BCEQ Papers:
Other documents of interest:
The City’s response: markpageaffopposing073008
See above the Section 8.2 page 184 which shows the promise made to the people in the EIS. Now they don’t want to keep the promise, so they are making up stories. It may not seem difficult to understand, but the DEP is having a hard time trying to figure out what to do.
On Wednesday, July 30, 2008, attorney and Bronx resident Ezra B. Glaser appeared before Justice Betty Owen Stinson seeking an Order to Show Cause (OSC) for a temporary restraining order against the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)’s proposal to blast in and around the Jerome Park Reservoir. The DEP and the City showed up to argue against the OSC. The Judge granted the TRO on the blasting issue.
“Our arguments were compelling,” stated Mr. Glaser, “The community groups would be harmed greater in the balance of equity then the DEP”. When the City claimed that “we’re not starting blasting August 1st” Justice Stinson replied, “Guess then you would not be harmed.” The FSEIS stated on page 184 of Section 8.2, submitted as one of the Exhibits: “There would be no surface drilling or blasting in relation to work at the Reservoir.”
Various borough wide and local groups and persons joined in: the bronx council for environmental quality (BCEQ) and IRA charles levenberg, both individually and in his official capacity as BCEQ President, the FORT INDEPENDENCE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION and PHILIP MCDONNELL, both individually and in his official capacity as President of the FORT INDEPENDENCE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, ASSEMBLY Member jeffrey dinowitz, both individually and in his official capacity, council member G. oliver koppell, both individually and in his official capacity, MARIO BENITEZ, ANTHONY PEREZ CASSINO, FRANCIS A. CHAPMAN, MICHAEL GARY, FATHER RICHARD GORMAN, SONIA LAPPIN, DAMIAN MCSHANE, MORRIS PALEVSKY, SAUL SCHEINBACH, LYNN SCHWARZ, and CAROLYN SMITH.
THE BRONX COUNCIL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (BCEQ), et. al v.THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (DEP), et. al, (Index # 260287 of 2008) will be heard on September 3, 2008.
This is a hoe ram, which is noisy but it is NOT allowed:
Watch eight trucks meander through a few streets in just eight minutes.
Click below to view in flash. Use the mouse to click to the animated photo’s; the pages will advance but you need to use the mouse click to go through the presentation. FULL SCREEN IS THE LAST RIGHT BUTTON.
(Please click the image to advance the slides)
If you do not have flash, you can download the Acrobat (pdf) version by clicking here.
Cliick here for a copy of the June 2008 Newsletter: stockade-06-2008
If that does not work, then right click (on a pc) and choose SAVE AS to save it to your computer and then you can read the 16 page newsletter at your leisure.
I know, I know. What does this have to do with water? Well, there is the green roof on top of St. Simon Stock, so I got to thinking of a beautiful note we received after the roof started to become a reality:
Congratulations on seeing all your years of work come to fruition in the sliver of native plantings and soil on the skyline. . . . . I did a bit of research on Saint Simon Stock. I was struck by some lovely poetic-ecological significances in the bit of restoration ecology you have initiated on the convent, and thought I’d share.
Simon was born in Kent,;England in the early 13th century. When he was twelve years old went to live as a hermit in the hollow trunk of a tree - hence the “stock.” After twenty years of prayer in the trunk of that tree, he joined up with an order of monks theretofore unknown in England. Monks of the Order of Our Lady of Mount Carmel.had returned from the Holy Land with the knights of the Crusades. Carmel lies between Galilee and Samaria, and is derived from the Hebrew Karmel, meaning “orchard,” “garden,” or “vine of God.” In the 12th Century, monks took up residence in dedicating their lives to the Virgin Mary. The Virgin, as Chyrysippus of Jeruslam wrote in the 5th century, was regarded as a “cloud of rain that offers drink to the soul….” St. Simon spent the rest of his life establishing Carmelite monasteries around Europe, venerating their blessed “little cloud of rain.”
I can’t help but think that, no matter one’s religious persuasion, there’s some good karma in restoring a bit of earth to Saint Simon’s roof (probably one that’s a bit more watertight than the hollow tree). And let’s hope that the good will and metaphor extend enough to allow a few little clouds of rain to find the roof this fall and give those goldenrod and horse-mint a drink before the winter months.
Forgive a young poet his musings on your roof meadow - I can’t wait to chat further about the good pragmatism of capillaries and stormwater runoff computer models.
Talk about tunnel vision! The City has decided that they don’t need a permit to build the THREE BILLION DOLLAR filter plant, because it is attached to the tunnel. See post below on July 10.
The memo from 1989 describes some exempt use at the Jerome Avenue Pumping Station. For almost thirty years I would ask, what are those ugly white trailers doing at the pumping station; and no one could answer me. We knew they were not from the MTA, but that they had something to do with the third water tunnel. Someone should find out exactly who is in the trailer park at Jerome and Van Cortlandt Avenue. Anyhow, here it is:
The “white trailers” at the Jerome Avenue Pumping Station do not fit the explanation; they are offices on city property. Curiously, the DOB retains jurisdiction over the trailers at the CWTP, but not at the Jerome Avenue Pumping Station???? Moreover, the CWTP does not fit the explanation; if it did, they would never have had to do ten years of Environmental Reviews!
The attached Objection Sheet is advising the “withdrawal” of the application, but I requested the actual list of objections that the plan examiner wrote up. Apparently that is not kept at the DOB, and the plan examiner no longer works at the DOB. In addition, Marshall’s explanation (see below) excludes trailers, which there are trailers. No consistent actions have been taken.
The City Charter § 643 states that “the Department [of Buildings] shall enforce … such provisions of the building code, zoning resolution, … as may govern the construction, … of buildings or structures in the city,” but that, with certain stated exceptions, “the jurisdiction of the department … shall not extend to waterfront property … or to bridges, tunnels or subways or structures appurtenant thereto.” (§ 643 [7].) The statute’s language clearly limits the exemption to a tunnel or structure appurtenant to a tunnel, not a filtration plant !
More Documents of interest:
Finally, this appurtenant decision was not listed and/or described in the 2004 FSEIS, and is arbitrary and capricious!
See
Assembly Member Jeff Dinowitz’ letter of July 18, 2008 re blasting at JPR and exemption from needing a new building permit.
Cites Borough President Adolfo Carrion’s letter of July 11, 2008
Community Boards 7, 8 and 12 will hold a meetingto hear from the public on whether or not the New York City Department of Environmental Protection can or should using blasting in work they propose to do in and around the Jerome Park Reservoir.
Tuesday, July 15, from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
Lehman College’s Music Building, Faculty Dining Room
250 Bedford Park Boulevard West, at Paul Avenue and Bedford Park Blvd
The Final Environmental Impact Statement (issued by then DEP Commissioner Chris Ward in 2004) stated that they would be no impacts at the Jerome Park Reservoir based on the work method proposed. Now they want to switch in mid-stream. If they want to do this, they will have to do a supplemental study. The trucks associated with the blasting method will be driving through our streets!
|
Dear Ms. Argenti,
The following is in response to your attached e-mail, dated 7/2/08, regarding the above referenced DEP project:
Based on several discussions between DEP and DOB, the Croton Water Treatment Plant was determined to be a “structure appurtenant to a tunnel” based on its direct functional relationship with the tunnel. It is therefore not subject to Department of Buildings jurisdiction per NYC Charter § 643(7). We determined that there is a functional relationship between the treatment plant and tunnel in that they are necessarily physically connected in order for the treatment plant to perform its function.
As a result of this section of the City Charter, the new building application was determined to have been submitted in error, and was subsequently withdrawn.
It was further determined that, per Charter §643(7), the Department retains jurisdiction over other aspects of the work including power-operated cranes and derricks, electrical work, and all work associated with elevators. In addition, the Department will retain jurisdiction over any structure or work not permanently connected to the appurtenant structure, such as temporary trailers, stair towers and scaffolds, as well as excavation work. Meetings are ongoing with DEP to ensure that these types of applications are submitted, approved and permitted.
Marshall A. Kaminer, PE
Borough Commissioner, Bronx
From: karenargenti@aol.com [mailto:karenargenti@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 12:46
To: Marshall A. Kaminer
Cc: Gorman, Richard
Subject: Croton Water Treatment Plant: NB permita nd Saturday or After hour permitsB5900 L1
Dear Marshall,
Attached please find the report listed in the BIS program for this project.
It seems as if there were NB permits disapproved for New Building Permits in 2006 — THREE TIMES and then withdrawn. That was two years ago.
Is this the status of the New Building Permit? Does this mean they do not have a NB permit?
Moreover, we are informed that the contractor is making a request to work on SATURDAY. Did you sign off on this work? Can I see a copy of the permit?
If they are in such a rush, where is the NB and FOUNDATION permit?
