Sand Land Calls For Investigation Of The Bridge Golf Club

The operators of the Sand Land mine in Noyac are calling on Southampton Town to investigate the Bridge Golf Club next door, claiming that the club violated restrictions that were part of site plan approval in 1999.

The Bridge violated restrictions when it cleared several parts of the golf course as well as when it cleared “substantial portions of, and resurfaced and installed, an employees’ parking lot on portions of residential lots,” argues a May 31 letter from Sand Land’s attorney, David Eagan, to the entire Southampton Town Board, along with Town Attorney James Burke and a handful of other town officials.

The letter cites a conservation easement that prohibits regrading and dredging; excavating or removing topsoil, loam, sand, stone, gravel rock or minerals; cutting down or removing trees, plants and other vegetation; and “artificially transplanting” trees, plants and other vegetation. The intent is to leave “the natural resources and conditions of said easement area in their current, undisturbed, natural state,” the agreement states.

“There is no issue that the clearing and re-vegetation restrictions imposed ... have been blatantly violated,” wrote Mr. Eagan of East Hampton-based Eagan & Matthews PLLC.

Additionally, the letter claims that Robert Rubin, the owner of the Bridge—who has been an outspoken critic of the operation next door to the private golf course development—has been using his ties with local environmental groups to spearhead a campaign to close down the mine for his personal gain.

The Bridge’s attorney, Brian Sexton, could not be immediately reached for comment on behalf of his client.

One of the environmentalists mentioned in the letter, Robert DeLuca, president of Group for the East End, said that while he has not seen Mr. Eagan’s letter, he is aware of it. Mr. DeLuca suggested it was a method to divert attention from what is actually going on with the mine: The State Supreme Court Appellate Division ruled in April that the owners of Sand Land do not have the right to operate a solid-waste processing facility at the site, and the mine operator, Wainscott Sand & Gravel, has been fighting that decision.

“It’s a total diversion from what’s actually going on,” he said. “It’s sort of ridiculous. You have an appellate ruling saying that the operation on that site is unlawful.”

Both Town Supervisor Jay Schneiderman and Mr. Burke said the town is aware of the letter and will look into the allegations Mr. Eagan has made against the Bridge.

“I went through it, and I’ll be following up with the various departments to have them do their own review and investigation and see if there’s any validity to it,” Mr. Burke said.

“If they’re doing something that doesn’t comply with the permits, they will certainly be investigated,” Mr. Schneiderman said.