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