Mill Neck Bay Marina
This was originally posted on the BayvilleBlog, but since it affects the water quality of the entire bay, I am re-posting it here along with the comments made to date on the Bayville site.
The Mill Neck Bay Marina is an old boat yard that is located at the end of Hernan Ave. in Locust Valley. This property was has recently been designated a New York State Superfund site and now sits in limbo while the various government bodies decide what to do with it.
Once again, in order to bring people up to speed on this issue, I have provided some previously written material below (with some appropriate editing). The first is an E-mail that I wrote to John Rather, a reporter from the New York Times who was researching an article on the development of former marina sites, and the second is a nomination letter to the Nassau County Environmental Bond Committee. Please take the time to read them, as the history of the site is quite interesting.
Hey John,
Kyle Rabin of Friends of the Bay gave me your E-mail address and phone numbers and I thought I should touch base with you.
I have been involved with the Mill Neck Bay Marina property for over 6 years now and probably have more information and documentation than anyone else. This includes the entire DEC file for the original tidal wetlands permits (I haven't FOILed the Superfund documents yet), deeds, and numerous letters written by myself, various agencies and elected officials. I don't know the exact context of your story, but the MNBM segment should be entitled "The Anatomy of an Environmental Boondoggle".
The details are far too involved to get into in an E-mail but I will give you a brief history of the site to give you an idea of what has transpired. Please take the time to read it because even if it doesn't fit your story it may make a great follow-up piece.
The property was originally used as a marina for as long as anyone can remember. Sometime in the late 80's-early 90's the Marina went out of business and owners failed to pay property taxes because they considered the land to be unsuitable for development. The County then took title of the land.
1996 - Land was acquired by current owners primarily through Nassau County Treasurer Deeds (tax foreclosure) and in one instance privately for "no consideration". I have the deeds for 5 of the 6 parcels and the total paid for these parcels is $113,141.00 – not bad for four waterfront building lots if you can get around DEC regulations and get permits to build.
1998 - Current owners apply for Tidal Wetlands permit. Permitting process is conveniently flawed in the developer's favor- perhaps because the expeditor, Land Use Environmental, does alot of work with the DEC. No soil samples were required or submitted despite the fact that it involved converting an industrial site, known to produce contaminants, into a residential area. There were also no tests performed to ensure a functioning septic system was feasible despite being in an area where failing septic systems have been a major environmental problem for years (The Birches). It should be noted that there is ground water flowing continually out of the ground on this site, which then flows directly into the bay. Please read the attached letter to the N.C. Environmental Bond Committee for a very basic idea of some of the other deficiencies - there are far more that I did not address in that letter (letter provided below).
2000 - Tidal permits issued in July. Developers later demolish buildings, fill property and crush and remove derelict boats (without emptying fuel tanks) all without the proper permits from the Town of Oyster Bay. Area residents see what is happening - this is their first indication of any plan for development - and call FOB, the Town and myself. The illegal work at the site is stopped. Pressure from us to do a more thorough investigation puts project on hold due to developers lack of cooperation.
2001 – The property is nominated by myself as well as FOB for acquisition through the SEA Fund Bond. I do not know this to be fact, but I am told the developer was offered over $900,000.00 for the property provided it was tested and found to be without contaminants. Developer refused. Please remember the amount originally paid and from whom it was acquired.
2005 - The property is again nominated for acquisition through both the SEA Fund II and the Nassau County Environmental Bond Act. DEC permits expire in July. Developer allows Town to conduct soil tests, which are found to contain unsuitable amounts of a number of contaminants despite the developers assurances that his tests showed levels were well within limits.
2006 Site is designated as a Superfund site.
At this point, with the developer having shown a total disregard for the law or the well being of the public, and being totally uncooperative, the only viable option to solve this problem is for The Town or County to acquire (re-acquire) the property through eminent domain. Pains should be taken to ensure that the developer be paid no more than the initial investment with a small return (5%/yr. ?). The property can then be cleaned up and restored and used as a passive park and access to the Bay. The health of area residents as well as the health of the Bay and possibly the area shellfishing industry is at stake.
Please don't hesitate to call me if I can be of any assistance. Any article that brings this issue to the public can only help and I will do whatever I can to help.
Barry E. Lamb
And the nomination letter.
March 25, 2005
Nassau County Environmental Bond Act Program
One West Street
Mineola, NY 11501
Dear Committee Members,
I am writing to you to ask that you please consider the Mill Neck Bay Marina as a candidate for acquisition to preserve as open space. This property is directly adjacent to a National Wildlife Refuge and a watershed that has been designated an Outstanding Natural Coastal Area and a Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat by New York State and is, for many reasons, unsuitable for development. The property also has a questionable history when you consider how the owner/developer obtained both the property and the DEC permits to build on it. The developer has also demonstrated a blatant disregard for the environment and the laws designed to protect it by the numerous violations committed in the short time before he was denied access to the property.
A brief history of this property and very questionable behavior of all involved will make anyone wonder if the processes we have put in place to protect the environment are working at all. Keep in mind that the developer used a consultant that is said to be very friendly with DEC personnel.
While I do not know this to be fact, I was told that much of this property was acquired through Nassau County tax liens. This could easily have been avoided had the county had a policy in place to compare properties in arrears to their inventory of environmentally sensitive lands as outlined in the 1998 Nassau County Comprehensive Plan. (I now know this to be true and have copies of the deeds)
No soil tests were required by the DEC to determine what contaminants are present from the former use as a marina with all the associated paints, paint strippers, oils, resins, heavy metals and other chemicals.
Despite the fact that it is common knowledge that the majority of the septic systems in the same area are failing due to groundwater carrying the raw sewage into the bay, and that the property in question has a fresh water spring that flows from its center, the DEC has issued permits allowing two homes and the septic systems to go with them. One of these septic systems will, according to the site plan, be located right smack on top of that fresh water spring. These septic systems have no special features to alleviate this problem and no perc. test was ever required to assess the suitability of the area. Perhaps the most disturbing fact in all of this is that the septic systems were granted a variance from the DEC’s own setback requirements and instead of being 75’ from the wetlands boundary, these will be constructed just 30’ away. The hardship reason given for the variance on this property which was acquired through tax liens was "The owner is subject to practical difficulty due to the proximity of the wetland and limited building area due to the shape of the property"- stop laughing it’s really not funny.
In violation of the DEC’s procedural standards, permits were applied for incrementally in order to keep the regulating agencies from assessing the total impact of this project on the environment. The developer stated at a meeting at the Locust Valley Library soon after this project first generated opposition, that he intends to build four houses on the property, yet the DEC is assessing each permit as a separate project to construct one house and so far applications have only been made for the first two houses.
No permit for a bulkhead or sea wall has been granted nor a permit to remove the existing structures. Anybody who sees this property will see that the existing bulkhead is dilapidated to the point of being hazardous and needs to be removed and replaced, if for no other reason than safety, yet it has not been addressed. The issuance of these permits would require approval from The Department of State, a representative of which has indicated to me that they would be very reluctant to do so. This is further evidence of fragmenting the process. Obviously DOS approval will be far easier to obtain if the reason for the bulkhead is to protect houses already built and there is no wetland or open space left to save.
The application’s legal notice, posted on the DEC’s Environmental Notices Bulletin, listed the developer’s address (916 Carol Court, Woodmere) as the location of the property, making public comment or opposition highly unlikely. This deprived residents in the area of their right to voice their concerns before variances were granted and permits issued and basically denied them their right to be involved in the process.
Upon beginning this project, the developer violated (or may have violated) the following laws-
- Two buildings were demolished without TOBAY permits.
- Fill was dumped without TOBAY permits.
- Fill was not "clean fill" by any standards.
- Filling and excavation work was done without the installation of a siltation barrier.
- Siltation barrier subsequently installed has not been maintained
- During cleanup fuel from several boats on the property was dumped in the dirt.
I obtained much of the DEC file on this property through the Freedom of Information Law back in 2001. This process took more than five months and ten letters due to DEC resistance and the fact that they conveniently lost the file. They then managed to obtain a replacement file from the developer’s consultant after I appealed to the Committee on Open Government. I originally began this FOIL request after being told by Pam Lynch, a DEC employee, that a compliance hearing about this project was closed to the public to protect the privacy of their "client", Harvey Weisman (I was under the impression that the public was their client and that he would be better termed "defendant"). It is all very interesting to say the least. Unfortunately, I could not possibly include all the details in a letter without causing your eyes to glaze over. I would however welcome the chance to share what I have with any or all of you.
While it is my primary concern that this property be protected, it is my position that allowing someone to obtain property and permits in the above fashion and then to pay him a premium price for the land sets a very dangerous precedent. For this reason I am asking that you acquire this property in as frugal a manner possible. Perhaps petitioning the DEC to pull its permits on the grounds that they were improperly obtained would entice the developer to accept a price based on his cost plus a small return (minus the cost of cleaning up his illegal dumping) rather than the market value of four building lots that were questionably created. There could not be a better candidate for eminent domain.
As a nominee for acquisition, based on your Open Space Acquisition Evaluation Form, this property meets all but a very few of the criteria and will obviously score very highly. In order to keep an already lengthy letter from getting even longer, I have taken the liberty of completing a printout of the form with the criteria that I believe the Mill Neck Bay Marina fulfills as a candidate. I hope that you will take the time to review it and make your own determination. If you have any questions, or I can help you in any way, please do not hesitate to contact me.
This parcel may be the last place left on the west side of Mill Neck Bay for us to establish access for low impact activities like fishing, birding, kayaking and canoeing. This open space would act as a natural buffer to protect the bay from the fertilizers, pesticides, lawn chemicals, sewage from failing septic systems and other pollutants associated with residential developments. With a freshwater spring attracting birds and wildlife it could be a beautiful addition to an already beautiful ecosystem. Or we could allow four more houses where the only addition would be more sewerage and pollutants to a bay that is already beyond its capacity to process them.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Barry E. Lamb
Cc: Kyle Rabin, Executive Director, Friends of the Bay
With the passage of the latest Nassau County Bond Act, it would be a grave mistake to not use some of the resources to acquire and clean up this property. As mentioned in the above letter, this is the perfect candidate for eminent domain. This developer has shown absolute contempt for the law and the environment and should not be rewarded for this environmental extortion.
Barry E. Lamb
Bayville
The following are posts origially placed on the Bayville Blog:
Thursday, November 23, 2006 11:31 AM JD wrote:
Barry,
Thanks for sharing this information. Keep up the good work and let us know what we can do to help.
Reply to this
Saturday, November 25, 2006 12:08 PM Joan D wrote:
Barry,
If I understand this past entry correctly, this is an additional pollution problem to the Birches cesspool issue.
Since you are very knowledgeable and articulate in this areas and your thoughts, would you consider heading a group here in Bayville (via this blog and meetings)that would act as an infomrational/activist group focusing only on issues in Bayville? This group/meetingblog could help people become more informed and more importantly instruct them on how to involve themselves in such a way that would help the clean up process of these two sites come to fruition.
I know people swim in the creek, they boat and fish there as well. This is wrong for the enviornment and ultimately us.
Joan
Reply to this
Sunday, November 26, 2006 6:59 AM Barry E. Lamb wrote:
Hey Joan,
You are correct that this is a seperate problem from the birches. It is located just a few hundred feet away. This is a state superfund site that is contaminated with various heavy metals associated with the operation of a marina. Needless to say, with the fact that there is groundwater flowing from the ground and into the bay, it is likely that these contaminants are also making their way into the bay.
As for a Bayville environmental group, one of the main reasons I took on this blog was to help inform residents about environmental issues and open up a dialog on the subject. I would be more than happy to informally meet with other like minded people to discuss this. Maybe coffee at the luncheonette one Sunday morning. Let me know what you think.
Barry
Reply to this
Sunday, November 26, 2006 1:59 PM Caroline S DuBois wrote:
Approximately 6 years ago, I asked the US Fish and Wildlife for their support in protecting this waterfront site. While they could not offer any cash, they did endorse the concept of using the old Marina Site for a passive park for Scientific Research, Environmental Education and as a Kayak launching site. As home to a wide variety of coastal critters, this site is especially important as a breeding and nesting habitat for Diamond Back Terrapins, a threatened species. I also remember that during the Nor'easter of December 1992 the entire site was underwater and the old Oyster Sloop Christeen was tossed up on the shore landing on top of another hulk. This was the last straw in the destruction of her old hull and resulted in the complete rebuild of this, now landmarked, environmental education "tall ship" used by the Waterfront Center in Oyster Bay Harbor.
Caroline S. DuBois
Oyster Bay Cove
Reply to this
Sunday, November 26, 2006 6:17 PM edie wrote:
I feel silly having to ask, but where exactly is this piece of land?
Reply to this
Su
Reply to this