd or ?. It is confusing. In Mr. Lessard's memo of March 7th, he stated that plastic pipe was not permitted by law. 1. Why was the contractor not informed that a Town wet... lands permit w~s needed in addition to the trench- ing permit? 2. Did the Town know or care that a DEC permit was issued? 3. If the March ?th Mr. Lessard memo stated that plas- tic pipe ~as not legal, why was not the contractor informed? (Wh-~I questioned This on April 21st. it was for the first time. It xs legal.~ $. I am still waiting to hear if a performance bond and proof of liability insurance are required? 5. If ~lastic pipe and electric cable are to be placed in the same trench near a ga, s main, what are the Town specifications? 6. Who is the engineer or electrician or plumber of record? 7. WhY aren't sleeves necessary around buried pipes and wires under driveways and roads? I believe Southold is the only town exception on LI. 8. Why was it a surprise for a Town representative to discover not one (1), but four ($) buried plastic pipes and four sets of cables? 9. Do the plastic pipe and cable meet Town specifi- cations for burial? 10. Were the plastic pipes and cables trenched and buried to the satisfaction and requirements of the Town? Il. Will there be room in the ROW in the future to run individual water lines and cable from each house on Rabbit Lane, Lakeview Terrace, Cozee Cove, and all other housesto a water field north of all the houses on and adjacent to Bay Avenue? Will Gardiners Bay Estate be next? I. am still concerned with the water connection boxes pro- truding above ground, not all, but some, on the east ROW south of the bridge. Liability insurance is a growing problem. I am concerned with a wetlands application even being con- sidered at this time as muskrat houses are in the north bank of the Lake near the bridge~ it is breeding season. There is also a mallard hen nesting in the same area to the east. The swan has been sitting on her nest on the east side of the lake since Palm Sunday. With an incubation period of 36 or so days, the cygnets are due this month. There should be no activity to frighten the cygnets, the ducklings, and the muskrat young. ~vidently, it is relatively easy to obtain a trenching per- mit compared to my ordeal and thoroughness when I applied for a six (6') foot fence permit. Does the Town intend to grant permission to anyone who has salt water intrusion or to subdivide a plot so there are no fresh water privileges as on Rabbit Lane to hook up to an inland wellpoint as long as one can trench on Town ROW or private land? Since my memorandum of March 1st tOOk seven (?) weeks, forty seven (4?) days to receive a copy of Mr. Lessard's memo from the Supervisor, may I expect a prompt reply to this letter? ere vrank Heroy ~ CjCe Mrs. Ruth Oliva, Town Water Committee Mark Middleton0 President of Lakeview Terrace Road Association 145 Lakeview Terrace PO Box 357 East ~arion, NY 11939 April 29, 1986 Dear Southold Town Supervisor Frank ~urphy Tow~ Councilwoman Jean Cochran Justice Raymond W. Edwards Councilman George Penny IV Councilman James Schondebare Councilman Paul Stoutenberg In the absence of any response to my memorandum of March 01, 1986 and to my letter of April 22, 1986 re, Quality of Water and the Bay Avenue - Rabbit Lane Project and the unprecedented nature of the project, I suggest that the Town Supervisor and Town Board appoint an imDartia~ in- vestigator of the situation. It is unprecedented~that ~t is extremely rare for one project to involve trenching of 1200' of Town ROW on Bay Avenue to lay four (4) plastic water sup- ply pipes with an accompanying three (3) wire cable for each supply pipe and to cross a freshwater lake. Does one usual- ly permit trenching before all permits are in order? When the trenching started on Thursday, April 17th, I called the Highway Department to ascertain what was going on. I was told that the Highway Department did not issue trench- ing permits~ that was a function of the Town Clerk's Office. A call to the Town Clerk's Office indicated that the permit did not indicate what was to be trenched and that there was a bridge intervening between the points of trenching, the wellsite on the Schimatz property and Rabbit Lane. What was approved to be trenched? Private water supplies are not usually located on Town ROW. Did not anyone say that this unusual and we should look into it? On page 3 of 4 of my memorandum of March 1st, I stated '. that as of the end of January 1986 there was no DEC permit on file and that Town wetlands were involved. On page 4 of ~, I asked if consideration would be given to driving pipe under under driveways and Lakeview Terrace entrance. The purpose was t6 not inconvenience the residents~ it would also provide a sleeve. The project was ramrodded and no sleeves were laid. I understand that is one of several violations. In response to my memo, Mr. Lessard, Exec. Adm. of the Building Dept., responded to Supervisor Murphy on March 7th stating that plastic pipe as a source of water supply is Dot permitted by law. A copy of Mr. Lessard's memo was routed to the Highway Department and the Trustees. That was Narch 7th. I received a copy through Supervisor Murphy on April 19th. lof3 In the light of that information on Narch 7th, how could one authorize trenching with plastic pipe on April 7th? How could one authorize trenching knowing that Town wetlands were involved and there was no Town wetlands per- mit? Er. Lessard's memorandum and mine indicated that wet- lands were involved. Was it foreordained at that point a Town wetlands permit would be issued? I can well imagine the hullabaloo and law suits if a contractor trenched for two (2) miles and then was de- nied a permit to cross wetlands. How come this project started before a wetlands permit was issued? There would be no problem at thi's-time if the Rabbit Lane Association had granted four (~) more hook-ups to its water system, but The Rabbit Lane Association stood its ground and det~ that its water supply system could serve no more houses. It would be the straw that broke the camel's back. I feel that the nitrates and phosphates from additional houses will break the lake's back. How much is too much? Who is going to or is in a position to take a stand? I do not live on the lake, but I visit it at least twice a day. The lake used to bounce back from road runoff and debris, but no more.~ tt seems incongruous that the Dowd - Schimatz property on the lakeside of Rabbit Lane is filled in wetlands. Several years ago, fill was dredged from the lake with a crane and a bucket. It was legal at the time. Fill could have been~ trucked in, but it was easier to rape the lake. Morally, the residents on the north lakefront thought it was wrong, but... The wellsite on the Schimatz property is on property con- siderably filled in over the past three years, possibly wet- lands has been involved. Filled in site to filled in site: How closely has the Dowd - Schimatz property been in- spected for plants indigenous to wetlands by the DEC, the Town Trustees or the Building Department? Are there no wet- land plants within 75' of the almost completed Dowd house? I say "almost" as it is apparent it needs to be backfilled. Who makes the inspections and reports to whom? Verbally or in writing? Who coordinates the information? It has been alleged that "yellow markers" are missing in the trench. Who~ inspected the trench before backfilling? Before backfilling a house basement, the Building Depart- ment makes an inspection. What other violations are buried in the trench? 2 of 3 Why are four (4) plastic water supply pipes needed to supply four (4) houses with water in a trench on Town ROW, whereas the Rabbit Lane Association has been using one (1) pipe to supply several homes? In the light that the Rabbit Lane Association galva- nized'water supply pipe was replaced approximately four (4) years ago without a DEC permit and with severe dis- turbance to the wetlands and the lake bottom and the Rabbit Lane Association members have had no problem with water sup- ply, I strongly urge that the pipe remain undisturbed. In my estimation, the Bay Avenue project is ill con- cieved and there are alternatives other than disturbing the lake~ that Town, County, and State agencies and departments have not interacted with one another~ and that no one person or elected/appointed body has been given the authority to approve a project of this nature. A person or a department has the authority to approve part of the projects but there is no one person or agency to determine if the parts fit together. The Suffolk Times article and local gossip are genera- ting terms associated with the project, "passing the buck", ineptness, incompetence, arrogance, "COA", assessing blame, lack of coordination, insensitivity, and crisis management. If this project has so many faults on land, how can it even be considered in the water? In a project of this type and scope, there must be a public hearing. Its nature will have an impact on the Town. It may be that the Public Service Commisssion and the Suffolk County Water Authority should be involved. Sin~cerely yours, ~ c.c. Mr. Henry P. Smith, Pres· Town Trustees Mr. /Mrs Mr. Mr. of Town Trustees Paul Ponturo, Suffolk County Health Dept. Dennis Cole, DEC · Judith Terry, Town Clerk Victor Lessard, Building Department Ray Jacobs, Highway Dept. Mark Middleton, Pres. of Lakeview Terr. Tim Gould, Suffolk Times Rd. Assoc. 3 of 3