Turning Point for Montauk

Welcome. This premiere issue of The parcels to themselves, the buyer. and Montauk Gazette contains exciting news for everyone who had taken title to land through Montauk property owners. By order of the them or their estate in Montauk. These New York State Supreme Court dated covenants were written to "attach to and run February 18, 1994, our common private with the land." which means, essentially. property rights to the Benson "Reservations" forever. were upheld! Because the Benson estate initially A not-for-profit corporation. the owned all of Montauk, and legal title to all Montauk Friends of Olmsted Parks, Inc. land in Montauk originates from them, all (MFOP), has been established to recover the Montauk property owners are the legal "reservation" properties into trust and act as beneficiaries of these covenants. trustee of them. In this first Federal edition of The not-for- If Montauk profit Gazette status " you'll has uk Pt. find been the two applied for, JUthw H 11 legal papers have Wompenanit subdivision maps been filed, and now. with this of Hither Hills and mailing, the first drive to welcome members Wompenanit and the wording of the is underway. covenanted agreements utilized to establish The basis of our rights is really quite our rights. You will be introduced to the simple. Montauk - in its entirety - was Montauk Friends of Olmsted Parks. Inc.. a formerly the exclusive private property of one democratic Trustee corporation for Montauk. man, Arthur W. Benson. Alter he died, his You will also learn about some of the major heirs hired the firm of Frederick Law issues before us in Montauk today (such as Olmsted, a world famous landscape architect protecting our water supply, the Benson and community planner with a reputation for "reservation" litigation, and more) and how working with large estates to preserve natural we can now, through the MFOP. take action landscape, to draw two very large subdivision concerning them. maps of their Montauk property. A Montauk-wide property owners' Between 1904 and 1956 the Benson association can only be a positive force for heirs used these maps, which were filed with Montauk. As a democratic corporation the Suffolk County clerk, to sell numbered established to protect our real property lots. Whenever they sold one of these lots the interests, the MFOP will protect and enhance Benson heirs included "covenanted the quality of life in Montauk. Please agreements" in the deed which reserved the consider becoming a member today. rights to the roadways and "reservation"

a cA,tontau-wide Thomw Ownon,' Jociatio,, Page Two The Montauk Gazette October, 1995 The Montauk Gazette and the About the Author This premiere edition of the Montauk Gazette has been written by MFOP World Wide Web site Robert A. Ficalora. the founder and acting president of the MFOP. The Montauk Gazette is published both sponsors for resolutions. Excerpts from Mr. Ficalora was born in 1957 in as a quarterly journal (in paper format) the forums will be published in the San Jose. California. the son of an and electronically as the world-wide quarterly Gazette. IBM manufacturing executive. His web site of the Montauk Friends of The MFOP web-site will also family moved throughout his Olmsted Parks. Inc.. In the pages of the serve as a bulletin board for upcoming childhood, living for varying periods Gazette you will find coverage of the MFOP events such as picnics, concerts, of time in New York. Montevideo. major issues of importance to Montauk guided tours, and caucus schedules and Milan. Stamford. and London. property owners and residents such as locations. He received his high-school taxation, land use, property rights and diploma from the American School in water supply. London in 1975. earned a bachelor of The quarterly Gazette will arts (BA) degree in economics from function something like The Drew University in 1979. and. while Congressional Record of the United Web Site is being set up for working for IBM. took a masters States Congress. Proposed and adopted the MFOP at degree in business administration resolutions of the caucuses and the http://www. montauk. corn (MBA) in financial management from Montauk Assembly will be published Pace University in 1982. Mr. here, as will ballots for positions within Ficalora spent thirteen years with the corporation. IBM in finance and planning and in As a result. the record of our technical marketing support. He assemblies will be compiled in the Coming on the Web considers himself an economist by Gazette, establishing the policies and avocation. direction of the corporation's activities. The initial selection of documents In 1991 he was advised to stop which will be available on the Web are work because of continuing World-Wide Web Page exacerbation and an increasingl} ✓ The full copy of Justice chronic condition of multiple sclerosis. His condition remains A real-time complement to the Underwood's February 18th, 1995, decision upholding the Benson chronic yet he feels that his retirement Gazette is being set up on the World together with diet have allowed him Wide Web of the Internet covenants; ✓ to slow the progression of the disease. (http://www.montauk.com ) and The Charter, Constitution and Mr. Ficalora's effort in negotiations have been started about Bylaws of the Montauk Friends of establishing a local access telephone Olmsted Parks, Inc.; establishing the MFOP is the result of number for Montauk. This popular ✓ A selection of the legal briefs his feelings of personal responsibility for the matters which came by chance multi-media resource is accessible via a filed in the case of The Breakers Motel before him. At various times prior to computer modem and is capable of et al. vs. Sunbeach Montauk II and retirement from IBM lie had overseen presenting information in audio, video Nicola Biase; the Benson "reservations" litigation and text formats. ✓ The legal papers filed in the for the Breakers Motel and has upcoming actions to protect our water The "Web Page" of the monitored it since. His experiences supply and consolidate title to the Gazette will have forums, archives of with the politics of the case convinced "reservations". of legal documents, reviews and him that the properties would not be ✓ announcements of upcoming events, Updates on the organizing protected without establishing a and more.. efforts of the corporation in preparation democratic trustee corporation. for our caucuses; The "forums" on the web-site will Mr. Ficalora's wife. Helen. is a ✓ allow members to browse or participate Forums for discussion of the co-owner of the Breakers Motel on in dialogues on Montauk's many issues issues; the Old Montauk highway. They Forums serve both to better inform the ✓ Up to date information of have two boys and make their membership on the issues and activities concern to the membership; primary residence in Olympia. of the corporation and to assist in ✓ And much, much more! Washington. where they spend their developing, perfecting and locating winters.

The i3eusoa foieuants "A general right of way is hereby reserved to the covenants above specified, shall attach to and run with parties of the first part in common with all grantees the land: and it shall be lawful not only for the said from them or from the late Arthur W. Benson, deceased, parties their heirs or assigns but also for any owner or of land at Montauk, over such of the roads laid down on owners of any lot deriving title from or through the said said map [Hither Hills or Wompenanit] as may be parties of the first part or through the late Arthur W opened from time to time to the nearest public road or Benson, deceased, to institute and prosecute any highway: and also a right of way over such roads as proceedings at law or in equity against the person or may be opened from time to time to the various lots or persons violating or threatening to violate same, it parcels of /and known and designated on said map as being understood, however, that these covenants are "Reservations ", which said "Reservations" shall be for not enforceable personally for damages against the the common use of the said parties of the first part, said parties, their heirs or assigns unless they may be their grantees, and the grantees of the late Arthur W the owner or owners of the said premises, or some part Benson, deceased, of land at Montauk. A right of way thereof at the time of the violation of said covenants, or is also reserved, in favor ofpedestrians only, along the any of them." beach at the foot of the cliffs or bluffs and the edge of - Liber 546 of deeds, pages 524ff.. February 1904 the Atlantic Ocean or the Block Island Sound. And, it is (Wompenanit); Liber 585 pages 416ff.. April 1906 (Hither expressly understood and agreed that the said several Hills). Approx. 90 original deeds were conveyed by the Benson estate with these covenants between 1904 and 1956.

11011 PLAN OF PART OF HITHER HILLS MONTAUK L. I. 1' S Prqxerty Prank Rmm Bensm and Mary Bana,xi SHEET I Indnihig Lots Ito 140 DAT1HN MONTAUK co SCALES

— e it. .a1 th C0it n4(nu,g ,_t _•• SW *----_...... A'LANTIC OCEAN - Ass,. SW thus------tiutiug t,tidffi. S. thd$St5. ------

The Hither Plain and Bathing Reservations - the subject of the Breakers case. Courtesy: National Park Service, Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site, Brookline, Massachusetts. The Damon 01 the Siiprem.t Court of the State olilew ork

This court directs that judgment be entered in to remove any and al/fences and structures and restore favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. said Reservations to their original open and natural Defendants 'property is burdened with the covenant state, forthwith. Defendants and their employees or described herein and are without the right to erect agents are further directed to forebear from preventing fences, berms or other structures on the reservations plaintiffs from enjoying their common use of said described herein and are forever barredfrom making Reservations... This memorandum constitutes the order claim to erect such structures. Defendants are directed and judgment of this Court.

The Breakers Motel, Inc.. Louise H. Nielsen, Alfred F. Nielsen, William J. Bruder, Atlantic Bluffs Club. Ltd.. George Potts and Margaret G. Potts. vs. Sunbeach Montauk II. Inc.. and Nicola Biase, order of summary judgement dated February 18th. 1994. N.Y. Supreme Court. Suffolk County, Index no. 85-5656. By the Honorable William L. Underwood. Jr.. J.S.C..

Ccrttlicatc of incorporation Uontauk friends o(.6 finsttd parks, inc. Established April 13th. 1994 under section 402 of the New York State Not for Pmfit Corporation I

It Is hereby certified that

(1) The name of the corporation is "Montauk Fnends of Olmsted Parks, Inc" (2) The corporation as a corporation as defined in subparagraph (a) (5) of section 102 (Definitions) of the Not-for-Profit Law (31. The purpose or purposes for which the corporation is formed are as folLows

3(a) To protem conserve steward and promote the parks roadways andother easements in Montauk shown on filed Olmsted subdivision maps of Wompenanit and Hither Hills and coneved through covenanted agreements through the estate of Arthur W Benson Note See reservation properties on filed maps #34 and #496 filed in Riverhead along with the covenanted agreements written to run with the land found in approximately 90 deeds between 1904 and 1956 beginning with Liber 546 cp. 524ff(Wonipenanit) and Liber 585 ep 416ff (Hither Hills)

3(b) To foster encourage and promote the fullest use and enjoyment of the Olmsted parks and other cos enanted easements by the Montauk community and their guests

3(c) To maintain anon-partisan democratic caucus-process membership organization of Montauk residents to discuss and resolve issues oversee and allocate funds and build community as specified in the By Ian s of the or Voting membership will belimited to Montauk landowners or certified proxies as set forth in the B\ lav' s of the organization

3(d) To enter into and/or support any litigation which either (1) is explicitly to protect the rights of Montauk Iandoners to the use of the land-grant parkland and/or other easements arising from the Benson

3(e) The MFOP iill seek to consolidate title for the reservation lands under its name in order to facilitate conservation and stewardship Where this is not possible the MFOP will work closely with the fiducial title-holders of the "reservation" properties to ensure that the covenanted agreements are respected

3(f) To seek recognition for Montauk as a National Historic Site by the Federal government of the United States of Amenca and coordinate and promote any programs which may benefit the Montauk communityrom f such recognition

3(g) To seek financial assistance through grants fund raising and private donations for the promotion and maintenance of the Olmsted park system in Montauk

3(h) To publish an ewsletter and quarterly magazine and sponsor celebrations and events to enhance community awareness and to promote and celebrate the spectacular natural beauty of Montauk

3(i) It is not the intention or purpose of the MFOP to set itself up as an historical society or to operate or function as a historical society

October, 1995 The Montauk Gazette Page Five

Unnamed Unnamed Reservation Reservation .IpW. -a W .57 (joint 4 7 (State Park) 9 stewardship. State Park)

Title holder t.b.d. Reservation (State Park) (Town of East Hampton)

Montauk's State Parks and the MFOP We are very fortunate that our "subject to", and affirmative of, our The Fort Pond Bypass representatives in Albany have been rights. excellent in protecting the parkland in The official Notice of The Town of East Hampton has Montauk. It happens in history that Appropriation describes three parcels in planned a recreation area on the great plans may be lost forever with Montauk appropriated for parkland Montauk Point State boulevard their creators. Fortunately, this does not followed by this language: easement next to the Montauk Movie have to be the case with Montauk. Theater on Fort Pond (where the boat When Mary Benson died she put "Together with all right, title and launch is). Permission is being sought her Montauk properties into trust to be interest in and to the lands under water from the N.Y. State Department of managed for the financial benefit of and the waters and shores abutting the Parks. Recreation and Historic Thyrza Benson, Frank Sherman lands in the three parcels above Preservation to allow this construction Benson's daughter. Shortly thereafter, described waiving and excepting which would consist of a soccer field. however, the developer Carl Fisher however any and all right, title and some basketball courts and a began to negotiate the purchase of the interest and the common use of the roller-blading track. It is felt that Benson holdings with the newly parcels designated as Reservations on current facilities at Lions field are reorganized Trustees of the Estate of said map ( WompenanitJ other than the overburdened (which they are). Mary Benson. plot marked "Reservation" in Parcel 1 Because it involves blocking a bypass While these much publicized hereof. Subject also in all three route away from the Second House negotiations were underway, an parcels above described to any and all "reservation" area and the center of extraordinary Conservation Law was rights of way or uses by way of Town, the MFOP strongly objects to passed in 1924 by the State Assembly reservation or otherwise and in this plan. in Albany. The Conservation Law whomsoever vested in any of the lands The Fort Pond bypass would allowed the State to "appropriate" real or property above described." Deed continue the main highway straight property in the name of the people of liber 1108 pg. 422 dated 8/25/1924. across Fort Pond and around the village the State of New York for public and to the north. The easement has long State Park purposes. It was with this This language effectively makes been condemned and is vacant and new law in hand that Robert Moses the MFOP a partner in the management available for its intended use. immediately acted in his official of much of the State parkland in The benefits to Montauk would be capacity as President of the Long Island Montauk. It can also be safely asserted enormous if the bypass were to be State Parks commission to intervene in that the totality of this language implemented. The roadway in front of the negotiations between Carl Fisher provides the basis for the recovery into Second House could be closed to traffic and the Benson Estate and appropriate trust of title to the "reservation" (in the summer, at least) and the area Hither Hills State Park and much of properties which were not taken under re-landscaped into a world-class beach what is today Montauk Point State Park. the extraordinary Conservation Law. promenade. The Olmsted interchange One of the properties which of Route 27 and the Old Montauk Robert Moses appropriated for parks Highway could be leveled and used as purposes was a "reservation" at Urgent Issues the site for a spectacular community Montauk Point. This appropriation center facing our newly recovered creates an interesting legal situation Recent activities in two areas Reservations and the Ocean. The because New York State financially relating to Montauk's State Parks are of downtown area would be considerably compensated the private owners of the urgent concern to Montauk landowners more vibrant (and commercially viable) properties appropriated. Montauk and residents. A plan is being with reduced vehicular traffic and these property owners, however, were not promoted by the Town of East highly desirable appurtenances. Hampton to build a recreation area on compensated. Because the planned recreation the Montauk Point State Parkway As it turns out, the State Parks area would interfere with our ability to easement at Fort Pond and a Commission "appropriated" our restore the historic Olmsted plan at preliminary feasibility study is being "reservation" property in a very Second House. the MFOP is on record made for a private concession interesting and appropriate way. In the with the attorneys office for the New golf-course at Camp Hero, in the heart official notice of appropriation legal York State Office of Parks. Recreation of Wompenanit. language was sworn to under the and Historic Preservation opposing official seal that the appropriation was construction on this easement.

Camp Hero Golf Course totaling several hundred thousand facilities sought at the Fort Pond dollars a year from a private bypass. The N.Y. State Office of Parks. concession. This money may benefit A new Great Park at Wompenanit Recreation and Historic Preservation the Parks office, but does it benefit would also improve our business has recently announced plans to engage Montauk? To a state government climate. Hither Hills State park is full in a feasibility study for golfing, departmental budget this plan may seem to capacity every year and Wonipenanit like a lot of easy money, but to our camping and other uses of the 400 acre would be even more popular. Our Camp Hero site in the heart of community it is a Bad Idea with almost oversight would ensure that the park's Wompenanit. Deputy parks zero benefit. Probably the most developed uses would emphasize a tight commissioner Edward Wankel has important result of this proposal, if relationship with our village and our indicated that he is looking seriously at adopted, is that Montauk and the people community in general. putting in a private-concession 18 hole of the State New York would lose the With the MFOP in action, we are golf-course at the Camp Hero site. historic opportunity to establish another in a good position to assert ourselves Great Park of Olmsted design. Community opinion is strongly both as Montauk property owners and against a golf course. First, we already As a pastoral setting for mountain as citizens of the State of New York. have a golf course in Montauk. Second, biking, hiking, picnicking and camping. The MFOP position is that the Wompenamt will be an Olmsted Park a golf course will bring no new money roadways and landscape of to our business community. And, a golf of the highest caliber. The Ward Pound Wompenanit should be. to the greatest Ridge Reservation in Pound Ridge, NY, course would serve only a small possible extent, restored to the original percentage of the public, increase our is a model for the use of the interior plan, adapted to park use. Properly already stifling traffic problem, and landscape of the site which utilizes considered and implemented. interfere with our interest in the proper controlled access, beautiful lean-to Wompenanit will be one of the world's restoration of the Olmsted plan for rentals and tent camping.. This would most beautiful and famous parks. With Wompenanit. provide us with spectacular coast line, the MFOP and the state Office of meadows, plantings and trails for our Mr. Wankel asserts that the State Parks. Recreation and Historic common use and enjoyment. It can also would receive a percentage of revenue Preservation working together, we can easily accommodate the recreational make it happen. How the MFOP works for you

The MFOP is a democratic participate democratically in achieving adopt conservative and well understood property owners' association our common purposes. "resolves" of, by and for the established to be effective in promoting As quickly as possible following membership to protect our common and stewarding our common real interests. (Please see page 15. MFOP property interests in Montauk. It will Rot/out for further information.) be comprised of a Board of Trustees, an So, how will the MFOP work for Executive. thirteen Associations, and a you? It will work to protect our water Montauk Assembly. The philosophy is supply from overburdenment and that for the MFOP to be truly effective depletion. Our caucuses and assemblies in working for the membership, it must Pt. will give us a strong voice in improving be a participatory organization of the the business and cultural climate in membership. 0 Montauk and monitoring taxation and This first mailing is going out to ?Sted I' public services. And the MFOP. as a approximately 4.400 property owners Parks corporation. will be in place to in Montauk. It is hoped that a solid Montauk's Tnistee Corporation administer and protect the Benson majority will join the organization. We Est. 1994 "reservations" and roadways for our will need a large membership to this introductory mailing, a process of most profitable and enjoyable use. provide the organization with the orderly review and voting on our issues The bottom line is that the MFOP legitimacy and dynamism required to will be established utilizing regular is intended to make sure that Montauk be successful in achieving the purposes local caucuses and a Montauk stays the very special place that we love of the corporation. Our strength will be Assembly. This democratic process will by providing the stewardship which it a fully informed membership that can allow us to develop and deserves.

Montauk's Water Crisis

Montauk is an island with -50— FbaSywdTELS.,Lrwdry brbRyaC CONtOUR-Sb,,,,. .'flfld. important to understand is as p,u.,e,.d by mu!!. Con!,,, uterus! $0 I..! a very shallow and fragile Oan,.. , 1 iba eon!. that this program is a - - -50 bSHWATER/SATWATEu ,NTENyOCE CONTOu--sh,,.. •bib.d* or flhwscsc groundwater supply. Our 5 .5 menu,.d fl N. fi.ld. Contour ntsIbaI 50 rust. short-term game as the principle aquifer has a Dab,. 1 SOS 5.0!. A,.. ..s.r. prdjeu. harts.. is Irnutid by tu. mod.! .qurts. base aquifer will, over time, (ten of oar.,.. cl.y unit! maximum depth of less than become wholly depleted by 150 feet below sea-level, is overburden ment. surrounded by salt water, and is This FAX produced almost our sole source of drinking immediate results. In a front water. Clay and other page article of the East impermeable soils limit the T. Hampton Star dated January aquifer's useable thickness to 19th, 1995, Michael LoGrande. less than 100 feet inmost - - the Chief Executive officer of places. Placing too much S..- the SCWA. and a former demand upon the aquifer Suffolk County Executive, causes saltwater to move into ATLANTIC called for a moratorium on all the freshwater bearing soils, further development on the Hither Hills Aquifer. Dashed line shows depth c effectively destroying them Montauk Peninsula. forever for drinking water fresh-water aquifer below sea-level (test data 1981-3 purposes. Our ability to Source: USGS report no. 85-4013 by Keith R. Prince. Mr. Ficalora sent another recharge this shallow aquifer and o. fiset —j FAX to the DEC on February demand is extremely limited and th ere plentiful water available to new 9th. 1995. This FAX documented Mr. is no other reasonable source of wa.,.ter development. I LoG rande's declaration as well as the should our aquifer be depleted. When Mr. Ficalora saw the very poor responses from our Town officials. After providing further Unfortunately, over the past 12/1/94 article in the Star he went on analysis, he concluded that: decade the Town of East Hampton and the offensive through the New York the Suffolk County Water Authority, State Department of Environmental "Meanwhile, these new Inc.. (SCWA, a not-for-profit Conservation (DEC). This took the wells will support recently corporation) have ignored the form of a FAX to Mr. Robert Greene, created over-development and limitations of our water supply by Regional Permit Administrator of the new development such as recklessly expanding a public water DEC, dated December 9th, 1994, currently proposed at Culloden system in support of new development This FAX reviewed the proposed Point. This is inequitable and As a result, the public supply wells in well-system plan for the Hither Woods will most certainh' be contested the central region of Montauk have and the lateral intrusion which it would in court." been experiencing elevating - Since the January chloride levels. This is very bad declaration a Water Alert was news for the future. Mr. Michael LoGrande, CEO of the issued confirming our concerns On December 1st. 1994, an and the well system in Hither article was published in the East Suffolk County Water Authority, Inc., Woods has been "postponed." Hampton Star which described a andformer County Executive has called Meanwhile, however, large new SCWA water system to for a moratorium on all further development interests continue be built in the Hither Woods. development on Montauk to hold sway over the SCWA The Hither Woods is the critical and the Town. Amazingly. recharge area for a shallow and - while the aquifer in central Montauk remains under serious fragile aquifer upon which hundreds of cause and concluded that: pressure, the development of 62 units at surrounding landowners with private "Of course, all of the wells depend for their fresh water Culloden is scheduled to go forward.. well-owners surrounding the When the central aquifer is totally supply. The proposed new system not (public supplyJ wells will begin only threatens the integrity of this depleted, a domino effect will take tofu!l outside the lens and lose place when a new source of supply is aquifer but would also temporarily and their water while new dangerously provide the illusion of sought under "emergency" conditions.. development will take the water We must protect ourselves from this diverted from them. What is ominous eventuality.

Water Supply Analysis theoretically questionable limits and trouble. What happens when the threaten it with exhaustion. SCWA well fields eventually give out? The three charts which you see on This is not only absurd but Where are people served by the SCWA pages eight and nine are going to get water? Forcing the sufficient to get a general demand to the Hither Woods understanding of our situation aquifer will spread the problem here with the addition of a few BLOCK ISLAND SOUND there, and there is no water to facts: the East. Any reliance upon a _50:^- connection to the water main at 1.) The data shown is 1/. Napeague is both costly and from 1983 and there has been I physically dangerous. significant development on Montauk since that time: 2.) The SCWA well Legal Battle Looms system operates almost exclusively in the central Clearly, the painful answer aquifer region. is that we have to act to immediately bring the demand 3.) The East Lake Drive, -'-- - Wompenanit and Hither Hills for water back into balance with subdivisions are served by our renewable supply. Because the political environment is individual wells; Central & Easter Aquifers. Ignore solid line. Dashed line shows strongly pro-development our 4.) There are three distinct actual feet below sea-level (1981-3 data). Source: USGS report no. 85-4013 by Keith R. Prince. only recourse is to our well water regions in Montauk. The _—i respected courts of equity. MAXIMUM THICKNESS of the dangerous. There is a "lag effect" freshwater (between salt water and the We must bring an immediate between the time of the increase in top of water table) in each was action against the Town of East "built demand" (i.e.. kitchens, approximately 100' in Hither Woods, Hampton and the Suffolk Counti' bathrooms, pools, etc.) and the 105' in central Montauk, and 100' in a Water Authoritl', Inc., seeking a drawdown on our aquifer. It has small section of Montauk Point by Big temporary restraining order and become clear that the huge increase in Reed Pond: permanent injunction against the issuance of anp 5.) The supply wells new certificates envisioned in the Hither Woods of occupancy or further would attempt to prevent connections to the SCWA salt-water "upconing" by system. P . pumping above the marine clay Studies will have to be unit. This would cause lateral m / performed under our supervision / / and a monitoring system (sideways) movement of the 4 e -. ;;-:-•---/ maintained. If our water supply saltwater interface in along the ] r is already overburdened by Old Montauk Highway. / F It is not difficult to / ---•- -- -- - - development, we will need understand our water situation. compensation and proper legal The 1986 Prince report. r] relief to correct the problem. however, was slanted to support Utilizing the MFOP is the proposed new development in :• only viable way to succeed in the Hither Woods and Camp Out of scale example of salt water upconing. If clay barrier is obtaining this protection. We Hero areas. The analysis, below well then intrusion will occur laterally (sideways). need some good legal support to prepared in association with the Source: USGS report no. 85-4013 by Keith R. Prince. _J assist in this effort. Because time SCWA and the Suffolk County is of the essence, any support Department of Health Services, built demand in Central Montauk, offered will be warmly considered. requires that we accept the premise coupled with the SCWA's selling off of that new development should be land for development, has brought us to allowed to burden our shallow and the current crisis point. fragile aquifer to its tortured Understanding the lag effect of Support the MFOP legal fund. overburdenment, we are in serious

adoption of this law. It is viewed as Benson) and Austin Corbin and CA- the proper incremental step toward a Charles Pratt dated 4/29/1895 found at L permanent ban should one be enacted. liber 426 p. 523. (Austin Corbin was

JZHAC(H41I.N A consultant will complete the the President and owner of the LIRR.) CW.4!iiILTI 0 traffic study over the first twelve This deed granted all successors to months of the moratorium. During the Arthur W. Benson the right to sue the final three months (Oct. '96 to Jan. parties attempting to obstruct the '97) the Town will decide what to do existing roads and was to attach to and 0 as a result. The membership of the run with the land. A review of the MFOP will have an unprecedented maps and land use of the period makes ability to stay informed about the clear that Tuthill road was among the study and have strong input into this principle concerns of this wording. process. Another deed grants the use of Tuthill road to successors to E.B. Duryea's Dock Tuthill. This deed (liber 1472 p28, see

,.? easement map) was issued by the Montauk development company to The Duryea plan has other E.B.Tuthill when it purchased most of problems, however, arising from the the Tuthill property shown in the 1916 desire to use their property at Fort Atlas map. Because the property Pond Bay as a ferry dock site. The owners on the Tuthill road extension most prominent problem is the rights take title through E. B. Tuthill. they of others to the road which Mr. The original Montauk Village, 1916. are among the intended beneficiaries Duryea has closed off and claims to of these rights. Furthermore, since own. Negotiations between the Duryea Mr. Duryea has blocked Tuthill road family and the Metropolitan Transit There is clear language in Mr. and Fleming road to the north is Authority (MTA) and Cross Sound Duryea's chain of title that grants the private, they no longer have legal Ferry Services, Inc.. regarding a rights of easement across this road to access to a public road. high-speed ferry service between New others. The broadest easement granted London. Conn.. and Montauk's Fort to this road was as a part of the Pond Bay have provoked incredible historic 1,500 acre "North Neck The MFOP Legal Fund public opposition. The ad hoc "Stop Purchase" between the estate of Arthur The MFOP will litigate on the Ferry!" group has gathered over W. Benson (F.S., Mary, and Jane Ann 1,650 signers of its petition calling for Montauk property owners' behalf in a complete moratorium on all ferries. matters of common interest The most • 'p... '7. urgent of these matters concern our The ferry issue came to a head at water supply recovering: the a public hearing of the Town Board on reservation properties into trust and October 20th. A proposed resolution keeping our deeded easements open was presented establishing a 15 month and available for our use. moratorium on proposals for new ferry services pending a comprehensive To keep costs down, the MFOP will traffic study. Lawyers for the ferry hire a full-time lawyer to our staff. S/he will report to the Executive of the company presented legal comments MFOP and work exclusively for us opposing the resolution. The Town .... :.' ," ,,.' ._..1,4.-_• \ With our own full-tune lawyer Board, however, approved the . resolution as local law no. 14. we will no longer have to worry about excessive legal fees. And. with the Discussions with Town board visibility of our actions to our member Catherine Lester, the sponsor I. \ • membership and the public, we can of the resolution, made clear that the threat of a dramatic increase in our expect expeditious treatment from the Courts. already bad traffic problem was Beach Dev. Corp to E.B. Support the MFOP Legal Fund! sufficient cause to warrant the 6/30/28 at liber 1472 p. 28

The Fort Pond Bay Reservations

A complicating . Town factor in addressing o \ the ferry issue is ' 'S X b RESERVA'TON Involvement that two of our - - Because the "Reservation" - properties connect - .-' - ' ,'7 filed maps of Hither Hills and Fort Pond Bay with T----- -_--______------_ Center-east Reservation. the railroad. U0 cc Wompenanit These ,, _ii served as the A poor scan of a bad copy of filed map #496 (Hither Hills). The two reservations reservations original tax maps. are shown inset and below. Note the railroad easement at the westerly reservation (shown mset) were the "re-itj-n' established by the designation had Bensons in 1904 utilizing the jspecial legal meaning in that same filed map of Hither Hills context. When the Town of East (No. 496) which created the Hampton adopted zoning in 1957, Hither Plain and Bathing the zoning maps (which are drawn Reservations. as overlays to the tax maps)

' showed these "reservations" on One of the Fort Pond Bay Af! "reservation" properties is 100 them. This designation on the feet wide and is toward the center zoning maps was removed by the of Fort Pond Bay along the former Town Board under pressure from property line of the Montauk Mr. Biase in 1984. Company. It appears that the When the zoning maps were Tri'ixrn nf Pt 14nmntrn rpt'pntiv being completely redrawn in acquired title to this properly, September. 1994. it was formally although this is not confirmed. made known to the Town Board The second "reservation" is Westerly "reservation." From deed at liber 792 page 160 j that the "reservations" had been improperly removed and should of great interest because of the transshipment dock. The title to this I way it connects Fort Pond Bay to the be returned. On September 28th. 1994. I "reservation" appears to be held by LIRR. When Frank Sherman Benson I a resolution prepared by the MFOP was Chemcorp of Greenwich. CT. I filed with the Town Clerk signed by established the LIRR easement in 189( ) I I with filed map no. 494 110 Montauk residents (at right), he widened the Section of LIRR railroad easement across Benson land. Plan predates requesting that the Town LIRR easement by 25' automobile and the breaching of Lake Montauk for current Montauk Harbor. of East Hampton respect Arrow shows location of west reservation at bottom of widened LIRR easement. 111ve a iinhpld richt our -- a -'--.' on each side along the 4 western coast of Fort and restore the Pond Bay. It can only be "reservation" designation assumed that this was to to the zoning maps. No accommodate extra /lk. action has been taken or parallel tracks. statement made on this Fj issue by the Town board. The westerly "reservation" is 200 feet ) The presence of wide and placed at the these properties - which bottom of this widened we intend to return into LIRR easement at the trust and put under democratic stewardship - ¼,HJI aiiu I LuJI UOV, point of connection . .The extra wide ".. . - raises the question of the between the railroad and easement along the west potential economic the bay. This site was coast of Fort Pond Bay i" benefits to Montauk of a probably for cargo or adds an extra 25' to use which we determine resource loading and a each side. and control.

The Benson Reservations Lawsuit

Justice Underwood's February Defendant with this action unless 14.) The case has not been 18th. 1994 ruling in the case of The commenced by January 24th, 1992." calendared for argument as of October Breakers Motel et. al. vs. Sunbeach 7.) Mr. Biase declined to 11, 1995. Montauk II and Nicola Biase is commence a "bar-claim" action and currently on appeal with the 2nd appealed the order. His appeal was The MFOP Motion as department of the Appellate Division of denied (Docket No 92-01868. New the New York State Supreme - Amicus Curiae Court in Brooklyn. The Breakers case in In April of 1995. a motion summary New York State Courts of equity for leave to submit a brief as 1.) the prior owner of the may not interfere with your rights Amicus Curiae was submitted to two "reservation" properties as a private property owner when the Appellate Division pro se by (Curtis Wright. corp.) had Mr. Ficalora as acting President repeatedly sought legal opinion they know you are not a party to of the MFOP. Although the on the covenants and found the the action before them. motion was not granted, its properties burdened by the rights contents remain very important of Montauk's property owners. - to Montauk's landowners. As a result. Curtiss Wright included the York Law Journal, Oct. 6 1992, p. 26.). The motion papers included a property (over 40 acres of undeveloped 8.) After the Appellate Division notice of motion, an affidavit by Mr. ocean beach!) as a "no cost throw-in" in upheld his order. Justice Underwood Ficalora (w/attachments), and a its 1982 sale to Mr. Biase: heard a motion for summary judgment proposed very short brief with two 2.) Mr. Biase also researched the by the plaintiffs and issued his pages of argument. legal issues pertaining to the covenants judgment and order on February 18th, The notice of motion centered on and was advised by attorneys that it 1994, finding the properties burdened the following assertion: would be necessary to bring a "bar by the rights of "common use" shared "This motion addresses the issue claim" action against Montauk by the plaintiffs. which was repeatedly raised in the property owners to be able to use the 9.) Mr. Biase moved for court below and in prior appeals to "reservation" properties for his private re-argument. but Justice Underwood this court that the parties before the purposes; denied this motion and stood by his court do not represent, or intend to 4.) In September. 1984, Mr. ruling; represent, the interests of the vast Biase disregarded the above legal 10.) Mr. Biase appealed to the majority of the parties in interest in opinion and proceeded to put up a fence Appellate Division of the New York this matter either now or into the and patrol the property with guard dogs State Supreme court. An amazingly future." forcing the adjacent property owners voluminous court record compiled. Mr. into court: Mr. Ficalora's affidavit introduced Biase 's final appellant's brief was filed himself as the founder and acting 5.) In 1985, Mr. Biase filed a April 13th, 1995. president of the MFOP, as well as being motion to dismiss claiming that 11.) A motion to file a brief as a former officer of the Breakers Motel plaintiffs must bring a "bar claim" Amicus Curiae was filed by Robert A. responsible for moving the case through action and join other parties in interest. Ficalora. pro Se, as acting President of the courts. This affidavit included Justice Underwood denied this motion the Montauk Friends of Olmsted Parks. many attachments including maps, by his order dated April 26th. 1988, 12.) A cross-motion was filed by deeds, and the MFOP certificate of which found that plaintiffs were not Mr. Biase for damages and sanctions incorporation. claiming rights adverse to the against Mr. Ficalora. The lawyer for non-joined indispensable parties: The proposed brief was very short Breakers Motel files papers against the and asserted two arguments: 6.) On November 1st, 1991, MFOP motion. Point 1. Failure to join Justice Underwood ordered that "no 13.) A four judge Appellate such bar-claim action commenced by indispensable parties makes relief Division bench concurs with order impossible for the defendant any defendant may be joined for trial or denying both motions. consolidated upon motion of any appellant.

This point made a one paragraph so under legal obligation of trust to into trust it will need the legitimacy of review of CPLR 1001. "Necessary uphold the rights which they had a strong membership base. Joinder of Parties" showing that Mr. covenanted to their grantees in In addition to joining the MFOP, if Biase could not be excused from Montauk" you feel strongly about your legal right joining the other "indispensable parties" CPLR 2701, entitled "When court to the "reservations" consider writing a before asking the court for relief. may order disposition of property", letter of concern to: The second paragraph referenced states: Appellate Division, Mr. Biase's understanding of this law "The court, upon motion or on its N.Y. Supreme Court and his attempts to circumvent it and own initiative, with such notice as Second Judicial Dept. concluded that: it deems proper, may order State of New York "Given the defendant-appellant's personal property capable of 45 Monroe Place history of clear knowledge of and delivery which is the subject of the Brooklyn, NY 11201 concern for this law, he can expect action, paid into court, or delivered Reference the case of the Breakers no relieffrom the court and his to such person as it may direct, Motel, et. al., vs. Sunbeach Montauk H. appeal must be dismissed." with such security as the court Inc., et ano, case no. 94-02994. Copy The bottom line is that Mr. shall direct, and subject to its the MFOP on your correspondence at Biase is asking the courts to interfere further direction P.O. Box 2612 for our archives. with the property rights of unjomed 1. a party has such property in his When the Appellate decision "indispensable" parties in violation possession, custody or control as affirms Justice Underwood's ruling, the of the law (CPLR 1001). Even trustee for an other party or where MFOP will bring an action under CPLR without accepting the MFOP brief as it belongs or is due another party" 2701 to consolidale these properties Amicus Curiae, the court will discover into trust under MFOP title. The brief noted the "on its own this by a review of prior appeals. (Note: MBPOA members should initiative" language and offered the not be concerned about this as your Point II. History of MFOP as Trustee for the properties. defendant-appellant's contempt for beach, the Ocean View Reservation. the rights of the parties in interest to will be better protected and managed by the reservations demands that the Conclusion you under the MFOP. You will get court determine disposition of significant opportunities and benefits property under CPLR 2701. It must be stressed that the from the MFOP which the MBPOA Appellate division bench did not deny cannot provide. Mr. Ficalora has This point asserted that the these arguments: what was denied was presented to your board and was plaintiffs could not receive just and Mr. Ficalora's pro se motion to submit warmly received by them.) equitable relief unless the properties are them as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the What we are dealing with is. quite taken from Mr. Biase. This point MFOP as a part of the current suit. literally, the law of the land, and it is on covered Mr. Biase's actions, the Although the bench gave no our side. We have the ability to assert historical treatment of the properties, explanation for its denial, the brief may our rights in our courts of equity and we and the law regarding Trust properties. have caused a burden upon the current will prevail. With the plans created by The following covenant language plaintiffs in obtaining the relief which the Olmsted firm and established by the was emphasized: they are seeking by broadening the Benson family, we have the basis for "...it being understood and agreed, issues before the court. protecting our most spectacular beaches however, that these covenants are and the general natural beauty of not enforceable personally for Consolidation Action Montauk. damages against the said parties, their heirs or assigns unless they Planned Frje may be the owner or owners of the lf'\FTh '$" said premises. or some part thereof, One of the central purposes of the It 1141 - at the time of the violation of said MFOP is: iI{ LJ !4 covenants, or any of them." 3(e) to seek to consolidate title to Pt. The brief argued that: the "reservation" lands under its name in order to facilitate "this wording clearly establishes conservation and stewardship. 1Sted that although the Benson heirs Montauk's Trustee Coiporatlon continued to hold title to the For the MFOP to be successful in Eat. 1994 "Reservation" properties, they did recovering the "reservation" properties

Congress shall make no law was affirmed in Massachusetts (Mass. Many of the states were satisfied respecting an establishment of Gazette (Springfield) June 22, 1784). to retain the Articles of Confederation. religion, or prohibiting the free Massachusetts counties began to hold Some of the most prominent Americans exercise thereof; or abridging the regular conventions to consider the such as Patrick Henry. Samuel Adams. freedom of speech, or of the press; or pressing issues of taxation, and John Hancock were anti-federalist. of the right of the people to peaceably indebtedness, and good government. When conventions were hurriedly held assemble, and to petition the In 1786-87 the debtors' unrest within the states to consider ratification. government for a redress of exploded into armed insurrection with Rhode Island's towns voted against a grievances. "Shay's rebellion" in Western convention. Of the twelve conventions - 1St Amendment to the Massachusetts. This rebellion gained held only seven voted to ratify, while Constitution of the United States of significant support among the people four states - New York. Massachusetts. America. and their conventions. The Articles of New Hampshire and North Carolina - Confederation, however, provided the voted it down and the state of Virginia had equal votes for and against. We are currently entering the third centennial of government under the It was only after the state of Constitution of the United States of The MFOP revitalizes the Massachusetts later attached America. Because the U.S. amendments constituting a bill of rights Constitution established our democratic ideal of our and ratified that the anti-federalist government reserving to the people the forefathers by adopting movement lost its momentum and was democratic liberties which we cherish an assembly process. gradually overcome. Five months later and enjoy, it is important that we at the State of New York voted to ratify in times revisit the circumstances a 30-27 vote marked by abstentions and surrounding its framing. the anti-federalists who swung their Congress of the confederation no power votes still made strong statements of The United States was established to intervene in these matters internal to dissent. (The fear of the commercial in 1776 utilizing a Declaration of the states. consequences of seceding from the Independence from the tyranny of It was in this context that the union had become an issue.) unaccountable and distant monarchy. Constitutional convention was held in What was at issue in adopting the One of the principle complaints within 1787. The level of popular distrust in this declaration was that King George new constitution was the ideal of pure members of the governing elite was so democracy. This ideal was envisioned was interfering with the colonial great that the constitutional convention assemblies. In 1777 the representatives by the people as a confederation of had to be held in strict secrecy for fear governments close to the people in of the states, in congress assembled, that mobs crying "conspiracy!" and agreed upon the Articles of which the people were sovereign and "treason!" could result in lynchings. Confederation as a plan of union. The governed themselves by assembling The convention did not go smoothly, Articles were formally adopted by together. Those opposed to the new and dissent was voiced by some of its constitution felt that with every step Congress of the Confederation of the participants: four members withdrew states in 1781. away from this ideal the government and three refused to sign. becomes more likely to oppress: to The assemblies of the newly As the first draft of the create a strong national government, independent states maintained unity of Constitution was being finished, there with power transferred from the people resolve within the Confederation was an anxious rush to have it approved to the state, was to create tyranny (See throughout what proved to be a bloody by a pro-federalist Pennsylvania House The Anti-Federalists, Jackson Turner war between a people divided over without full publicity or deliberation. Main, W.W. Norton, 1961. page 129 English rule. When the revolutionary Despite very careful pro-federalist for list of citations). war ended with the Treaty of Paris in treatment by the press, riots broke out The MFOP revitalizes the 1783. the country continued to undergo against ratification in areas with good internal unrest. Riots among debtors, democratic ideal of our forefathers by information (Carlisle Gazette, Jan. 9, most of them farmers, broke out across adopting an assembly process. We 1788). In spite of significant protest have urgent issues to deliberate and the states causing political instability. over the manner in which the These protests took on an organized resolutions to adopt. We are within our ratification process was being handled, character when, following protests in rights and we have honorable and the new constitution was hurriedly 1782-83, the right to hold conventions important purposes. Let us peaceably approved in the Philadelphia House. assemble.

MFOP Rollout This mailing initiates the process served, and monitoring the process to the Montauk Assembly. To protect the of building the MFOP as a democratic ensure that the democratic liberties of rights and interest of second trustee corporation. The Charter, the participants are protected. homeowners, there will be no voting at Constitution and Bylaws of the The sergeant-at-arms will collect the January caucuses nor will a corporation sets out the organization the voting and take direction from the Montauk Assembly be held thereafter. structure and the democratic process in coordinator in maintaining proper order Because the nature of the Benson detail (to be published and available and decorum. covenants is that they are attached to through the Gazette Web page). The delegate will carry the voting the land, only landowners have the The MFOP will divide Montauk and consensus of their Association to ability to vote. Non-land owning into thirteen "Associations", the intent the Assembly and bring resolutions residents may participate as guests. being to provide each member with a properly presented at the Montauk however, in the assembly process and comfortably sized group with which to Assembly to the caucuses for voting. will be able to participate in the assemble. Each Association will elect two formulation of resolutions. An Association coordinator, assemblypersons, one man and one To get this process started we need sergeant-at-arms, delegate, and two woman, who will facilitate the caucuses volunteers to take on the positions assemblypersons will be elected and join the general assembly of the within the corporation, especially the annually by the membership according Montauk Assembly. role of Association coordinator. It is to the rules contained in the Bylaws and Caucuses will be held by the hoped that friendly, good-hearted. will perform specific roles and duties. Associations four times per year in community-oriented people will The Association coordinator will April, July, October and January. respond to this call. If you think that act as host in welcoming new members. Following the April, July and October you fit the bill and want to give it a try, preparing the site of the caucuses, caucuses, each Association will send please send a letter and a short ensuring that proper refreshments are their delegate and assemblypersons to biography to the MFOP at P.O. Box 2612, Montauk, NY 11954.

Membership Form In becoming a member of the Name .fontauk Friends of Olmsted Parks, Address Inc-1 will enjoy the privilege to City State ZIP participate in the caucus process of Tel. the organization. I understand that L__) according to the Bylaws of the Please use the name on your property tax bill (If you received this in corporation this privilege nut' he the mail, please include mailing label.) revoked if it is determined that I have Membership ty= interfered with the rights of my peers to a peaceable, calm and deliberative Corporate ($ 200) $ process or engaged in activities Regular ($ 50) $ alienating them the refrain. Senior Citizen ($ 30) $ Non-landowner ($ 50) Condo/Coop ($ 50) Legal Fund $ Signature Angelic beneficence Total enclosed $ Printed name

NYS not-for-profit status approved: Federal 501(c)3 application filed. Please, checks or money orders only.

A powerful new force for you will read about the legal victory bypass (which would allow the positive change has arrived in upholding Montauk property owners' restoration of the Second House beach Montauk. This force will provide rights to the "reservation" properties "reservation" area and remove the proactive protection of traffic from the downtown Montauk property owners' KEY area). You will also learn of _e ICC and residents' common HITHER HILLS the MFOP plans for regular interest in establishing caucuses and assemblies to secure, clean water supplies give everyone good and opposing the threat of information, a voice and a unwise development. This = vote. - - force will bring under its The preliminaries for stewardship the prop(rties the above have been taken reserved forever for our Is(, care of The MFOP has common use. This force Sound / been incorporated as a will bring regular / not-for-profit corporation democratic practice to our under New York State law community to develop unity and formally introduced to of resolve in the planning ATLANTIC OCEAN "t thown board of the Town and implementing of our — of East Hampton. A visions for a better Montauk. Key Map to the Map of Hither Hills, Property of Frank Sherman Benson Charter. Constitution and and Mary Benson, made by Olmsted Brothers, dated December, 1904. This force is the Montauk Blaws has been adopted. Friends of Olmsted Parks. Inc The MFOP application for Federal (MFOP). and the plans to recover them into recognition of exemption under trust. You will fmd a summary of our It is clear that the Montauk section 501(c)3 of the IRS code was water crisis and the MFOP plans to community must unify and assert its filed October 24th. 1995. protect our fragile aquifer. You have role as the proprietors and stewards of The MFOP is your trustee before you a review of the moratorium this land if we are to protect it. To corporation. By becoming a member on ferries and the deeded facts "steward" a peninsula such as ours is you will give it the strength it needs to concerning Mr. Duryea's property. to be responsive to the entire be successful in creating a better, more An exciting proposal for a Great Park communities' needs while developing secure Montauk. When all is said and at Wompenanit in the Olmsted that special sense of belonging to - and done, bringing a positive future to tradition is presented in the context of being responsible for - this place. Montauk is now really up to you. opposing a golf course at Camp Hero Send in your membership and become This is the purpose of the MFOP. and the blocking of the Fort Pond In this issue of the Montauk Gazette an active member of the MFOP today.

BULK RATE U.S. POSTAGE Montauk Friends of Olmsted Parks, Inc. PAID P.O. Box 2612, Montauk, NY 11954 PERMIT NO. 1112 MERRIFIELD, VA ( Address Correction Requested *0

-, .. NW ILI