Leeds Pond hearing to continue July 20

Continued from Page 2 have ensured that all appropriate protocols are followed,” Donno said.

John Wagner, attorney for the applicants, also submitted to the board the letter issuing a permit from the DEC, an order of consent from the DEC and a restoration plan as exhibits during the hearing. Wagner said the reason for fill is so the future homeowners’ two kids can play in the backyard.

Save Leeds Pond, the community-based organization that created the petition, uploaded the documents opponents of the application submitted to the public record before it closed in June.

Included are letters from multiple or- ganizations detailing the damage the pond could face if the application is approved and local residents opposing the application.

Murray said at the first hearing that Leeds Pond has already been harmed by neighboring residents who have elevated their backyards and removed trees and bushes. Additional opponents against the application include Frank Picininni of Spadefoot Design and Construction, Chris Gobler, chair of coastal ecology and conservation at Stony Brook University, and Bret Bennington, a geology professor at Hofstra University.

Each spoke against the application on the grounds of the apparent damage the pond and reserve have sustained and adding more discharge to the waters that contain chemicals.

“The developer has not demonstrated any benefit of the dirt plateau to neighbors, the ecosystem, Plandome Manor or the surrounding community,” the opposing letter to the application said. “A child’s play area cannot substantiate the destruction of a community resource when there are multiple alternatives including the play in the flat front yard of 1362 Plandome or a lowered regraded section without the 300 cubic yards of unnecessary toxic landfill that would be safer for the young children.”