Cistern rule questioned by former Island fire commissioner


Not every firefighter is in favor of an expanded cistern requirement for small subdivisions, Hoot Sherman being one of them.

“I am an active fireman, a past commissioner, I was head of the board of commissioners … The Fire Department does a good job,” he emphasized — they train hard and serve the Island well.

But “when the Fire Commissioners decided that you would have a water source every 1,000 feet, they say it’s because of the fire prevention code.” He explained that the 1,000-foot rule really only applies in districts relying on fire hydrants; trucks in those departments have limited lengths of hose. “We have well over 4,000 feet of hose,” making the 1,000-foot requirement a “bogus” one, he said.

That idea is supported by at least one guide to developing fire district water supplies. “The Fire Department Water Supply Handbook” by William F. Eckman (Pennwell Books 1994) states that the coverage of individual hydrants or suction supply points “can be extended as far as the fire department can transport the needed fire flow. As an example, 5,000 feet of 5-inch hose would extend a fire department’s coverage map to 5,000 feet from the last hydrant in the system instead of 1,000 feet.”

Mr. Sherman, a project manager for the Peconic Land Trust, became involved with the issue while representing the Brandensteins of Brander Parkway in their effort to preserve and subdivide their property on Crab Creek. Even though the property has an extensive waterfront, the Fire Commissioners recommended that the Planning Board require a cistern for ease of access to a water supply. In addition to water from the property’s undeveloped shoreline, water is also available from the landing on Bootleggers Alley, about 1,300 feet away — beyond the 1,000 foot guideline but well within reach of the department’s hoses.

Mr. Sherman said he continued to negotiate with the Fire Commissioners and that they eventually agreed that clearing a pathway through the trees to the shoreline would provide adequate access to water, and so a cistern was not required in the Brandenstein subdivision.

The Town Board is considering a law codifying a cistern requirement in minor subdivisions. Doing so may result in cistern installations “in places where you don’t need them because of some bureaucratic rule,” Mr. Sherman commented.

He suggested that the commissioners try another approach: require developers to pay $2,500 to $3,000 for each new subdivision lot and use that money to pay for district cisterns “where they are needed most.” That way fire protection costs are distributed equally to all subdividers. Today, one subdivider may happen to own land near a Fire District cistern or a private cistern and avoid a $20,000 to $30,000 cistern investment entirely, while another subdivider may not be so lucky.

After hearing the suggestion, the commissioners “rejected it out of hand,” Mr. Sherman said

Another problem with applying the 1,000 foot rule, he said, is that “the chance of getting a cistern where you need one is slim.” For example, a small subdivision located just over 1,000 feet from water may be required to have a cistern while another area of the Island, developed before the requirement with many more houses, may be thousands of feet from a water source.

“To me, it makes no sense,” he concluded.