Advantage Title, Eastern Long Island, title insurance, commercial, residential
27east.com

31 Comments by longtimelocal

1  |  2  >>  

If Blinking Light Program Is Successful, County Road 39 Could Get A New Underpass Instead Of Light

dnice you are 1000% correct. You could see this coming from a mile away from the previous SP article about this "great idea". So let me get this straight (pun intended), we are going to change a very logical and long established road system/traffic pattern with this Rube Goldberg "better idea" configuration in order to save a guesstimated 10 mins of reduced travel time for a 2 hour period of time in the morning for 6 months of the year. So let's start with some questions. Who is paying for this alteration? These are local roads not county roads so I am assume the town pays for it. How much is it going cost? What kind of traffic nightmare is going to be caused by constructing an underpass across CR 39? Is the RR intersection going to be an overpass or underpass? Are you going to take N. Rd. back to Tuckahoe Rd. south of the RR or is Bahn Rd. going to take you through the round about college roads (Google Earth the college roads)? There are reasons for lights. They allow coordinated access to roads. This configuration guarantees backups for vehicles trying to enter CR 39 eastbound in the morning and CR 39 westbound at night. These entrances do not look like highway merges that allow vehicles to get up to speed before entering CR 39. You are just creating another Shurbland Rd. nightmare. In the evening, it backs up all the way to Cold Spring Pond. I especially like the hairpin corner on the westbound entrance. It should be great for construction vehicles with trailers and tractor trailers. How does this whole idea obviously not benefit the Shinnecock Golf Course the most? Next stop Sebonic Rd is going to have to be rerouted. It cuts through National's golf course." Apr 20, 16 7:50 PM

People, people, people, IMO most of you are falling for Jay's classic magician's trick of misdirection by thinking the REAL purpose of this project is to reduce traffic/travel time. It has NOTHING to do traffic. It is ALL about Shinnecock Golf Course wanting to get rid of the section of the public Tuckahoe Road that goes through it. How is removing one light going to reduce traffic? It doesn't make sense. The traffic just backs up at the next light." Apr 22, 16 9:53 AM

And that is why Trump AND Bernie are doing so well. The masses (Democrat and Republican) are fed up with the establishment politicians. Jay and ALL elected officials would be wise to take note of this." Apr 22, 16 4:49 PM

I understand 27dan, but do you think this proposal is going to do anything to help the problem. Unfortunately, the South Fork is it's own island created by the Shinnecock Canal. There are three ways on to the South Fork east of Hampton Bays, Sunrise highway (2 lanes each way), Montauk highway (1 lane each way), and the LIRR. If you ready want to go crazy there are the Shelter Island ferries. That's it, period. The biggest immediate gain would be if you allowed left hand turns again on Shurbland Road. This would allow Sag Harbor/East Hampton bound traffic to use Noyac road, but you are going to be sending A LOT of traffic through residential neighborhoods which is not desirable. The most underutilized path is the LIRR. IMO that is the only way to make a dent in this problem. Unfortunately this option is heavily Albany centric/unionized which makes any of the possible solutions unlikely/costly. If you can get over the LIRR hurtle, you would have to create Southampton, Bridgehampton, East Hampton, Montauk shuttles to high volume employers, i.e. town employees, schools, etc." Apr 23, 16 9:18 AM

UPDATE: Schneiderman Unveils More Details About Proposal To Reroute Tuckahoe Road

Don't even think about this. This is a PUBLIC road and has been a public road since the golf course was created. How does making it private, help the public? Remember Jay we locals vote." Jun 15, 16 7:17 PM

Second Tuckahoe School Budget Proposal Fails To Muster Enough Voter Support

They can't sell the house property because they started to tear it apart to the tune of ~$30,000 tax payer's money before the voter's turned down making it into a residence for the superintendent. So now there are only exposed 2x4 studs. Feel free to verify this by looking through the windows. " Jun 21, 16 10:38 PM

Let's pay ~$200,000 to a new superintendent who shows up to work a couple of months, has a legal issue, gets ~$100,000 to walk away and the school board wants to pierce the tax cap. NOT!!!!!! I'm glad to see that some voter sanity still exists. " Jun 21, 16 10:46 PM

Rickenbacker, The problem was when the Southampton school district voters rejected "the merger" they didn't incur any pain. Tuckahoe still sent all its high school students to Southampton. In fact they actually were rewarded because Tuckahoe is now contractually bound to send ALL its students to Southampton for the next five years. When Southampton turned down "the merger", Tuckahoe should have sent all its students to Westhampton. If Southampton lost ~100 premium paying students their budgets/programs would have been severely impacted. Then and only then would you have any chance of getting the Southampton voters to approve "the merger". Unfortunately in the short term, you are putting the children in the middle of negotiations, but Tuckahoe isn't viable by itself so it is the right decision long term." Jun 22, 16 5:56 PM

That is the problem. Southampton is living off the fat of Tuckahoe. As long as Tuckahoe allows it to continue nothing will change." Jun 22, 16 8:39 PM

Suffolk County Planning Commission Deems Tuckahoe Center Application Incomplete

Yes, it is nice to preserve land and there is a ton of money in the CPF, but there is a problem. If the town buys it, it is removed from the tax rolls and the Tuckahoe school district can not afford any more loss of it's tax base. There are already four golf courses that pay very little property tax(based on the amount of land they occupy) and the college is part of SUNY so little or no tax there. I'm not for or against the project. There are good and bad things about it. The biggest advantage would be the extra tax base for Tuckahoe, but the traffic impact would be a BIG, BIG, BIG disadvantage." Oct 10, 16 6:22 PM

Southampton Town Considering Buying Part Of Tuckahoe Center Property With CPF

Great, take more property off the tax roles in the Tuckahoe school district. It already has 4 golf courses and the Stony Brook campus that don't contribute their fair share to the district and just for laughs add the Sandy Hollow affordable housing proposal to the mix. How much is a school district supposed to take! I don't know if I agreed with the shopping center proposal, but at least it would have provided a couple of hundred thousand dollars of revenue to the Tuckahoe school each year!" Oct 12, 17 7:20 PM

UPDATE: Police Offer No Leads In Thursday's County Road 39 Fatality

I get it Non-Political you like to bike. Good for you. Just for laughs I looked at your "South Fork Alternative Transportation Initiative". Wow! I understand that it would be your Bike-topia, but really, FERRIES. Ferries from the canal to HB ocean beaches, a ferry across the Shinnecock Inlet, and just for laughs a third ferry across of all bodies of water, Cold Spring Pond (Do you know how shallow your drop off point is? This plan doesn't help traffic at all. First, it starts at the Shinnecock Canal. How do you get there, hot air balloon, jet pack, transporter? Are you supposed to take a bike ferry to the HB side of dune road then take another ferry over to the SH side of dune road? The 1% are already complaining about too many people on "THEIR" beaches now you are going to congest "THEIR" roads. Good luck with that. The only biking option is along 27A and guess what, if you take even half of the single occupant cars and put them on E-bikes on 27A what are you going to have? Bike traffic! Also it's nice to try to use a tragedy and everyone's pain of being stuck in traffic to push your Bike-topia agenda. As Rahm Emanuel says "You never let a serious crisis go to waste..."." Apr 5, 18 9:30 AM

Ok, I looked at the "Master Plan". The first thing I noticed was "Transportation - March, 1999". Wow! Almost 20 YEARS since it was published and how much of it has been implemented? Have you seen the shape of the roads this spring? If you think there is ANY money for cantilevered bike paths across the Shinnecock Canal I want some of what you are smoking. But hey, this is America you are free to create a company, charge what ever you want and create YOUR Bike-topia with YOUR money, not everyone else's." Apr 5, 18 10:11 AM

Tempers Flare Over Rose Hill Road Deal Between Southampton Town Trustees And Water Mill Homeowner

I never realized that the town had a public ramp on Mecox. At first I was "on the fence" over the deal, that was until I saw what the town property looked liked before the agreement. If case anyone wants to see a before picture here is a link to a pic from 2016.

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnTqKnnJSfwtgi6nCdAyh3eyh9ta

According to the original 27East article on this issue it was stated "also allowing the homeowner to move a line of trees down the middle of his property to the middle of the Trustees’ property". As my eye balls see it, the homeowner's trees were originally "on" the property line, NOT "down the middle of his property". More importantly they moved the trees AS FAR OVER AS POSSIBLE, leaving only one of the original access roads available. This by my rough calculations is over 80% of the width of the Trustees property, NOT THE AGREED UPON 50%. Using 27Easts photo, I overlayed lines to denote the property lines, midpoint line, and the actual line taken by the home owner. FYI since Google Earth was used for all the measurements they are approximate. I didn't know what lens was used, the viewing angle, etc., etc., etc., but the eyeballs know what 50% is and that isn't it.

Here is the pic with the lines superimposed.

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnTqKnnJSfwtgi8xm8xvFdSH22l-

" Apr 26, 18 3:17 PM

Forgot to ask.

Has anyone submitted a FOIL request to the Trustees for the agreement? It would be nice to see exactly what is in it. It would be nice to see if it covers what happens if the homeowner doesn't do the agreed upon items, or it the propery is sold. If the trustees didn't have the money to maintain the existing property, where are they going to get the money to remove the circular driveway and move the trees back. 27East, sounds like something a good community newspaper would do. " Apr 26, 18 3:28 PM

Forgot to thank the Halsey family for their very generous gift to the people of Southampton. Thank you very much.

So the land was deeded to the Trustees on 12/11/17 and they pass this agreement on 1/17/18. WOW! They barely waited a single month. If the Trustees were worried about the maintenance why did they accept the property?" Apr 27, 18 9:51 AM

SlimeAlive - The property was given to the town (don't know when). The town gave the land to the Trustees in Dec. 17 in exchange for Trustee owned land in Riverside for the new traffic circle.
Rem1618 - FOIL - Freedom of Information Law/Request. 27East already did it and included on the webpage. Thanks 27East.

Wow. Ok 27East time for some corrections. This encroachment is nothing like what was stated in your original article which stated "allowing the homeowner to move a line of trees down the middle of his property to the middle of the Trustees’ property". According to Schedule C in the agreement, it is one convoluted carve out to the total benefit of the homeowner. It starts out in the approx. middle (~47 ft.) but then balloons out to over 65 ft. The little slice of Trustee property that is left by Rose Hill Rd is useless. Is this what Mr Warner thinks will "improve the property into more of a park-like setting for people to enjoy". Ha! If I were the Trustees, I would put several picnic tables there just so everyone knows that it is public park land.

Here is the encroachment outline, per Schedule C in the agreement. FYI, It is not to surveyor's standards (some of the arc lengths may be off by a couple inches), but is more than close enough to get the general idea.

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnTqKnnJSfwtgjFcz0EVro__0vPr

Also, I don't believe Mr Warner's statement "that the Trustees could back out of the deal with Mr. Frankel at anytime" is correct. The way I read the agreement is that it can only be canceled after the 15 year term or for cause.



" Apr 27, 18 6:27 PM

Agreed and it was voted in unanimously. I almost wish that there were some underhanded dealings, because the alternative is that the board is clueless.

I think they need a name change. Remove the Trust and we has a Board of Ees; add a Y and remove a E and we have the Board of Yes; and then there is always the good out standby the Board of Lemmings. " Apr 28, 18 10:23 AM

Section I of the agreement mentions a "Boundary Line Agreement dated June 7, 2011". Does anyone know what's in it?

Did the board ever see a site plan of the encroachment? While the descriptions of the properties involved in the agreement are described perfectly in a legal sense, they don't provide an intuitive, i.e. visual, depiction. Someone told 27East "the homeowner to move a line of trees down the middle of his property to the middle of the Trustees’ property". Whoever said this to 27East is grossly misrepresenting the encroachment. Did the board members rely on this description and we just got "Group Think" on steroids?

If anyone cares, I created one more diagram showing the encroachment overlaid on the park property so you can get more complete picture.

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnTqKnnJSfwtgjNliocynQRdZZH5

Full disclosure. Per schedule C, the stated area of the encroachment is .146 acres. The area of my representation is .0.14788 acres, so it is 75.2 sq. ft. larger than the actual encroachment. " Apr 28, 18 11:14 AM

Fortunately it is not a transfer of land only a transfer of use. It makes it slightly better, but not by much. There is a little sliver of public land between the road and of bubble of the circular driveway. As per the agreement, the homeowner put down nice thick sodded grass. My thinking is that the community organizes a weekly weekend tail gating barbecue. We get a couple of F350 duallys and picnic tables, maybe a live DJ, a little volley ball or bocce ball or someone said that Water Mill needed a dog park. It's not big, but it could be "a small dog only" park." Apr 29, 18 8:41 PM

Have the Trustees stated or does anyone know what the estimated yearly maintenance cost for the park would be. It would be nice to know what the Quid for the quo was. What is the extent of the "dredging" required? The agreement states only "so that the bottom of the boat ramp is kept in a condition that is deep enough to allow boats to launch from a trailer". That is vague enough to drive a truck though. How about using a specific depth. Are we taking about a 16' Jon boat on a roller trailer or a 25' deep vee boat on a trailer with bunks? This doesn't sound like they have to bring in a real dredge or that Hayground cove is being dredged for navigation purposes. I don't know the depth of the cove, but if they say the ramp shoals up, I would imagine that the cove also does. Are they just bringing in a pay-loader twice a year and running it down the ramp to scoop up some sand, put it in a dump truck, and drop it off at the end of Rose Hill Rd. If so, that sounds like a very little Quid for a lot of Quo. After all the homeowner is getting use of the land TAX FREE. " Apr 29, 18 9:07 PM

In case anyone is interested, here is the Boundary Line Agreement, from June 2011, that was referred to the most recent agreement.

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AnTqKnnJSfwtgjQEZf0KdKHU05_R

It was between the previous homeowner and the Town of Southampton. Among other things, it denotes the homeowner's encroachment onto the town's land. Per item 2, ". ZARO hereby acknowledges that the hedge, block apron and columns and any improvements within the area as shown on the aforesaid survey do, in fact, extend onto the TOWN property to the extent indicated on the survey.".

That the town agreed to allow the encroachment. Per Item 5, ". The TOWN hereby grants ZARO, their heirs, successors and assigns a license .¬over the portion of the TOWN property running parallel and immediately north of the common boundary line for the purpose of maintaining the block apron, two columns, hedge, and other improvements (the "Improvements") shown on the aforesaid survey..."

The Town did get some concessions. The homeowner had to remove "...the stockade fence, wire fence and keypad located on the TOWN property..." and "...ZARO, at their own cost and expense, repaved the existing access driveway on the TOWN property...".

" Apr 30, 18 6:25 PM

Are the Trustees going to do a final land survey now that the work is done? If not, I think that they should. According to my calculations (see links in my previous posts) there should be ~33 ft. between the park's northern property line and the most northern portion of the circular driveway. After visiting the park, the good old tape measure says the actual number is ~24 ft. It IS ~33 ft. to the cobble stone part of the driveway, but there is a row of Evergreens to the north of the circular driveway cobble stones, which is 8-10 ft. wide. Feel free to go out there with a tape measure and see for your self.

Here is a pic of what I am talking about.

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnTqKnnJSfwtgjXOAOh7Up9U729a

There is also an Evergreen barrier PLUS a rock border on the eastern side of the circular driveway. See the following pics.

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnTqKnnJSfwtgjhxLJduujQx_Sqk
https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnTqKnnJSfwtgjaIXdGUVv4GNFOV
https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnTqKnnJSfwtgjc29wkxYv9Qhw9Y

Are all the Evergreens and the rock barrier on Trustee land? If I had to bet, I would say YES!. I believe that circular driveway fills the total agreed upon encroachment and all or most of the Evergreen privacy barrier is on Trustee land. I think that the Trustees REALLY HAVE to do a final site land survey.

Remember, per the Boundary Line Agreement of 6/11, the previous owners acknowledged they put some of their hedge on town land, then the town had to live with it because it was preexisting. If the Evergreen/hedge privacy barrier is on park land and they don't do anything about it, what happens? Several years "down the line" are the homeowners then going to negotiate a new Boundary Line Agreement that gives them the right to keep this chunk of park land?

I can't make the Trustee meeting this Monday, Unfortunately, 1 AM doesn't work for a lot of people. I would appreciate it someone would pose these questions to the board. Feel free to use any of my pictures or diagrams.
" May 2, 18 7:43 PM

Trustees Defend Agreement, Maintain Rose Hill Road Property Deal Was To Create More Access

Just noticed that 27East posted a new article on this issue which shows what the park looks like now.

Mr Horowitz I'm encouraged by your "one inch" comment. How are you going to know if the homeowner is encroaching? Are the Trustees going to do a final land survey now that the work is done? If not, I think that they should. According to my calculations (see links in my previous posts) there should be ~33 ft. between the park's northern property line and the most northern portion of the circular driveway. After visiting the park, the good old tape measure says the actual number is ~24 ft. It IS ~33 ft. to the cobble stone part of the driveway, but there is a row of Evergreens to the north of the circular driveway cobble stones, which is 8-10 ft. wide. Feel free to go out there with a tape measure and see for your self.

Here is a pic of what I am talking about.

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnTqKnnJSfwtgjXOAOh7Up9U729a

There is also the Evergreen barrier PLUS a rock border on the eastern side of the circular driveway.

Are all the Evergreens and the rock barrier on Trustee land? If I had to bet, I would say YES!. I believe that circular driveway fills the total agreed upon encroachment and all or most of the Evergreen privacy barrier is on Trustee land. I think that the Trustees REALLY HAVE to do a final site land survey.

Here is what I believe the current park/encroached land look like.

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnTqKnnJSfwtgjnlVpERJNatMUEr

Remember, per the Boundary Line Agreement of 6/11, the previous owners acknowledged they put some of their hedge on town land, then the town had to live with it because it was preexisting. If the Evergreen/hedge privacy barrier is on park land and they don't do anything about it, what happens? Several years "down the line" are the homeowners then going to negotiate a new Boundary Line Agreement that gives them the right to keep this chunk of park land?

I can't make the Trustee meeting this Monday, Unfortunately, 1 AM doesn't work for a lot of people. I would appreciate it someone would pose these questions to the board. Feel free to use any of my pictures or diagrams.
" May 3, 18 7:36 AM

Draggerman. What's up with all the blank lines?" May 3, 18 7:45 AM

LOL! Like your thinking. There's no driveway gate right now, but I can guarantee you there will be one in the very near future; however, as a stated in a previous post, there is a little sliver of public land between the road and of bubble of the circular driveway. As per the agreement, the homeowner put down nice thick sodded grass. My thinking is that the community organizes a weekly weekend tail gating barbecue. We get a couple of F350 duallys and picnic tables, maybe a live DJ, a little volley ball or bocce ball or someone said that Water Mill needed a dog park. It's not big, but it could be "a small dog only" park." May 4, 18 11:00 AM

Did some more measuring and believe that the unagreed upon encroachment by the homeowner is worse then I originally thought. I believe that the driveway's cobble stone outline defines the agreed upon encroachment and everything or almost everything on the other side (north side) of the cobble stones is Trustee land. If this is true then all the deer fencing by the hedges, grass on the south side of the fencing, PVC control box, watering system, etc. is on Trustee, i.e. public, land. All of these aforementioned items should be contained within the agreed upon encroachment. If the homeowner wanted/needed more room, they had their opportunity to request it before the agreement was signed. If they didn't it's their problem. In order to reassure the public the the Trustees are good stewards of the public lands, I REALLY believe that the Trustees have to do a final land survey AND make it public.

Again, I can't make the meeting tomorrow so PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE will someone that can attend bring this up with the Trustees.

Unfortunately this is only the start of the wars over our public lands. The "Big One", Tuckahoe Road and the Shinnecock Golf Course, is still coming." May 6, 18 3:47 PM

Last posting before the meeting. Hopefully a picture is worth a thousand words. Red area shows what I believe is the unagreed upon encroached area.

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnTqKnnJSfwtgjpQc-rlV74k6WMp
" May 6, 18 6:49 PM

Cops Called To Help Maintain Order At Southampton Town Trustees Meeting

Can you post a link. Looked for it but couldn't find it." May 9, 18 10:33 AM

Former Trustee Tells Southampton Town Trustees To Change Leadership Roles

The board and more importantly Tim Maran have acknowledged that it is know that the homeowner is over encroaching. As I have stated previously almost all, if not all, of the hedge and tree privacy barrier is on trustee land. This over encroachment is ~1432 sq. ft. or an 20-25% over encroachment of what was agreed upon. The board is supposed to present a "modified" site plan at the June 18th meeting. At the VERY least, the homeowner should be forced to stay within the agreed upon encroachment. This is the "low hanging fruit". Getting the whole park back is going to be a much longer/expensive process and unless either of the two lawyers (Tim's or the homeowner's to the north) can void the agreement on a legal basis I think we are stuck with the deal for the next 15 years. It's time to see if Google Calendar will allow you to set an event 14 years out. Fourteen years because the homeowner needs 6 months notice that the deal is not being renewed." May 22, 18 7:31 PM

UPDATE: Southampton Village And Town Police Work Together On Traffic Signal Modifications

FAIL EPIC EPIC EPIC FAIL. 40 minutes from Shinnecock Hills to the village at 9:40 this morning. You can't get to CR 39 because there is no right turn from Hills Station Rd to CR 39 (didn't see that in the road closures) or any of the other north south roads (Tuckahoe Road closed, St Andrews Rd closed. By the time you make it to Tuckahoe Lane the easterly traffic has eased. 8:30 PM west bound CR 39, Montauk Highway bumper to bumper, Shrubland Drive backed up to Cold Spring Pond. This is day one. Only practice rounds. What is Thur - Sun going to be like?" Jun 11, 18 9:34 PM

1  |  2  >>