WELCOME to The Ross Cause

BREAKING NEWS Utica OD reports on the Ross' battle - our clarification of Town officials' erroneous statements. details

INTRODUCTION

The Ross family resides on Cross Street in the Village of Yorkville, Town of Whitestown. Their property abuts the Holy Trinity Cemetery.

In 2001, the Holy Trinity Cemetery undertook a construction project which cleared several acres of their property. The project was approved by the Whitestown Planning Board.

Shortly after the start of construction, the Ross’ began to experience ponding water in their yard after some rainfall events. In the 25+ years that the Ross’ resided on Cross Street prior to this Project, these problems were never experienced. These ponding problems have continued to this day. Not coincidental, significant foundation damage has occurred at the Ross’ residence over the past several years. continued below

---

TIMELINE OF EVENTS

01/05/09	Town Board Non-Responsive details
09/28/08	Utica OD reports on the Ross' battle - our clarification of Town officials' erroneous statements. details
09/28/08	Attorney Schmitt makes accusations of "personal attacks" yet his behavior toward Concerned Citizens at Town meeting is shocking. details
09/28/08	Strikeslip: Will public attention spur those involved to "do the right thing," or don't they care? details
09/17/08	Attorney Schmitt's behavior "obnoxious...arrogant" toward Concerned Citizens at Town meeting. details
09/10/08	At Taxpayer's expense, Village Engineer moves the goalposts to protect Town Counterpart??? details
09/09/08	Will Ethics Board allow "business as usual" in Whitestown? details
09/08/08	Planning Board Frustrated with Lack of Enforcement in Town details
08/15/08	Councilman Sullivan Acknowledges Problem and Extends Olive Branch details
08/13/08	Town Attorney's Intimidation Effort Backfires details
07/16/08	Town Board Cannot Support Resolution Language details
07/03/08	Town Engineer Report Contains Inaccuracies, Lacks Objectivity details
07/03/08	Town Engineer Improperly Calculates Impervious Area details
07/03/08	Despite Pictures and Letters Proving Otherwise, Town Engineer Argues Reducer Was Installed in 2001 details
07/03/08	Why is Town Engineer Defining Village Policy? details
07/03/08	Town Engineer Blames Ross Water Issues on Neighbors details
07/03/08	Town Engineer Inaccurately Defines Emergency Spillway Weir details
07/02/08	Town Offices Unable to Provide Copy of Town Engineer Report; Claim to be "Too Busy" and "Out of Paper" details
03/17/08	Formal complaint filed with Village of Yorkville details

---

INTRODUCTION, continued

In the summer of 2002, the Ross’ began communicating their concerns to Town Officials. Despite obvious non-compliant construction at the Cemetery, Town Officials chose to take no enforcement action.

In the spring of 2008, after years of Town inaction, the Ross' filed a formal complaint with the Town.

Although located in the Town of Whitestown, stormwater discharge from the Cemetery is directed to the Village of Yorkville. Therefore, in 2001 when this project was reviewed, NYSDEC rules required the Town Planning Board to solicit feedback from the Village. In response, the Village of Yorkville issued two very specific requirements.

In our complaint, we present indisputable evidence that the Whitestown Planning Board blatantly disregarded the requirements of the Village in their approval of the Cemetery project.

In response to our complaint, the Town Board directed their "independent" Town Engineer (SHUMAKER ENGINEERING) to evaluate our complaint and prepare a response. SHUMAKER ENGINEERING did so, and concluded that the Whitestown Planning Board acted properly in 2001, and that neither the Cemetery nor Town is responsible for these problems.

---

NOW...the rest of the story....

As you read through the information presented below, consider the following:

In 2001, Mr. Karl Schrantz was the Chairman of the Planning Board that approved the Cemetery project (see letter). Mr. Schrantz is now the Engineering Manager of SHUMAKER ENGINEERING (see letter), the "independent" engineer that the Town Board retained to evaluate the Planning Board’s 2001 approval. Mr. Schrantz is also the Engineer-of-Record who prepared the response to our complaint; at no time does he disclose this conflict-of-interest (see letter).

Did the Town Board not see the inappropriateness in retaining the Ex-Chairman of the Planning Board, who approved this project, to evaluate the approval issued by his very own Board?

The Holy Trinity Cemetery is a private entity, owned and operated by the Diocese of Syracuse Office of Catholic Cemeteries. It is not a municipal cemetery owned by the Taxpayer’s of Whitestown. Why is the Town Board spending Taxpayer’s dollars, $6200 to date (see invoice), to defend a private entity?

Why has the Village of Yorkville not simply demanded that the Town enforce requirements that were put in place in 2001? Asked to keep his comments "off the record", a Village Official indicated that the Village is hesitant to "make waves because we have to work with the Town on various service agreements and contracts".

---

THE DETAILS

TODAY 01/05/09

---

TOWN BOARD NON-RESPONSIVE

On 6-10-08, we received an email from Town Supervisor CHARLES GIBBS indicating that the TOWN would provide a formal response to our complaint following the completion of the Town Engineer (SHUMAKER ENGINEERING) report.

This report was published on 6-18-08. We’ve been waiting for the Town’s official response for:

SEPTEMBER 28, 2008

---

UTICA OD REPORTS ON THE ROSS' BATTLE - OUR CLARIFICATION OF TOWN OFFICIALS' ERRONEOUS STATEMENTS

Courtney Potts wrote an article on our ongoing quest to get the Town and Village to rectify our problems with the cemetery expansion. While Ms. Potts did scratch the surface of the issue, there was substantial detail that was omitted. Further, we were not granted an opportuntiy to respond to the Town's statements, most of which were erroneous. A partial clarification is listed herein, with more to follow.

Town Councilman Daniel Sullivan states:

We’ve done everything possible for (Robert W. Ross). He’s not responding to it. He’s not showing what the response should be.

CLARIFICATION:

We find Mr. Sullivan's assertions that we are "not responding" rather laughable.

First, Mr. Sullivan, in an 8/15/08 email, requests that Robert W. Ross, P.E. no longer copy him, Mr Sullivan, on future email correspondence. 

Second, we have done nothing BUT communicate our concerns and point out countless discrepancies to all involved - without a single response uttered from any Town official, Village official, Shumaker Engineering, Zangrilli Engineering, or the cemetery. Please scroll down for a very small sampling of our continuous attempts at communication.

Town attorney William Schmitt states:

Mr. Ross does not like the findings...So what Mr. Ross has now done is rather than contest the findings, he has turned it into a personal attack.

CLARIFICATION:

Again, Mr. Schitt is fully aware that we have done nothing BUT contest the findings (small sampling below). Again, we have issued countless letters and emails outlining what we believe to be fundamental flaws in the Town and Village's position. Again, we continue to receive not a single response from the Town, the Village, Shumaker Engineering, Zangrilli Engineering, or the cemetery.

Second, we challenge Mr. Schmitt to provide examples of "personal attacks" he references.

In fact, his accusation raises an interesting issue.

Our colleagues at Concerned Citizens for Open and Honest Government attended a 9/17/08 Town meeeting to appeal the denial of their FOIL request, filed on our behalf. These individuals were demeaned, insulted and treated with excessive rudeness by Mr. Schmitt, who clearly had no intention of listening to their appeal.

Because of the intensity that has surrounded this issue, it’s unfortunate that being confronted with facts has been construed as a personal attack by Mr. Schmitt. Perhaps Mr. Schmitt could explain his behavior toward Ms. Lawrence – all she did was submit a FOIL request and he went off the handle with an arrogant, obnoxious, demeaning response. Looking in a mirror might be a good start for Mr. Schmitt. Read Concerned Citizens' blog regarding this incident here.

---

JUST A FEW OF OUR RECENT ATTEMPTS TO COMMUNICATE

Below is a but a small sampling of just a few of our recent communcation efforts. With the exception of Ms. Finegan's direct responses to our FOIL requests, we have received absolutely NO response, at all, from any official or individual involved.

08/14/08 email to Village et al
09/09/08 letter to Town Board of Ethics et al
09/10/08 letter to Zangrilli Engineering et al
09/12/08 email to Town - very heartfelt statements by Mrs. Ross
09/17/08 letter to Shumaker Engineering
09/19/08 letter to Village et al

---

STRIKESLIP: WILL PUBLIC ATTENTION SPUR THOSE INVOLVED TO "DO THE RIGHT THING," OR DON'T THEY CARE?

This question was very succinctly posed by Strikeslip in a 9/27/08 blog.

The Rosses are not looking for money, but just want the flooding to stop. Pleas for help from local officials were rebuffed at every turn. Their experiences and continuing story have been chronicled at "The Ross Cause". . . . But it was nice to see the story finally get press in the Observer-Dispatch.

With some great comments, including this by clipper...

maybe the catholics in the area need to bring pressure to bear on the diocese to do what is right. It is ridiculous for the church OR the village to refuse to fix this mess that the expansion obviously caused. I bet if enough catholics withhold the money from the basket that comes around all too often during mass, the church would ante up the money and fix the problem.

Read the blog entry and comments here.

SEPTEMBER 17, 2008

---

ATTORNEY SCHMITT'S BEHAVIOR "OBNOXIOUS...ARROGANT" TOWARD CONCERNED CITIZENS AT TOWN MEETING

The Ross family has been communicating with Concerned Citizens for Open and Honest Government for several months regarding their situation.

Concerned Citizens filed a FOIL request on our behalf for electronic copies of the Word document "Response" to Stormwater Management Complaint.

Not surprisingly, their FOIL request was denied.

Concerned Citizens attended the 9/17/08 Town meeting to appeal such denial.

In the very succinct words of Ms. Lawrence:

Attorney Schmitt was obnoxious regarding our FOIL request and appeal for an electronic copy of the Shumaker Engineering report regarding the Ross flooding problems.

What did he think he was protecting?

Read Ms. Lawrence's blog regarding the incident here.

SEPTEMBER 10, 2008

---

AT TAXPAYER’S EXPENSE, VILLAGE ENGINEER MOVES THE GOALPOSTS TO PROTECT TOWN COUNTERPART???

This is just a sample (for more detail – see letter):

In Oct. 2000; Mr. Zangrilli charged the Village $1,195.00 (see invoice) to review the Holy Trinity Cemetery project. To protect the Village of Yorkville:

(1) He approved plans that required a ditch be constructed between the Cemetery and Cross Street residences.

(2) and, required that discharge from the Cemetery be limited to 0.5 CFS during the 25-year rainfall event due to capacity concerns regarding the Village’s stormwater collection system.

In June 2002; Mr. Zangrilli charged the Village $180 (see invoice) to investigate "problems" at the Cemetery. This investigation led to a letter (see letter) stating:

"…the present grading is not as shown on the approved grading and drainage plans. During heavy rains, this storm water is running off of your property onto Village resident’s property along Cross Street. This grading must be completed and improved to keep storm water from flowing onto the adjacent property along Cross Street."

In November 2004; Mr. Zangrilli charged the Village $450 (see invoice) for work related to on-going "problems" at the Cemetery. This work led to a letter (see letter) stating:

"The ditch that was supposed to be installed along this property line was never constructed. Storm water running down the hill is now running into the rear yards of the houses on Cross Street. These problems must be corrected immediately."

Here’s where the problem starts…

(1) The ditch, required on the plans he approved, has never been constructed. Don’t his June 2002 and November 2004 letters clearly state that the absence of this ditch is causing problems?

(2) The Town Engineer recently completed a report that states that discharge from the Cemetery is actually 5.42 CFS during the 25-year event, over 10 times greater than the 0.5 CFS mandated by Mr. Zangrilli in 2000.

Therefore, wouldn’t you expect Mr. Zangrilli to respond by demanding that the project be brought into compliance with his 2000 requirements? Instead, in July 2008, Mr. Zangrilli charged the Village $1,035.00 (see invoice) for more services that led to another letter (see letter) stating:

"The Holy Trinity Cemetery site …, as constructed, will not adversely affect the Village of Yorkville’s storm sewer system."

So let’s get this straight, Mr. Zangrilli charged the Village $1,825.00 to determine project requirements and subsequently take exception when the project didn’t comply. Now, the project remains in a state of non-compliance, and he charges the Village another $1,035.00 to grant the Cemetery relief from his previous requirements and apparently retract his 2002 and 2004 letters…

So, exactly what have the taxpayers of Yorkville received for this $2860.00???

SEPTEMBER 9, 2008

---

WILL ETHICS BOARD ALLOW "BUSINESS AS USUAL" IN WHITESTOWN?

From 9/19/07 Observer-Dispatch:

MV UPDATE: WHITESTIOWN BOARD OF ETHICS

PAST: Whitestown formed a Board of Ethics last fall after some residents raised questions about the way the Town deals with ethical issues.

The Town Board appointed three members to the Ethics Board and charged them with revamping the Town's Code of Ethics.

Ethics board member Tom Bonaros resigned in April, citing concerns over the board's effectiveness and leaving one of the three seats vacant.

PRESENT: The Town Board voted Wednesday to accept the changes to the Code of Ethics recommended by the Ethics Board. The two remaining members are John Levitas and Whitestown police Officer Timothy Barone.

FUTURE: The Board of Ethics will have five members instead of three and will have the ability to initiate ethics investigations on its own, without being asked to do so. In addition, the new Code of Ethics will require elected and appointed Town officials, as well as Town employees, to fill out annual disclosure of interest statements.

The Town Engineer was retained to provide an “independent” evaluation of an approval that he granted... The Town Attorney stated that the Records Access Officer is responsible for enforcing the Freedom-of-Information Law; that is until you ask for his records… Town Board issues Resolution that references a meeting that never happened…

Will this professional misconduct and unethical behavior be overlooked? (see letter)

SEPTEMBER 8, 2008

---

PLANNING BOARD FRUSTRATED WITH LACK OF ENFORCEMENT IN TOWN

We are not the only ones frustrated with the lack of enforcement taking place in Whitestown. The following paragraph is taken from the WHITESTOWN PLANNING BOARD’s June meeting minutes:

The (planning) board informally resolved to request a monthly report from the codes enforcement office on all activities. The Chairmen shall draft a letter to the Town Board, copying the codes office, expressing the displeasure of the (planning) board with the lack of enforcement in the town and making the request for a monthly report (see minutes).

The construction drawings approved by the Planning Board in 2001, required that an "interception ditch" be constructed between the Cemetery and Cross Street properties. This ditch was never constructed, and the Town Engineer and Town Board have recently concluded that its absence is and never has caused a problem for Cross Street residents. The Village Engineer has made other observations:

In a 6/13/02 letter (copy attached); Village Engineer Zangrilli wrote to the Cemetery, "… the present grading is not as shown on the approved grading and drainage plans. During heavy rains, this storm water is running off of your property onto Village resident’s property along Cross Street. This grading must be completed and improved to keep storm water from flowing onto the adjacent property along Cross Street."

In a 10/22/04 letter (copy attached); Village Engineer Zangrilli wrote to the Cemetery, "The grading along the west property line, the property line that runs along the rear yards of the Cross Street houses, has not been completed in accordance with the plans. The ditch that was supposed to be installed along this property line was never constructed. Storm water running down the hill is now running into the rear yards of the houses on Cross Street. These problems must be corrected immediately."

Perhaps the Whitestown Planning Board, given their recent frustration, can offer some assistance (see letter).

AUGUST 15, 2008

---

COUNCILMAN DANIEL SULLIVAN ACKNOWLEDGES PROBLEM AND EXTENDS OLIVE BRANCH

On 6-3-08; we received an email from Councilman DAN SULLIVAN informing us he had taken an interest in our plight. Disappointed that we hadn’t heard from him since, we assumed the Town Engineer (SHUMAKER ENGINEERING) report had convinced him there are no problems.

Much to our pleasure,

In an 8-15-08 email from Town Coucilman SULLIVAN, he wrote, "I personally believe the answer with your parent’s problem could be corrected by a small swale on Holy Trinity’s property. Whitestown has no legal right to put that swale on another property, but I will personally contact Holy Trinity Cemetery and ask their consideration in this matter."

Despite being surrounded by Town Officials who appear to be paralyzed by the fear of litigation, Councilman SULLIVAN seems far more interested in a solution. Unfortunately, at this point he appears to be alone  – for whatever reason the overwhelming evidence provided below has not been convincing to his cohorts.

We would be remiss in not stating that we respectfully disagree with Councilman Sullivan on two points:

First, the swale/ditch that Councilman SULLIVAN refers to is shown on the construction drawings approved by the Planning Board (see dwgs). There is consensus that the Cemetery never constructed this ditch. We believe WHITESTOWN must have an avenue available to initiate an enforcement action for non-compliant construction activities.

Second, the Village of Yorkville required two conditions at the time this project was approved. They required:

(1) discharge from the Cemetery be limited to 0.5cfs up to and including the 25-year rainfall event (see memo), and

(2) the emergency spillway NOT be activated up to and including the 100-year rainfall event (see report).

Based on the Town Engineer (SHUMAKER ENGINEERING) calculations, the 0.5cfs requirement is substantially exceeded (see calculations) and the emergency spillway is activated during the 100-year storm event (see report). Somehow, SHUMAKER ENGINEERING manipulates these findings into an argument that they actually represent compliance with Village requirements?

Therefore, neither of the Village's requirements were met, and we are not aware of any relief that has been granted by the Village. This non-compliance must also be addressed.

AUGUST 13, 2008

---

TOWN ATTORNEY (William Schmitt) INTIMIDATION EFFORT BACKFIRES

Our investigation of the TOWN’s actions has included dozens of requests for information from WHITESTOWN per the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL).

During the course of making these requests, we received an email on 6-3-08 from Town Attorney WILLIAM SCHMITT (see email). Mr. Schmitt advised us that, “The Town Board has appointed the Town Clerk as its Records Access Officer. This is consistent with her statutory responsibilities under the Town Law and Arts and Cultural Affairs Law that provide, among other things, that she has custody of all records of the Town. As the Records Access Officer, she is responsible for coordinating the Town’s response to your FOIL request(s).”

That is, until you ask for the Town Attorney’s Records…

In response to a FOIL request for Records of a meeting that took place between the Town Attorney (WILLIAM SCHMITT) and Town Engineer (SHUMAKER ENGINEERING); we received an 8-12-08 email from the Town Clerk (see email) advising us that she, “ … was informed by the Town Attorney for the Town of Whitestown, that he will be addressing the meeting that you are referring to, I'm sure he will be providing all the records of the meeting from Mr. Schrantz as well as any other Town Officials that were present. I am confident that all the records of the meeting will be made available to either me or directly to you in a timely manner.”

What is it about the Town Engineer Records that caused Town Attorney WILLIAM SCHMITT to usurp the statutory responsibilities of the Town Clerk? We’ll never know, WILLIAM SCHMITT later informed us that he didn’t take any notes during this meeting, and has declined to explain its purpose (see email).

Additionally...

We received a letter (see letter), dated 8-8-08, from WILLIAM SCHMITT stating, “I provide opinions to various Town Officials, including the Town Clerk who serves as Whitestown’s Records Access Officer. In such a capacity, I do not deny FOIL requests or take exceptions thereto.” Mr. Schmitt goes on to call our assertions that he is offering something more than opinions inaccurate and baseless.

On 8-8-08, WILLIAM SCHMITT asserts that he offers opinions only. On 8-12-08, the Town Clerk informs us that WILLIAM SCHMITT has informed her that he would be addressing and providing the Town Engineer’s records.

Apparently our assertions weren’t so inaccurate and baseless (see response).

JULY 16, 2008

---

TOWN BOARD CANNOT SUPPORT RESOLUTION LANGUAGE

The TOWN BOARD produced a Resolution (see resolution), dated 7-16-08, that states, "… the Town Board has had an opportunity to review both the Ross Complaint, and the Response with officials from the Village of Yorkville including its Mayor, Superintendent of Public Works and Village Engineer, who similarly have reviewed and take no exception to the findings and conclusions reached by the Town’s Engineers."

In response to this resolution, on 8-5-08 we submitted a FOIL request to the Village of Yorkville. We requested access to all records including emails that in any way possible could be construed to support a claim by the Town Board that the Village Mayor, Village Highway Superintendent, and Village Engineer, "take no exception to the findings and conclusions reached by the Town’s Engineers".

Yorkville’s response to our FOIL request was (see response), "The records that you requested do not exist."

Since the Resolution specifically attributes this language to the Town Board; a quorum of the Town Board and the referenced Village Officials must have been present at a meeting; out of which came this Resolution. The Town has not provided us with a copy of these meeting minutes.

JULY 3, 2008

---

TOWN ENGINEER (Shumaker Engineering) REPORT CONTAINS INACCURACIES see report

In response to our complaint the Town Engineer, KARL SCHRANTZ of SHUMAKER ENGINEERING, prepared a report for the Town Board. This report was intended to be an objective evaluation of the stormwater management systems in place at the HOLY TRINITY CEMETERY, and would become a resource for the Town Board to use in preparing a formal response to our compaint.

---

TOWN ENGINEER (Shumaker Engineering) CALCULATES IMPERVIOUS AREA INCORRECTLY

Here is a link to a drawing showing existing conditions on the Cemetery property (see drawing).

Here is a link to a drawing showing the build-out conditions of the Cemetery property (see dwg). Please note that build-out construction adds approximately 4800 feet (nearly one-mile) of 20 foot wide asphalt paved (impervious) roadways.

Town Engineer (SHUMAKER ENGINEERING) concludes in their report that existing conditions have 2.68 acres of impervious area (see calcs) and build-out conditions have 1.7 acres of impervious area (see calcs).

The construction of nearly one-mile of asphalt paved roadways cannot possibly result in a reduction of impervious area of approximately one acre. We have requested that the Town Engineer (SHUMAKER ENGINEERING) correct this calculation, we have not received a response.

What is the significance – lowering the amount of impervious area will result in the modeling calculating less runoff from the Cemetery property.

---

DESPITE PICTURES AND LETTERS PROVING OTHERWISE, TOWN ENGINEER (Shumaker Engineering) ARGUES REDUCER WAS INSTALLED IN 2001

As a condition of project approval, in 2001 the Village of Yorkville required that a pipe reducer be installed on the Cemetery’s detention basin outlet structure.

In Town Engineer (SHUMAKER ENGINEERING) report they refer to a phone conversation (see report) with the HOLY TRINITY CEMETERY in which Mr. Mark Lazaroski of the Cemetery insists that the reducer was installed in 2001.

To the contrary...

(1) We have photos from September 2004 showing no reducer installed (see pics).

(2) In a 10/22/04 letter by Yorkville’s Engineer Al Zangrilli (see letter) to the Cemetery, "...the 10 inch to 6 inch reducer on the outlet pipe from the detention basin has never been installed."

(3) In a 10/29/04 letter by Yorkville’s Engineer Al Zangrilli (see letter), "I met with Mr. Mark Lazaroski … He agreed to install the reducer pipe …"

Regarding technical aspects, this is significant because even with the reducer, the original design was found to be deficient in limiting flow to 0.5cfs as required by the Village of Yorkville. Since the Town Engineer (SHUMAKER ENGINEERING) did not provide any calculations for a reducer-less scenario, it is impossible for him to offer conclusions regarding the timeframe from 2001 to 2005, when no reducer was installed.

But perhaps more concering, KARL SCHRANTZ, the Engineer-of-Record for the Town’s Report, was copied on Mr. Zangrilli’s 10/22/04 letter. Lacking first-hand knowledge as to when the reducer was installed, why did Mr. Schrantz disregard Mr. Zangrilli’s observations?

---

WHY IS TOWN ENGINEER (Shumaker Engineering) DEFINING VILLAGE POLICY?

SHUMAKER ENGINEERING is the Town Engineer.

ZANGRILLI ENGINEERING is the Village Engineer.

It seems reasonable to conclude that they would define policy for their respective municipalities. However, it appears the Town Engineer (SHUMAKER ENGINEERING) has empowered itself to define policy in the Village of Yorkville and disregard requirements put in place by the Village Engineer.

As a condition of approval; the Village of Yorkville required that discharge from the Cemetery be limited to 0.5cfs up to and including the 25-year rainfall event (see memo). This had to do with downsteam pipe capacity and a determination that a flowrate greater than 0.5cfs would cause localized flooding.

In the Town Engineer (SHUMAKER ENGINEERING) report, they imply that Mr. Zangrilli inaccurately calculated pipe capacity and it is actually 4.6cfs, not 0.5 cfs. In their report, the Town Engineer (SHUMAKER ENGINEERING) indicates that they discussed pipe capacity with Mr. Zangrilli, but they never actually state that Mr. Zangrilli agreed (see report). We have challenged the Town Engineer (SHUMAKER ENGIINEERING) to provide written confirmation from Mr. Zangrilli that agrees. Our request for this confirmation has not been acknowledged or addressed in any manner.

In the Town Engineer (SHUMAKER ENGINEERING) report, they imply that the 10-year design storm is the design event (see report). This is contradictory to the Village Engineer's memo that clearly states the design storm is the 25-year event (see memo).

Mr. Zangrilli seems pretty clear that the design requirement is 0.5cfs during the 25-year event (see memo). However, the Town Engineer (SHUMAKER ENGINEERING) appears to have randomly decided that it should be 4.6cfs for the 10-year event.

The Town Engineer (SHUMAKER ENGINEERING), despite repeated requests, has not produced written confirmation from the Village acknowledging any relief from the project's original requirements.

---

TOWN ENGINEER (Shumaker Engineering) BLAMES ROSS WATER ISSUES ON NEIGHBORS

The Town Engineer (SHUMAKER ENGINEERING) concluded in their report that the intermittent flooding that occurs in the Ross’ yard is caused by their neighbors, not the Cemetery. They claim that because their neighbors are upgradient, they are to blame.

This is a link to a picture showing the Ross’ upgradient neighbors (see pic).

This is a link to a picture of the Cemetery’s detention basin (after a rainfall event), filled with sediment laden runoff (see pic).

This is a picture of the Ross’ yard (after the same rainfall event), with puddles of sediment laden water (see pics).

We firmly disagree that the sediment laden water puddles seen in the Ross’ backyard are the result of stormwater runoff from their neighbor’s lawns. These lawns have been well-established for the past 25+ years and therefore would not produce sediment-laden runoff.

Further supporting this conclusion...

(1) In a 6/13/02 letter by Village Engineer Zangrilli (see letter), he wrote to the Cemetery, "… the present grading is not as shown on the approved grading and drainage plans. During heavy rains, this storm water is running off of your property onto Village resident’s property along Cross Street. This grading must be completed and improved to keep storm water from flowing onto the adjacent property along Cross Street."

(2) In a 10/22/04 letter by Village Engineer Zangrilli (see letter), he wrote to the Cemetery, "The grading along the west property line, the property line that runs along the rear yards of the Cross Street houses, has not been completed in accordance with the plans. The ditch that was supposed to be installed along this property line was never constructed. Storm water running down the hill is now running into the rear yards of the houses on Cross Street. These problems must be corrected immediately."

Town Engineer KARL SCHRANTZ of SHUMAKER ENGINEERING, the Engineer-of-Record for the report blaming the Ross’ neighbors, was copied on both of these letters. Yet, he contends that the Cemetery is in no way responsible for the ponding water in the Ross’ yard. Furthermore, he makes no reference to these letters in his supposed objective report.

Apparently the observations of his Yorkville counterpart aren’t credible because he didn’t include pictures. Do you consider this objective?

---

TOWN ENGINEER (Shumaker Engineering) IN ACCURATELY DEFINES EMERGENCY SPILLWAY WEIR

The Cemetery project included an emergency spillway weir (see pic). This device is intended to control the amount of runoff leaving the Cemetery’s detention basin during significant rainfall events. The detail for this weir (see detail) shows that the bottom of this weir is at elevation 509.00, the midway step is at 510.00 and the top is at 511.00.

Imagine for a minute that the notches in this weir were filled with concrete, and didn’t exist. You would be left with a dam that has a top elevation of 511.00. Why do that? Because that’s what SHUMAKER ENGINEERING defined it its report.

SHUMAKER ENGINEERING’s calculations (see output) purport that water in the detention pond reached an elevation one and a half feet above the bottom of the weir, but no water flowed through it.

What’s the significance? If modeled correctly, water will flow through the weir during certain rainfall events, and this will violate restrictions put in place by the Village of Yorkville.

To prove this assertion, we contacted the Developer of the software used by SHUMAKER ENGINEERING to model this rainfall event. He confirmed our assertion that the weir is modeled incorrectly (see email_5).

Both the TOWN BOARD and SHUMAKER ENGINEERING have been confronted with this inaccuracy. Despite our requests, to date we are unaware of these calcualations being addressed or corrected.

JULY 2, 2008

---

TOWN OFFICES UNABLE TO PROVIDE COPY OF TOWN ENGINEER REPORT; CLAIMS OF "TOO BUSY" AND "RUNNING OUT OF PAPER"

On 6-18-08; we agreed to meet with TOWN OFFICIALS on 7-7-08 to discuss these ongoing stormwater problems. The TOWN had indicated that the TOWN ENGINEER had produced a report in response to our complaint. We requested that the TOWN make available a copy of this report ahead of time so that we could be prepared for the 7-7-08 meeting (see request).

On 6/26/08; we received an email from Town Supervisor Charles Gibbs indicating that the Town Engineer’s Report was complete and, upon request, a copy would be made available at the Town Offices. We immediately responded that on 6/27/08 we would pick up a copy of the report at the Town Clerk (MARY FINEGAN's) office.

What happened next was a display of non-cooperation that we have since come to expect.

On 6/27/08; we visited the Town Offices to secure a copy of the Report.

We were provided only 15 pages of the reports 181 pages because the Town Clerk (MARY FINEGAN) indicated they were "too busy" to produce the remaining pages. They promised to provide the remaining copies by the middle of the following week (7-2-08).

On 7/1/08; we telephoned the Town Clerk to confirm that a copy of the remaining pages will be made available the following day. We are told that the Town Offices had "run out of paper" and "maybe" a copy would be made available by the end of the week.

On 7/3/08; the Town finally provides a copy of the Town Engineer’s report.

Point of interest; on 6/19/08, billing records show that seven (7) complete copies of the report were shipped UPS to Town Officials (see billing). Apparently they didn’t "run out of paper" until it was time to make our copy available.

This was an effort at ensuring we were not provided sufficient time to scrutinize the report prior to the 7-7-08 meeting. Having not been provided the courtesy of time to prepare, we had no choice but to not attend the scheduled meeting on the 7/7/08.

MARCH 17, 2008

---

FORMAL COMPLAINT FILED WITH VILLAGE OF YORKVILLE

On 3-17-08; we filed a formal complaint with the Village of Yorkville (see report).

From the complaint’s opening letter:

The Ross’ have experienced routine "ponding" of water in their yard at 77 Cross Street ever since the Holy Trinity Cemetery Project was started several years ago. In the 25+ years that the Ross’ resided there prior to this Project, this was never experienced. Incidentally, significant foundation damage has occurred to their residence over the past few years.

Please accept the following report as an evaluation of the Project materials made available for review by the Town of Whitestown. We believe this information will raise great concerns for the Village of Yorkville; and we respectfully request that immediate legal action be taken against the Town of Whitestown. The Town is well aware of this situation and has elected to take little to no corrective actions; it is unfortunate they have chosen to put the Ross’ and the Village of Yorkville in this position.