Political Involvement and Leadership in Mining on Long Island By Melvin R McKenzie Jr It may seem strange, but there was little or no political involvement and leadership, during the period 1998 to 2000, in a matter of great concern in the Town of Brookhaven and Suffolk County: dredge mining into the Sole Source Aquifer for sand and gravel to be trucked into New York City. Roanoke Sand and Gravel Corporation was allowed by the Town of Brookhaven and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation to expand its mining operation into an area not exempted from the Town Code prohibition by a challengeable presumption of nonconforming use. It is also now apparent that the land was abandoned for a substantial period of time because surface mining had been completed. Buyers purchasing houses at the adjacent Home Owners Association in Birchwood at Spring Lake in 1999 were informed that the mine was bankrupt and no longer operating. This means that the Roanoke Corporation ought to forfeit any nonconforming use entitlement they possessed, if one ever existed. According to the Town Code, Chapter 53, adopted in 1987, in on order for a lawful nonconforming mine land use to exist today, an operating mine in 1987 had to have a pre-existing, current permit from the Town Zoning Board of Appeals, and a timely permit renewal application with a site plan approved by the Town Planning Board at least every three years thereafter. Other documents required then and now are: The Town did not enforce its mining prohibition code, and in fact informed the DEC that mining was not prohibited in the proposed location. The DEC did endeavor to confirm that the report by the Town Attorney was factual by so informing the Town Supervisor Grucci, and proceeded in processing the Roanoke application for expanded mining into parcels not exempted from prohibition. The mining application dated 17DEC98 was kept secret from the public until late October 1999.The public was provided a 30-day window in which to respond with comments (in contrast to the ten months the DEC had taken so far). Several civic organizations did respond. A NYS Assemblyman severely criticized the DEC process. Thereafter, the DEC did not respond again specifically about the Roanoke application (until two days before the effective date—26JUL00-- of the mining permit), and strongly advised the Roanoke Corporation not to speak or meet with the public. The motive for this decision and advice may have been that the applicant was having a difficult time developing a reclamation plan acceptable to the DEC. The DEC refused to hold a public hearing on the proposed action. The result was that the public had no opportunity to air significant, substantial, and material issues. There was no opportunity to challenge (1) the nonconforming use asserted, in effect, by the Town, (2) the full environmental assessment by the applicant and the DEC, and (3) the Roanoke Corporation reclamation plan approved by the DEC. As the applicant and the DEC move forward with the renewal application in 2005, these issues are still real and unresolved. Interestingly, the present Town Attorney has pointed out that the renewal application was submitted late (in violation of mining permit general conditions) and therefore must be treated by the DEC as a new application. Dredge mining by the Roanoke Corporation set a precedent for mining into the Sole Source Aquifer on Long Island, in a Region of State-wide Significance: the Pine Barrens Maritime Reserve. The Roanoke mine is just a few meters north of the Groundwater Divide, and is in a deep recharge area. The mine is being dredged 110 feet down into the water table, and, according to data from the US Geographic Survey indicating the thickness of the Upper Glacial Aquifer in this area, the mine hits the bottom of the aquifer. Suffolk County has designated the general area as Hydrogeologic Zone III, a very sensitive area. The DEC apparently did not ask the question, “Is a new lake in Middle Island really needed?” There are already many lakes in the area. A new one for public use is not needed. In the 1998 attachment to the mining application, Part I of the Full Environmental Assessment Form, the applicant merely indicated mining by dredging (and there was no indication that dredging would go down 110 feet). It was only later, in February 1999, that the applicant offered to gift the artificial lake for public use as a condition for mining. Significantly, about the same time, the Town Attorney informed the DEC that mining was not prohibited at the proposed location. What involvement the Town political leadership had in this process is not known, but the decision to mine into a critical environmental area in the Compatible Growth Area of the Central Pine Barrens Preserve was extremely important. Political involvement and leadership should have been recognized as vital in this matter. It appears that even the Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning and Policy Commission, with its primary mission to protect the groundwater and surface water, was excluded from this process--even as an Interested Agency. It appears that the DEC’s prerogatives over mining were too powerful to allow meddling by another Regional Agency created by the State with local political representation. Given the Regional Significance of the proposed mining action, the Commission by rights could have, and, in retrospect, should have asserted jurisdiction over the action. I have been advised by an environmental attorney in the NYS Attorney General’s Office that the Attorney General “typically” defends the DEC when and if there are lawsuits against the DEC. The USEPA has no authority to intervene, according to an EPA official. The Suffolk County District Attorney has not answered my correspondence. And so far, environmental groups have not responded, or have indicated that this problem is not their type of problem. The Town Environmentalist Chief has not responded to my request for a meeting to discuss his role in a possible future SEQRA process regarding the mine. (His office was not consulted the last time around!) Although a public Legislative Hearing will be conducted by the DEC for the “renewal” or “new” permitting process, the outcome desired by the DEC will probably not be affected by public testimonies. The Roanoke Corporation by now has invested about eight million dollars in a floating dredge and a wet processing, computer-controlled, system. The Corporation would undoubtedly claim vested rights. But it is apparent that unlawful mining is occurring in Suffolk County just the same. In an article published in the July 2003 issue of Quarry News, Roanoke Corporation claimed that, by dredging, it has extended the life of the mine by 25-30 years. (A 15-20 year extension was reported in its mining application.) But local road networks burdened by this operation were never designed nor built to carry the heavy sand truck traffic. In fact, the Corporation is moving sand and gravel at more than double the vehicle frequency per hour rate reported by the Corporation to the Town and to the Central Pine Barrens Commission. Noise and normal business hours of operation ordinance violations have been contentious issues in the neighborhood, while the Town has been unable to enforce its ordinances. The Corporation’s primary market, New York City (85% of it sand product is moved to the city for state-approved construction projects) necessitates early morning loading, according to a DEC official, in order to avoid rush hour traffic. But the Town has zoned residential districts around the mine. The new reality is that times have changed. Roanoke’s property is no longer suitably located for a mine. These days, it is no longer arguable (if it ever was) that there are no major environmental impacts to the environment and to the surrounding neighborhood. Roanoke Corporation has not been, and cannot be, a good neighbor. So, in addition to being unlawful, it is unsuitable to mine in Suffolk County, whose aquifer provides potable drinking water to millions. On grounds of abandonment, the nonconforming use for exempted lands, if one ever existed, should be taken from the Roanoke Corporation. The mining and reclamation operation should be shut down. The Town or the Central Pine Barrens Commission should exercise its powers of eminent domain, and restore the land to open space, re-forested and re-vegetated. The artificial lake, now probably 30 or more acres, should be managed by a public entity as a wetland and protected from contamination. Thirty more years of mining at this location is unacceptable on any level: environmental, social, economic. The interests of this property owner should not outweigh the quality of life of the local citizens. The individual championing a new vision for the Hamlet of Middle Island (and of Coram and Ridge) has been elected to the Town Council of Brookhaven. Connie Kepert, as a civic leader, fought valiantly in 1999 to stop the mine, and has now transformed her civic involvement and leadership into political involvement and leadership. The Roanoke Corporation mining operation does not fit her vision for the Corridor, which substantially has been incorporated into the Town’s Draft Land Use Plan. But the information contained therein—that the mine is exempt from prohibition as a nonconforming use—is inaccurate and challengeable. I challenge the assumptions underlying the Draft Land Use Plan regarding Middle Island and the Roanoke Corporation: (1)nonconforming use, (2) environmental assessment , and (3) utilitlity and need for an artificial lake. The mine was unlawfully expanded beyond exempted land. It is unsuitably located and is indeed incompatible with both the neighborhood and the Central Pine Barrens. The lake is not needed. The DEC should not have been allowed by the Town to process the mining application as it had muscle to do under ECL 2307(3), Title 27—The NYS Environmental Conservation Law. Melvin R McKenzie Jr November 15, 2005 4:20 PM Eastern read articles | submit an article for review
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
