Send an Email NOW: STOP the Giveaway of Public Lands and Access that enables private development along the Shinnecock Canal Yes! That can be accomplished by You Neighbors, Family and Friends: Everyone writing objections (copy and paste sample letter below with option to adding your personal thoughts ) to the Suffolk County Public Works,Transportation & Energy Committee for giving any consideration other than "NO" to “Intro. Reso. 1619-2015” (Memorandum of Understanding or MOU enabling the transfer of county publicly owned land ) during a meeting this Monday, Aug 31, 2015. Tell Elected and appointed Officials to vote NO: This giveaway (public lands are not being purchased by the developer) serves private use and profit. Committee Members must be reminded to act solely for the health and safety of the public, interests of our community. For example, Intro. Reso. 1619-2015 (“Memorandum of Understanding) declares “public access” limited to five parking spaces and floating dock during DAYLIGHT HOURS ONLY. (Please note the walkway/viewing platform/five parking spots lie within a flood zone recently flooded during Superstorm Sandy; adjacent to the fragile Peconic Estuary.) The objection to this Resolution, is one amongst many detailed in Shinnecock Neighbors lawsuit (filed May 2015, for more info: www.shinnecockneighbors.com) before the Court. The Neighbors lawsuit challenges Southampton Town’s decision to re-zone the developers’ properties in a way that contradicts our Town’s History, Character, Comprehensive Plans and Conservation Laws. The Neighbors also support Southampton Town Planning Board’s unanimous veto (December 2014) of this zone change. Time is of the essence: a denial of this resolution by Suffolk County Public Works, Transportation & Energy Committee Members, this Monday, August 31, 2015, for any further consideration (this Memorandum of Understanding details the transfer of public lands to private ownership (profit to the Developer rather then the Community); reveals a decision by officials for limited public access (lacks public transparency); road changes that Shinnecock Neighbors demonstrate negatively impact their safety and daily lives as well as everyone else traveling these already congested roads) would have the immediate effect of halting shovels in the ground, construction of 72,000 sq ft of Townhouses along the eastern shore of the Shinnecock Canal. Your email or letter NOW would effectively halt the Maritime Planned Development District until the merits of Shinnecock Neighbors lawsuit is ruled on by the Courts. This is important, because if, as expected, the lawsuit is successful in overturning the zone change, these lands must be returned to the public in the condition they were freely given by the County and Town - making waste of residents monies and time. Email NOW subject title: Objection to Intro. Reso. 1619-2015: vote NO to Al Krupski, Chairman of Public Works, Transportation & Energy Committee Al.Krupski@suffolkcountyny.gov please, cc: Tom Muratore, Legislator, Vice Chair tom.Muratore@suffolkcountyny.gov Thomas F. Barraga, Legislator, Member thomas.Barraga@suffolkcountyny.gov Kate M. Browning, Legislator, Member kate.Browning@suffolkcountyny.gov Steve Stern, Legislator, Member steve.Stern@suffolkcountyny.gov Gil Anderson, P.E., Commissioner of Dept. of Public Works public.Works@suffolkcountyny.gov bcc or cc: Hope Sandrow openairstudio@optonline.net Cut and Paste this sample letter; Edit; Add your thoughts: Al Krupski, Chairman of Public Works, Transportation & Energy Committee 423, Griffing Avenue, Suite 2 Riverhead, NY 11901 RE: Objection to Intro. Reso. 1619-2015 Dear Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am a resident and taxpayer of Suffolk County. I live in the Town of Southampton and am familiar with the area where the parcels of county property are located and which are being proposed for transfer to the Town of Southampton and the developers so the developers can build their Maritime Planned Development District project. The project has no maritime benefit, making it the densest development in the Town of Southampton by allowing the density to increase from 17% to 73%. The Shinnecock Canal is a unique and historic site, recognized by the State of New York. I strongly object to any action by the County to approve the Memorandum of Understanding allowing for the transfer of county owned land to assist the developers’ plans. The neighbors living in the area of the Shinnecock Canal filed a lawsuit in May 2015, challenging not only the Town’s decision to re-zone the developers’ properties, but in particular, the proposed transfer of the parcels subject of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) this committee is being asked to review. The residents and taxpayers of Suffolk County will be severely prejudiced and harmed if their land is transferred (without any financial consideration as disclosed by this Memorandum of Understanding) prior to the court’s ruling whether the transfer is legal. If the Legislature approves the MOU now and the courts rule later that the rezoning is invalid or the transfer of the public parcels is illegal, the parcels may be subjected to significant alteration and destruction, all of which amounts to public waste. The County, Town and developers cite that substantial public benefits are being provided by the developer. This is not true. The walkway, viewing platform and 5 parking spaces being allotted for public use are simply a cheap way of making the Town Board and some in the community think a balance had been struck in exchange for eliminating the access the public used to have along the east side of the canal and for privatizing the canal with high-density residential development. Residential development was never allowed along the canal. It will add nothing to the delicate economy of this maritime center that relies on marinas, restaurants and local retail serving the fishing and tourist industries to survive. The developers’ agreement to contribute to the expense of changing the two intersections serves only their interests in their project. No one from the Town or the County has proven that reconfiguring the intersections on either side of the canal requires giving up county owned land or that the changes will result in safer roads or improved traffic conditions. In conclusion, the request before you to approve the Memorandum of Understanding is based upon mischaracterizations and is premature. I respectfully request that this Committee reject the resolution outright or table it until such time as the courts rule on the validity of the proposed transfer of these public lands. Sincerely, cc: Tom Muratore, Legislator, Vice Chair Thomas F. Barraga, Legislator, Member Kate M. Browning, Legislator, Member Steve Stern, Legislator, Member Gil Anderson, P.E., Commissioner of Dept. of Public Works