HAl'!'D DELiVERED 7321 Barberry LaneManlius, NY 13104-1301July 23, 2011

Spectra Environmental Group, Inc.Attention: Robert C. Lafleur, President307 South Townsend Street Suite 202Syracuse, NY 13202

RE: Snooks Pond Development, L.L.C. (hereinafter "the Congels"); NewYork State Department of Environmental Conservation (hereinafter'"DEC'') Application ID: 7-313 8-00214/0000 1; Congel residentialdevelopment project (Snooks Hollow), Route 92, Town of Manlius,County of Onondaga, New York

Dear Mr. Lafleur:

I am addressing this letter to your attention in your capacity as a representative ofyour client Snooks Pond Development, L.L.C. ( a New York limited liability companywhich I believe to be owned and controlled by Robert and Suzanne Congel) and on mybehalf and that of my wife Silvia de la Garza Bassett, owners since 1979 of residential realproperty known as 7321 Barberry Lane, Manlius, NY 13104-1301 the north boundary ofwhich is the south shoreline of Snooks Pond.

Although it is set forth in much greater detail in the hereinafter referenced attachedmaterial the following is a brief synopsis of the history of Snooks Pond, the involvement ofyour client with Snooks Pond and the frustrating predicament in which your client hasplaced my wife and I and all other property owners with frontage on Snooks Pond:

=Snooks Pond was created more than 150 years ago by the construction of a dam on asmall creek which flowed from White Lake to Limestone Creek. The impounded waterfrom the dam flooded a field and brought Snooks Pond into existence with the deeperwater depth at the dam at the east end and shallower water connecting to wetlands at thewest end. The Snook family owned the property at the east end and maintained the damwith various uses made of their property including for many years a swim club andrestaurant. Although the Snooks through their control of the dam spillway lowered thewater level for a short time each spring in order to accomplish certain cleaning andmaintenance, they then raised the water level to maintain it a.t the highest water level whichwas safely possible for the mutual benefit of all properties on the Pond.

=Deeades ago residential subdivisions were established on both the north and south sidesof.Saoeks Pond and 16 homes were built on Wakefield Drive and Barberry Lane by people'-'/00 d~sired waterfront property and fell in love with the heavily forested environment andSn{y.)ks, Pond itself. These people bought their properties on the good faith assumption that

absent an "act of God" which could not be foreseen they would continue to derive theaesthetic and recreational benefits of Snooks Pond water frontage, a not unreasonableexpectation.

=In 2007 your client purchased the bulk of the Snook family property including the dam.That November your client substantially drained Snooks Pond without actual notice or.• • "- .L" -c..... '9 , •• r-'l l'jusnncation cenvered to my W'...Ieana me or to me owners of the 15 other Snooks Pond-front properties. Tills action was ostensibly based upon danger of possible imminent damcollapse despite the fact that your client had filed no application with the DEC and/orArmy Corp of Engineers for dam replacement or repair and that based upon all priorexperience such collapse was highly unlikely with no significant danger to lives orproperty. The manner in which this action was taken was outrageous and one can onlyimagine the reaction of the Congels had a similar thing occurred on Skaneateles Lakewhere they own a waterfront estate.

--In any case your client applied for federal, State (DEe) and Town of Manlius permits inSpring 2008 for permission to replace the existing deteriorated dam with two new dams, todredge the east end of Snooks Pond to deepen it and for other related developmentalpurposes in anticipation of constructing a "green" technology home with numerousenvironmentally cutting edge features including installation of a so-called «Restorer" forsilt control across Snooks Pond near the west boundary of your client's property. Allrequired permits were issued for your client's project in summer 2008 and constructionincluding dam replacement with restoration of "normal" water level was expected to beaccomplished by the end of 2008. Instead only the dredging was accomplished and ourhopes and expectations for Snooks Pond to return to normal Were dashed as the DECwould apparently not allow the water level to be returned to normal without damreplacement or approved repair.

--After a lengthy period of ignored inquiries by Snooks Pond-front property ownersdirected to employees and representatives of your client as to your client's intentions yourclient finally applied to the DEe for a modification of its permits to allow for dam "repair"instead of vreplacemenf", A permit for dam repair was issued to your client by the DECon January 26, 2010 containing various conditions including a requirement that your client"produce, in cooperation with adjacent lando-wners, an Invasive Plant Control Plan by May31, 2010". As of this date now a year and a half later your client has neither consultedwith such adjacent landowners about such a Plan nor submitted such a Plan to the DEC.Although your client has recently commenced construction of the above-referenced «green"technology home it still has not commenced repair of the dam and we have recently learnedfrom other sources that your client has no intention of accomplishing the dam repair thisyear.

-The Snooks Pond water level remains approximately 1.5 feet below the level maintainedby the Snook family for decades either upon DEe order or by the your firm'srecommendation to your client. This has lead to ongoing low water level consequences to

.... all Snooks Pond-front property owners now an almost unbelievable three and one halfyears after your client first drained Snooks Pond, Now we have recently learned from youre-mail of July 12, 2011 to Sue Carroll of Wakefield Drive that your client apparently hasno intention of restoring what we believe to be the "normal" Pond level even after damrepair (if it ever accomplished) . You advised Sue that yourr ultimate intent is to maintainthe Snooks Pond water level at the 527 feet amsl "nominal level". This would be

• L I i: +' +h +h cc 1" - . t...: -+ • 11 .• .•b •approxnnatery one 1.00" tower man me 'norma # level msroncauy maintained y me Snookfamily and would have hugely adverse consequences for all Snooks Pond-front propertyowners.

=On January 18, 2011 the DEe granted your client's request for a two year extension ofthe dam repair permit to December 31, 2012 with no assurance that your client would notseek a further extension at that time.

=-The following are the direct consequences for my wife and me from your client'sforegoing indefensible actions/inactions:

1) complete deprivation of access to Snooks Pond water as all that exists around our dockis muck. I had personally constructed this dock in two stages years ago with great sweatequity effort. We have been prevented for three and one half years from being able tolaunch a canoe into Snooks Pond as we had done for decades;

2) reduction in the fair market value of our property resulting from loss of our waterfront asevidenced by a $20,000.00 tax assessment reduction in a 2009 small claims tax assessmentreview process where the reduction made by the hearing officer was directly attributed toloss of waterfront;

3) loss of aesthetic pleasure in now having a barren landscape to observe from our propertyat the west end of Snooks Pond rather than the former water scene; and

4) the development of new invasive undesirable vegetation and greatly increased siltbuildup in the west end of Snooks Pond arising from your client's prolonged lowering ofPond water level. These problems will not just cure themselves even if "normal" Pondwater level is restored, but may in fact necessitate dredging.

The following relevant documents are attached hereto or enclosed herewith:

1) Public Notice published March 12,2008 by U,S. Army Corps of Engineers regardingyour client's Application for Permit under Authority of Section 404 of the Clean WaterAct.

2) EcoLogic Memorandum dated 6/4/07 regarding Possible Impacts of Dredging SnooksPond prepared for your client.

.....~.~~

3) Dam Breach Analysis prepared by your company (Spectra) for your client.

4) Portion of Report prepared by your company (Spectra) for your client in support of itspenrrritapplicanons.

5) Dredging Memorandum entitled Congel Residence at Snooks Hollow dated April 14,2008 prepared by EDR in support of your client's permit application.

6) EDR letter dated May 12~2008 to Joanne March, DEe Deputy Regional PermitAdministrator, in support of permit application.

7) Proposal for feasibility study for Snooks Hollow prepared for your client by John ToddEcological Design, Inc. related to "Restorer" technology.

8) DEC Notice of Complete Application dated 06/06/2008.

9) DEe permit issued to your client on 07/08/2008 authorizing dredging, dam replacement,etc.

10) My letter to the DEe dated September 18, 2009 containing my "public comments" inresponse to your client's application to modify its original permit to allow for dam '<repair"instead of replacement.

11) My exchange of e-mail on December 15, 2009 with Steve Billmyer, AssistantManaging Editor of The Post Standard. I never heard from Elizabeth Doran, the P-S eastarea reporter.

12) DEC permit modification issued on January 26,2010 allowing dam "repair" under theterms and conditions stated therein including provision for Invasive Plant Control Plan.

13) Letter dated June 10,2010 from Sue Congel responding to a prior letter from SueCarroll, a Wakefield Drive property owner, saying next to nothing regarding the SnooksPond and dam repair status and undoubtedly 'written or vetted by the Congels' lawyers.This is to my knowledge the only correspondence which Snooks Pond-front propertyowners have ever received from the Congels.

14) Sue and Ron Carrolls' responsive letter dated July 20~2010 to Sue Congel to whichthere has never been a response.

15) Dick Lightcap's letter dated July 19,2010 to Joanne March of the DEC expressing hisopinions about the Snooks Pond and dam repair situation.

16) Joanne March's responsive letter dated September 20,2010 to Mr. Lightcap.

17) Your letter dated August 5,2010 to Joanne March of the DEC requesting a two year

...-,-...;~.

. .. . .... .

. extension of the dam repair permit upon the utterly preposterous basis of "a downturn inthe economy" . According to the DEe the Invasive Plant Control Plan which you mentionhas never been submitted. You are apparently holding yourself out as experts on theeconomy and Conge! finances, areas of expertise normally outside that of dam engineers.

18) DEe letter to you dated January 18~2011 granting your client the requested two year• L'"..<.L A • • ., n bextension 01. me oam repair permit unni Decem ex 31,2012.

Graphic pictures of the consequences of your client's actions can be found at a newweb site created by my son David at http://snookspond.wordpress.com/. They show theutter devastation wrought by your client especially at the west end of Snooks Pond.

In light of all the foregoing my patience as well as that of my wife has worn thin andas a just retired experienced real estate attorney with time on my hands (and with a sonwho is a lawyer to assist me) I am prepared to take the following action if your client doesnot agree in writing on an acceptable timetable and terms to be negotiated of the following:the repair of the Snooks Pond dam by the end of20 11 with restoration of the historically"normal" water level, the submission to and approval by the DEC of the Invasive PlantControl Plan and implementation of same prior to or in conjunction with such repair, thedevelopment and implementation of an acceptable plan for correction of the silt abnormalsilt accumulation and other damage to the west end of Snooks Pond and monetarycompensation to us for the damage which your client has caused us:

Commencement of an action against your client seeking:

1) A determination that your client as the owner of a private dam has a legal duty to theowners of property fronting on Snooks Pond to maintain that dam in such a way that thehistorically "normal" water level is maintained (unless weather factors such as droughtmake this impossible);

2) A determination that the owners of all properties fronting on Snooks Pond have legallittoral (riparian) rights over the surface of Snooks Pond arising from such water frontageregardless of the fee title ownership of the bed of Snooks Pond;

3) A deternrination that the construction of the "Restorer" system across the west end ofyour client's property would constitute an illegal interference with such littoral rightswhich include the right to traverse the surface of Snooks Pond by boat subject only to yourclient's right to «dock ouf' into the Pond in some reasonable way and thus an orderenjoining the construction of and/or mandating the removal of such a Restorer system;

4) An order compelling your client to repair the damage which it has done to the w~st endof Snooks Pond including dredging of same if necessary and removal of the "InvasivePlants"; and

5) Monetary damages for loss of use of Snooks Pond, diminished property value and all

other quantifiable damages.

Our success or failure in such an action would require us to prevail in some extremelyesoteric areas of water law without a lot of precedent. However, Iam optimistic in thatregard especj~lly in light of the recent New York Supreme Court Appellate Division ThirdDepartment decision in "Alaimo et al. vs. Town of Fort Ann et at)', a copy of which is alsoattached hereto or enclosed herewith. If we survived the inevitable legal challenges to suchan action on the law which would undoubtedly be interposed on behalf of your client Iwould not want to be your client's attorneys if this matter was ever heard by a jury as theequities heavily favor the Snooks Pond-front property owners.

It is my belief that your client's actions and inactions in this matter are primarilydriven by a desire to eliminate or to the extent possible reduce possible interference byother Snooks Pond-front property owners with your client's "privacy" after dredging andimprovement of the east end of the Pond and construction of its new home. Thuselimination of or reduction of access to Snooks Pond waterfront by such property ownersand construction of the «Restorer' system barrier would facilitate achievement of thatobjective. This is not going to go unchallenged.

In any case, I would appreciate delivery to my attention of a written response to thisletter from either you, your client or its attorneys expeditiously so that hopefully this mattercan be resolved in some mutually agreeable manner. Additionally, in light of theforegoing your client may want to reconsider its recent unwillingness to attend a meetingwith Snooks Pond-front property owners to discuss this matter as your client has ignoredgood faith efforts by Town of Manlius officials to facilitate such a meeting and haspreviously rebuffed over a three and one half year period all efforts to establish a dialogueor to learn your client's intentions. Thanks.

Sincerely YQ1lfS.

1-~~J. Thomas Bassett

encs./attachs.Cc: Snooks Pond Development, L.L.c. (by regular mail)snookspond@googlegroups.com (bye-mail without attachments)New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (Attention: Elizabeth Tracy)(by regular mail)Town of Manlius Code Enforcement Officer David W. Tessier (by hand delivery)Town of Manlius Supervisor Edward Theobald (by hand delivery)Town of Manlius Deputy Supervisor John Loeffler (by hand delivery)County Legislator Kevin Holmquist (by regular mail)County Executive Joanne Mahoney (by regular mail)N.Y.S. Assemblyman Donald Miller (by regular mail)N.Y.S. Senator David Valesky (by regular mail)Tile local print, radio and television media outlets on the attached distribution list