South Fork Groundwater Task Force

What are they planning to do with the Club House? What are they going to use it for? The Planning Board should stipulate that there will be no use that will generate an increase in traffic. Or, that would add more effluence beyond that which is generated by its private membership only.

The Club House is enormous. No doubt, Mr. Rubin has visions of hosting the U.S. Open, or other golf tournaments at The Bridge. Since it’s only for member use, the Club House should not be so big.

This is supposed to be a private club for its members. Keep it private. Definitely no hosting of golf tournaments.

As I said, just the golf course alone, according to the Suffolk County Department of Health Services’ formula (1/2 acre in turf = 1 home), will generate as much nitrates as 160 homes. To that, you add the 15,000-gallon septic system that is equal to 30 homes. That’s 190 homes worth of nitrates getting into the best part of the aquifer on the entire South Fork.[1] What madness. Don’t forget to add the subdivision—that’ll make it 210 homes.

And, since you allowed him to swap other land to fertilize the subdivision area[2]. Add even more nitrates.

Page 36 of the Petrovic & Cambareri Report, 1999 [“P&C, 1999”] speaks specifically of the effects of nitrogen on Trout Pond and Noyac Bay which are in the golf course property’s watershed and which are downgradient to it. Page 36 says:

NO, you have to hold the line, reduce nitrates, and limit the uses at that Club House in order to reduce the amounts of nitrate going into the aquifer, which eventually arrives in the bay through the “underflow.” Reduce size of the club house and its septic tank. It’s parking. Make sure there’s no light pollution to change that rare nightscape for celestial observation.

He was right on point about having to reduce the amounts of nitrates by 25% going into the bays. And, therefore to be mindful in reducing nitrates in the applications that now come before you. The map he showed you of the boundary for nitrates shifting from Flanders Bay to Shelter Island was compeling and frightening. I hope you do look at the Website for the Peconic Estuary Plan. As the Club House is geared to carry a lot of effluence—with potential for weddings and whatnot—you should therefore, limit the size of events, and number of events, and types of events.

Why didn’t this application have an Environmental Assessment Form given the impact this application will have? It should have been included.

I went to Suffolk County Clerks on August 23, 2002, the day after the Planning Board meeting re. “Club House.”

Brought the “Computer Print-Out” the Suffolk County Clerk’s Office had given me on March 12, 2002 that listed the three Declarations of Covenants recorded in 1999 (the one for “Audubon” was not among them) and that also included one Certificate of Title recorded in the year 2000[3] for the above Tax Map number.

In the “public access” room I asked them to do a print out of all the Declarations of Covenants. When they punched in the above number, nothing at all came up. Which was odd because that’s the tax map number, as you can see, that is on the March 12, 2002 print-out.

I then gave them what Mr. Esseks gave you on August 22nd for the “Audubon” Declaration of Covenants, he filed October 17, 2002.

This last digit is different than the one above (.002), the one that Mr. Rubin has in his Request for Site Plan Review for the Club House, the Tax Map # it’s always been.

She typed in the new number (“.003”) and the Declaration of Covenant (for Audubon) came up, and, an Easement—both for the same day, Oct. 17, 2001—nothing else as you can see.

She said that at the end of last year they changed computer systems. She said that those recorded in 1999 were on the old system, and that those recorded in 2001 would be on the new system.

She did a “history” that showed that those filed in 1999 should also be .03 but they were not showing. She suggested I go upstairs to “Real Property.” I did. He couldn’t get the other three to come up either and said their designation had changed in February from “02” to “03” but now, all four of them were designated as “04”!

But, when he punched in “.004” only the October 17, 2001 (Audubon) and the easement showed up. He couldn’t account for it. All of them should have showed.

So, it appears, I’ve been the victim of a computer glitch. Does the Town know The Bridge has a different Tax Map Number now? (SEE: March 12, 2001 & August 23, 2002 computer print-outs from Suffolk County Clerk’s Office)

(SEE: attached Jeff Murphree letter to Steve Jones, CEO of the Suffolk County Water Authority, dated August 9, 2002.) Jeff Murphree writes:

THESE are the very things I made FOIL requests on. The last was Feb 20, 2002 (see attached FOIL). The only test results and analysis he had from SCWA back then was from “May 7, 2001.”—nothing beyond that. I, myself, had to then go and ask the SCWA for their latest results which I submitted to you. They were from October 2001, March 2002.

IT IS INTOLERABLE THAT JEFF MURPHREE AS LATE AS AUGUST 9, 2002 hadn’t bothered to get these results (as well as for everything else) as I’m bugging him every inch of the way to get them, and have been since August 2000. HE KNOWS WHAT HE SHOULD GET FROM RUBIN, FROM SCWA, BUT HASN’T, until being embarrassed into it . WHY? Jeff’s dereliction of duty stems from those above him. He’s merely the puppet. It is your duty to find the puppet-masters. Hmmm, I wonder who it could be? Until you do, it will be business as usual.

The NOYAC CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DEMANDS THE PLANNING BOARD, TOWN BOARD, AND ZBA see to it that every “T” is crossed and every “i” is dotted regards this project., and that you receive every bit of information ON TIME.

Before going over to the County Clerk’s, I went to Town Hall, because I lost my sole copy of the NRMP which I’d heavily notated and needed a new one. (I only had a few pages photocopied.) I had received the NRMP from Jeff Murphree in late December 2001 just after it came in. (I’d been making constant FOIL requests for it over the years as Dr. Martin Petrovic at the Septmber 17, 1998 worksession told the Planning Board to get a copy because it would “deal with all the issues” they had before them, and, the Petrovic & Cambareri Report, 1999, page 27 said that the Town should get a copy.)

I bumped into Jeff and I asked him for a copy and he said, “Do you really want to pay .25 a page, it’s this thick.” He indicated a hefty amount.

I said, “No, it’s not, it’s much smaller.” We went to his office, and he got it, and plunked down two volumes of the NRMP. Looking at it, I said something like: “This is not the NRMP I got before, it’s too big, this one is two volumes, the other one was just one volume—Is this the same one?”

He said that, actually, it wasn’t, that the old one had gone missing and that John Raynor had brought in another one about a month ago.

Looking at this new one, I was struck by several things. First, its size. This new version was more than twice the size. The old one had skimped on some important issues (and skewed and misled so as to put them in the best light). Did this new one?

The second thing I noticed was the date. It said “Revised Final Submission May 12, 2000” –Yet, it had not been stamped “Received” with the date when it came in to the Planning Department. Now, I have made quite a stink over the years about the Town not getting a copy of the NRMP. Without it being clocked in, one would think the Town has had it since 2000, when Town didn’t get a copy until December 21, 2001 at the earliest. This copy is only stamped with the “Planning Board stamp”. No date. Also, without it being stamped & dated, one would think it’s the original copy from December 21, 2001 when it’s not (And even, the frontispage from December 21, 2001 copy was also not stamped “Received” with a date either.). It’s been replaced, as Jeff Murphree says, “a month ago.” (SEE: Photocopies of covers & inside pages of Vol. 1 & 2 of this new NRMP—has the “Planning Board” department stamp but not date received.)

If this version of the NRMP that came in last month is like the one that came in December 21, 2001, then there’s some misrepresentations in it that Audubon should know about and the PLANNING BOARD SHOULD TELL THEM ABOUT—as, for instance, the critical importance of this aquifer & the designations it has. (There are many other things that they must be made aware of too.)

In my August 22nd statement I ask that the Planning Board to get a copy of Audubon’s written review of Mr. Rubin’s NRMP that Nancy Richardson, Audubon’s Signature Director deemed in its final form (See Aug 22nd submission, October 29, 2001 letter to Joe Raynor from Nancy Richardson.) How has Dr. Miles Smart reviewed it?

In two long conversations I had with Nancy Richardson in September 1998, she said that there are places that should not have golf courses. She had not been aware that the area was a “critical deep-water recharge aquifer”. (I’ve spoken with she and Dr. Miles Smart—who said they have a non-degradation policy—a few times, but not since 2000, when she started to back-track and started to lie saying that Dr. Smart was reviewing new material from Rubin when he had just told me that he hadn’t seen anything in a year from Rubin.) I have detailed notes about our phone calls.

In 1998, Dr. Petrovic told the Planning Board to get a copy of the NRMP—he didn’t mean in December 2001 (see my 8/22 submission, P&C Report, page 27, told Town to get the NRMP.) It was a PLANNING document. At September 1998’s Planning Board worksession with Petrovic, Raynor & Stuart Cohen, the Planning Bard Chair, Nancy Graboski, asked for the NRMP and Raynor and Cohen didn’t want to turn it over, and Nancy backed down—so, the Planning Board never got it. I was there that night. I made a transcript of that part of the worksession (SEE: transcript of Planning Board Worksession September 17, 1998) so you can see for yourselves how disingenuous Rubin’s consultants, John Raynor and Stuart Cohen were .

The whole Audubon debacle, and the Town’s hands-off attitude about the NRMP is sickening.

There’s a question too, that must be answered. The March 11, 1999 scathing review by Dr. Miles Smart that arrived by fax to Jeff Murphree (See: 8/22/02 submission)—Did the Planning Board see it before they voted a month later to approve the golf course? If they did, God help their souls. Or, did he withhold it, as he withheld it from me. I kept asking him about the NRMP, and asking to see the file but he kept saying I couldn’t, the file was in pieces in his office as he was writing the “Staff Report” leading up to the vote. Well, I called up Nancy Richardson after the vote in April and she told me she had faxed a review of the NRMP in March. After speaking with Richardson, I marched over to Town Hall and I asked Jeff of any news about the NRMP and he said they didn’t have anything. Then, I told him I knew about Richardson’s fax and he turned white. I demanded he give it to me. As I was standing at a counterful of people in Planning, who heard the exchange, he was embarrassed into turning it over to me. He had no choice.

I refer you to Jeff Murphree’s “Golf at the Bridge, Certificate of Occupancy Compliance, November 3, 2000” attached to a 11/8/00 fax sent me from the Town Trustees assistant, Shawn Kiernan for Scott Strough that I submitted Aug 22nd. Contrary to what Raynor said, I was right, and then some. While there are only 27 parts to his list, they include numerous subparts so that it comes out to about 60 things that Jeff Murphree said needed to be checked into for “verification”. Point is—nobody was minding the store.

PLEASE LOOK at the notations I made in the margins of the things not done, or, done to suit themselves.

Re. “Low Flow” sampling (See: “Amendment 6” to “Monitoring Agreement”, the P& C Report, 1999, page 23, Dermody letter Dec 11, 2001). It’s not being done, and should be as it gives a more reliable indication when sampling for contaminants.

Where are Audubon’s “Environmental Audits”? The annual Interpretive Report? These are some of the issues I brought up in my 8/22/02 submission (SEE: the broader “Points of Non-Compliance 3/9/02” in my 8/22/02 submission.)

According to the Petrovic & Cambareri Report 1999, the golf course Superintendent was to do a 2-hour daily monitoring from the inception of golf course, and to keep a DAILY LOG –The golf course was grassed in July 2000.

In “Appendix C” of Superintendent’s Report for 2001 for “Field History Report”, Superintendent Tiska, only gives Reports for days:

That’s all he has! This was to be done daily, to establish a data base of conditions which contribute to disease and infestations.

There should be daily data since July 2000. There isn’t. In only begins “April 11, 2001.” The Supreintendent only has 28 days of Field History Sheets. There should be hundreds. What about conditions between July 2000 and “4/11/01” the day golf course Superintendent Tiska started recording on the “Field History Sheets”? He should have been filling in the sheets, charting the course of the diseases that appeared and the progress or lack thereof as the days passed. You can see there are gaps—a disease (or pest) isn’t there one day and gone the next! It has to be monitored to “create the database” so they can build up a body of knowledge regards conditions . [ And, there’s nothing by the previous golf course Superintendent, O’Conner.] Unacceptable non-compliance.

“The goals of a Pest monitoring control system (pages III-6-9) are the establishment of baseline data to determine if action will be necessary for pest control. This is to be accomplished by a daily 2-hour assessment of turf conditions. This assessment has a recommended form to be filled out for each instance and to be reviewed and signed by the superintendent. (P&C, 7)

“The Monitoring and Scouting Summary Report (page III-9) is not adequate to record the specification, location, and extent of pest populations necessary for developing a sound baseline database. (P&C 1999, 8)

“….Under direction of the golf course superintendent, the development of the baseline data in one year is set as a goal. This is contradictory to the above assertions that it will take 3 years.

“ The Planning Board should require the applicant to specify what pesticide approach is for the interim period.” (P&C 1999, 8)

As I said, in the Superintedent’s Report for 2001, at paragraph “F”, he wrote “Environmental Audits” which are NOT the “NRMP”. WHY did he write that?

These are just a few of the areas of non-complaince, my August submission refers to more.

Whether or not you proceed with voting on the Club House at this juncture, or, at some point in the future pending them filing an EAF, or your checking to see if they are in compliance—an open worksession must convene —which was promised by Carolyn Zenk on December 4, 2001, the day of the “informational meeting” wherein Dr. Petrovic spoke about his October/November 2001 Reports I & II regards the golf course, where even he had backtracked from his original recommendations—but that’s never happened. (What about a joint “INVESTIGATIVE” session of the Planning and Town Board because there’s a whole lot that needs to be aired—and aired face to face with all the documents set before us. And to make recommendation on how this Town will act in the future to guarantee full and continuing compliance and to establish the OVERSIGHT it has failed so miserably to do[4] ). The Town Board voted in 1997 for the golf course promising independent testing, policing. But then saw to it that that didn’t happen. Now testing is carried out by Rubin’s people (Initially, it was to be the Health Department, or some other entity independent of both the Town and the applicant.), and Stuart Cohen wrote most of the Monitoring Agreement (but it’s been amended somewhat by the SCWA). I would like to sit down with the Petrovic & Cambareri Report of 1999, the Monitoring Agreement, and the 1999 Planning Board conditions and go over it with Raynor and Cohen and Petrovic and Peter Dermody before the Planning Board and Town Board who were charged with overseeing this project and who rolled over and played dead. Also Petrovic’s Report I (Oct 2001) & Report II (Nov 2001) which show applicant’s lapses (and Petrovic’s backtracking) which I’ve notated. And, Stuart Cohen’s “hybrid” “Comprehensive Baseline Report” which is a misnomer and does not fufill everything that was mandated, nor the particulars of the annual “Interpretive Report.” We need an oversight committee with citizen participation to make sure the Town is making the applicant comply. (SEE: Noyac CAC resolutions, Feb 8, 2001 and April 24, 2001 regards an oversight committee composed of Town Council member, Petrovic, Noyac citizens. These were submitted to the Town Board, but ignored.)

Too bad Noyac residents won’t. (except for those to the west whose wells got contaminated by the Noyac Golf Club.) It would be cost prohibitive to bring Noyac public water, especially those high in the hills on the golf course’s eastern flank. Wildly expensive, if it could even be done as it’s extremely upgradient to even pump. And, according to the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, our water is the envy of SCWA, it is so pure. Why, when we have superior water, do we have to be subjected to degradation and then expense for getting what we get free and of superior quality. Mr. Toler? Mr. Blaney? Mr. McCaslin? Mr. Zizzi? Mr. Finnerty? Ms. Tuttino? Ms. Lofaro?

UNDER SEQRA the Town Board and the Planning Board are required to oversee this project, and a meeting is in order.

First, He used his usual line—“The people here tonight are the same ones who complained about the track’s noise.” No one in that room had ever complained about the track’s noise. Certainly not I, or, my husband, Larry Penny who knew that the racetrack was infinitely superior to any development on that property because of its pristine aquifer.

Second, Esseks went into his usual claptrap about the Courts dismissing the cases brought against the golf course. They’ve been dismissed on procedural grounds, not on the merits of the case. BUT IN ONE INSTANCE THERE WAS A LAWSUIT WHERE WE GOT A STAY AGAINST THE BUILDING OF THE GOLF COURSE. Notice—Esseks never mentioned that! In 1997, Judge Patrick Leis III ordered a stay stopping all work on the golf course after taking two hours to read the lawsuit in his chambers, while the author of the lawsuit, Stacy Kaufman waited outside in the courtroom. (SEE: Stacy Kaufman’s Letter to the Editor in The Sag Harbor Express, 4/4/02) She says, “As lawyers know, judges don’t grant stays lightly…It was only after a thorough reading of the substance and merits of this case that he granted our request for a stay.

Next, we come to the lawsuit brought by the Pine Barrens Society for the cumulative effects of all the development going on in our best watershed areas without taking into consideration the total effect that all this piecemeal development will have on the overall quality of these high quality parts of the aquifer—in essence—death by a thousand cuts. That was dismissed for “standing” and not on the substance of the case.

Next, we come to the Bridgehampton Racing Heritage Society suit for the golf course’s getting a C.O when it was non-compliant. That suit, too, was never heard on its substance because they made a motion to dismiss on “standing” and because the plaintiffs didn’t go before the ZBA. I read all four suits. And it’s criminal how things get dismissed on legal claptrap rather than what the issues of a case are. How ordinary people are outgunned by the rich with their deep pockets and hordes of pricey lawyers. The people of Noyac are working-class and retirees—there was no money to bring lawsuits, it was done by the seat of their pants, with no resources whatsoever at their disposal. If the residents had tons of money to afford cadres of lawyers, there’d be no golf course there now. There is no justice. Makes you sick.

I must say that the Town sunk to new lows in the Town’s attempt to inflate the distance between the 516-acre The Bridge property and the plaintiffs who live up there in the hills adjacent to it (though not contiguous) by having the Town’s Mr. Fernandez calculate the distance from the center of the The Bridge property from the centers of plaintiff’s properties in order to say they didn’t live close enough to have “standing” in their complaint. Whose bright idea was that? The plaintiffs’ Affirmation in Opposition states in opposition to this tactic:

So what do the lawyers do when called on this shoddy tactic? In their “Reply Memorandum o Law in Further Support of Joint Motion to Dismiss”, they say:

DECEPTION again! Neither the Town and the BRRC as joint defendants, nor the plaintiffs had included any map showing the “golf course.” Everyone had relied on maps of the property showing the property with the old racetrack. Therefore the Judge (Berler) had no map showing the golf course (and, the map of the plaintiffs’ proximity). You can see how the golf course is spread out and close to the boundary where the plaintiffs’ live on the eastern side of the golf course—in fact—the side of the golf course where the BRRC in Feb. 2002 had a pipe at its border that created a gully on the adjacent property that ran for about a 1/3 mile—and also is a VIOLATION OF TOWN CODE. (SEE: maps of where plaintiffs’ live in conjunction with The Bridge; see location of plaintiffs in proximity to golf course; all are downgradient of the groundwater flow.).

RE: John Anderson’s Testimony – A victim of the contamination surrounding the Noyac Golf Club. He advocated for making sure they were in compliance with everything and for strong oversight of the course. Listen to him.

RE: Ralph DiSpigna’s Testimony – He and four of his children who have their own homes in Noyac advocated the same thing as John. Listen to him.

RE: Ann Baird’s Testimony – Speaking for the League of Women Voter’s. Also wants full compliance and oversight and a REDUCTION IN NITRATES based on the science found in the Peconic Estuary Plan. Listen to the League.

I have big 5 loose-leaf binders jammed with plastic sleeves into which are inserted FOIL requests and answers (also, the non-answers, evasive answers, half-answers, or denials) of information and documents I’ve been seeking from Murphree, Cannuscio, Finnerty, Town Comptroller, David Gilmartin, Joe Lombardi on behalf of Gilmartin, Scott Strough, Diane Carpenter (the later two were, at least, diligent); FOIL requests and answers to SCWA about what they had or didn’t have. Unanswered letters to: Vincent Gaudiello at McLean Associates, Thomas Talmadge, Casciotti, Cannuscio, Nancy Richardson & Dr. Miles Smart at Audubon International—that I’d be happy to bring in to the Planning Board so we could flip through them. It paints a sad and disturbing picture of the ineptititude, stone-walling, and god only knows what, surrounding this whole project.

Official Name is: “Indpenedent Review and Report on the Integrated Golf Course

13. Letter from Peter Dermody, Senior Hydrogeologist to SFGTF, dated December 11,

14. Letter from Mr. Dermody to SFGTF dated May 6, 2001 re chemicals Tridimenol and

18. Noyac CAC’s April 24, 2001 Resolution asking to meet with Dr. Petrovic re. his

19. May 19, 2002 Penny FOIL request for SCWA’s & Petrovic’s latest reviews, and actual test results of the elevated Triadimenol & Paclobutrazol, (and rigamarole faxes in between trying to get them.

20. June 5, 2002 answer from Murphree saying the didn’t have the above information requested.

1. 13-Page Comments on August 22, 2002 Planning Board Hearing on The Bride’s Site Plan for a lub House, etc.

2. Declaration of Covenant for “Audubon” dated Oct 17, 2001 handed in by Esseks Stapled to: Suffolk County Clerk’s Computer Print-Outs for March 12, 2002 & Aug 23, 2002.

3. Aug 9, 2002 from Jeff Murphree to SCWA asking for Reports (he should have had)

5. December 21, 2001 Letter from Raynor to Murphree presenting NRMP, stapled to Ocober 29,2001 letter from nancy Richarddson to Joe Raynor

6. Photocopies of frontispages of “Natural Resources Management Plan” Volumes I & II that show department stamp, but NO date “RECEIVED” stamp

7. Transcript of Septemebr 17, 1998 Planning Board Worksession prepared by myself in May 1999

8. “Amendment 6” from the “Monitoring Agreement” executed between Rubin, Town & SCWA

9. Field History Report Sheet from Superintendent George Tiska’s appendix to his 2001 Report –one of the 28 attached to his Report (There should have been hundreds)

10. Last page of Superintendent George Tiska’s 2001 Report (paragraph “F”)

11. April 4, 2002 Letter to Ed. In from Sag Harbor Express re. Judge’s “Stay” on golf course in 1997 Rubin’s attorney’s switch of judges.

12. Re. Essek’s comments on Aug 22nd - Maps that rebuke misrepresentations made in suit by Town’s attorneys

13. Letter from Peter Dermody, Senior Hydrogeologist to SFGTF, dated December 11,

18. Noyac CAC’s April 24, 2001 Resolution asking to meet with Dr. Petrovic re. his

20. June 5, 2002 answer from Murphree saying the didn’t have the above information requested.

[1] In fact, the area of the former racetrack IS the “best of the best” deep-water recharge areas on the South Fork. Section 330-63 of the Southampton Town Code shows how important our deep-water recharge regions are. The code says: “A…It is the policy of the Town Board to protect the town’s supply of water in its pristine state and prevent degradation of this valuable and essential resource.

“B. The Town Master Plan and subsequent studies and updates have located geographic areas in the town where water recharge into the aquifers is the deepest and therefore the greatest recharge occurs. These areas have been designated as water catchment regions.”

“C. These water catchment regions affect the water quality of the entire town. The types of land use which occur above the water catchment regions directly impact upon the aquifer and its quality. Thus, the type of land use in the water catchment regions must be compatible with the function of water recharge to ensure the goal of protecting the drinking supply of the town.”

[2] Our Noyac CAC was not given any notice that that Planning Board hearing was going to be held for that swapping scheme. Any other land is inferior to The Bridge parcel. You’re letting a second-rate parcel be sterilized so tat the best parcel can be further damaged. I would have explained how you were making him a gift at the expense of the aquifer and the community. Even your own Consultant Chris Voorhiss said not to do it—that the entire 516-acre parcel had reached it’s 15% allotment for fertilized areas.

[3] I submitted this compute print-out to the Planning Board 8/22/02.

[4] In this respect, so has Petrovic who lives in Cornell, who teaches and runs around consulting. Consulting even in Mt. Kisco for Donald Trump who wants to build a golf course over Mt. Kisco’s water supply. He hardly ever went to the golf course. With all his activities he has no time. By and large he depended on the information sent to him by Stuart Cohen & the golf course superintendent. He took from February until November to deliver his report—we need someone close by, who’s on top of the situation. In fact, I’m the only one who’s been keeping tabs on things, though they try their best to thwart me.

[5] I made comments in margins in these Petrovic Reports. I have a whole abstract on its contents, and where it deviated from Dr. Petrovic’s initial recommendations & Planning Board conditions.

[6] I made comments in margins in these Petrovic Reports. I have a whole abstract on its contents, and where it deviated from Dr. Petrovic’s initial recommendations & Planning Board conditions.

< Back | Top ^

South Fork Groundwater Task Force
PO BOX 2360 Sag Harbor, NY 11963
Phone/Fax: 631 - 725 - 6200

Site By: Hamptons Online