005
.
PAGGI & MARTIN
Consulting Engineers & Land Surveyors
ooc:)
;0
54-56 Main Street
Poughkeepsie, New York 12601
914-471-7898
914-471-0905 (FAX)
VIA FAX & MAIL:
January 27, 1997
Cal Mart Construction Company
357 A Route 59
West Nyack, New York 10994
Attention:
Reference:
Carl Wortendyke
Rockingham Drainage Improvements
Dear Carl:
As a follow-up to our letters to Central Hudson dated January 22, 1997
and January 23, 1997, enclosed please find a clarification response from
Hans W. Schick, Central Hudson, dated January 24, 1997.
In this letter, I believe Mr. Schick is very explicit in his statement that
there will be no blasting occurring with 15 feet, measured horizontal,
from the gas main.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact
our office or Mr. Schick of Central Hudson.
23::; qs
Joseph E. Paggi, Jr., P.E.
JEP:law
Enclosure
cc: Hans Schick
Town Board
Albert P. Roberts, Esq.
Phil Niedermeir
RECEIVED
JAN 2 9 1997
1, -
. i O{ /
r
., ':No
. UVWN~LE'R~OEN
Joseph E. Paggi,Jr., P.E.
Ernst Martin, Jr., P.E., L.S.
@ p'lnted on ,ecycled pape,
Ce[lfral
~~~iC Corporation
284 SOUTH AVENUE, POUGHKEEPSIE, N.Y. 12601-4879
~.., -----~~---~
,.....:...:l.~__.u_:-.~c -_'';:' - ---~~
: 1.27
,
~~-'".",~,""''''''''-'-''_.''-............ .....
F~~~~\ ~t~~,G,~ ~ ~St . t.
~"---- '>-~
,.~: ~ ~!
(914) 452-2000
January 24, 1997
Mr. Mark J. DelBalzo
paggi & Martin
54-56 Main Street
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Dear Mr. DelBalzo:
Re: Blasting Near Gas Main - Hopewell Junction Road
Rockinqham Drainage Improvement
In the first paragraph of your letter dated 1/22/97 you
state ".. . Central Hudson has not approved the blasting plan
submitted by Cal Mart Construction Corp. . ..". Taken by itself,
this is not a true statement. Cal Mart's plan, as we know it, is
acceptable, provided that blasting occurs no closer than 15 feet
(measured horizontally) to the gas main.
I would also like to take issue with your second
paragraph in its entirety. You should clearly understand that
Central Hudson will not allow blasting to be performed within the
limits of my 1/16/97 letter and will take steps to stop it if
those limits are breached. I do not want anyone thinking that
it's OK to blast just because we may not be looking.
Lastly, I would like to re-affirm that no matter how
far from the main blasting occurs, if the main is damaged as a
result, all costs associated with t~at damage will be the
responsibility of all entities associated with the blasting work.
I hope this note adequately clarifies Central Hudson's
position.
Sincerely,
~ \) Ati
Hans W. Schick
HWS42/lh