By Leslie Gonzalez
Lynbrook residents sue despite stream rehab efforts
A dozen Lynbrook homeowners have asked that the Village be ordered to respond to their recent lawsuit charging that their land and lives have suffered from a village rehabilitation project.
In their suit in Nassau County State Supreme Court, the Yorkshire Brook families cited multiple complaints regarding dredging work performed, and charged the Village with trespassing, negligence, and creating a public nuisance. The lawsuit, filed in June, demands a total of $25 million.
"They've taken away a portion of my land," said Scranton Avenue homeowner Keith Meehan. Because Yorkshire Brook intersects the west side of his property, Mr. Meehan said the dredging work widened the creek so much that he can no longer access the edges of his own land.
Lynbrook officials insist the work is necessary to maintain the creek as an essential storm drainage source that carries excess waters to the Great South Bay. Because the accumulation of water-deposited sand, silt and garbage began to obstruct the creek's flow, Village officials say they received numerous complaints after nearly every heavy rainfall, when it overflowed.
The Village of Lynbrook owns a 10-foot wide easement in the brook, which originates by Merrick Road and Taft Avenue, and flows underneath Sunrise Highway and the Long Island Rail Road tracks, where it resurfaces at Scranton Avenue between Reyam Road and Freer Street. Village officials say most yard and basement flooding complaints came from the creek's surrounding residential area, also known as the Yorkshire section of homes, where the creek borders roughly 26 properties.
In response to the complaints, Village officials summoned Cameron Engineering to assess the brook about two years ago. Based on the engineering firm's evaluations, a project was approved to dredge, widen and deepen the creek in an attempt to restore its original flow. Mr. Meehan explained he and his neighbors were informed of the project's plans by mail in February 1999 because accessing the creek would require workers to enter homeowners' properties. The detailed letter outlined the proposed work, and included an invitation for homeowners to discuss the issue at Village Hall. However, those who attended the public hearing disagreed as to how they wanted the work completed on their individual properties, he said.
"Of all the properties involved, only about two or three homeowners were satisfied with leaving the brook exposed," said Kevin Walsh, Mr. Meehan's attorney. "Some wanted the area fenced, and 17 families want it covered," he estimated. Residents who want the brook covered argue that insufficient follow-up care to an exposed brook will create stagnant water conditions that may attract mosquitoes and the threat of the West Nile virus. But an enclosed system would require installation of an aqueduct pipeline throughout the area, the village attorney has said, and each section would need to be connected at every homeowner's property.
"Such a project would cost Lynbrook and its taxpayers a prohibitively expensive sum of about a million dollars," said Village Attorney Peter Ledwith. Instead, he explained, Village officials offered to negotiate with homeowners on a case-by-case basis as to how they would like the work completed. Those willing to discuss the issue met with Village Trustee Morrey Forman, also a Yorkshire area resident affected by the flooding.
Despite these negotiations, homeowners say they have received another letter in August 1999 requesting permission to proceed with the work. Permission, Mr. Meehan said, that he and other homeowners never granted. In response, Village officials said the letter was sent out of courtesy. Groundwork began later that month, and Mr. Meehan and others who filed the lawsuit complained the contracted work was performed negligently.
"They cut and destroyed my fence, chopped down eight or nine of my trees, and dug up my bushes and shrubs." Mr. Meehan said. The rehabilitation work resulted in an orange construction fence that remains on his property, and transformed the small stream into a wide, deep trench. Ironically, Mr. Meehan said he has never had flooding problems in his yard. However, Village Attorney Peter Ledwith said Mr. Meehan's situation is unique because the creek begins on his property.
Court papers further cited trees and other items as taken without permission, and debris left behind as hazardous. Although Mr. Meehan's two children are grown, he described the brook's current condition as dangerous to neighboring families, their young children, visitors, and juvenile bicyclists that he says often ride along the creek ditch.
Department of Public Works Superintendent Phillip Healey declined to verify details regarding the rehabilitation work because of pending litigation. Although Village officials describe the project as an overall success, further work was needed to correct persistent flooding at erosion points and natural bends in the creek. The additional work required the installation of wood panels.
Questioned is whether the Village had the right to authorize access to its brook without homeowners' permission, and whether the work performed met Department of Environmental Conservation standards. If a court order is issued, Village representatives will have between 30 and 45 days to respond.
