Lofstad, Bouvier Reject Findings Statement On 'The Hills' Project Tuesday

Southampton Town Councilwoman Julie Lofstad and Councilman John Bouvier broke their silence on a controversial luxury golf resort application on Tuesday night, stating that they will not approve a document that would help pave the way for the development that targets nearly 600 acres in East Quogue.

The two were referring to the project’s “findings statement,” which is the final hurdle that must be cleared in the arduous state environmental review that is required of most major developments before the application can come before the Town Board for final approval. A positive findings statement, the last step in the State Environmental Quality Review Act process, would mean that the project avoids or minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent possible.

Findings statements are generally indicators as to how the Town Board will vote on the final proposal—typically a lawmaker wouldn’t reject a findings statement but then vote in favor of a project, or vice-versa.

And with The Hills at Southampton application, where board members stand is particularly important because while only three votes are required to sign off the project’s findings statement, a supermajority—or the votes of four of the five Town Board members—is needed to approve the actual application.

Board members ultimately agreed to table the resolution to approve the findings statement after fielding criticisms from the public stating that they were poised to vote on the document before releasing it to the public. Prior to tabling the motion on Tuesday night, Town Supervisor Jay Schneiderman said that it was going to be a “positive” statement. The document was prepared for the town by AKRF, an environmental engineering company hired by the municipality, and Martin Petrovic, a town consultant.

“I was disappointed we are tabling it,” Ms. Lofstad said. “The public deserves to know our position … It’s time to move forward.”

Her statement was followed by a roaring round of applause.

She then added that if the findings statement had been voted on that night it would not have earned her support.

“I would have voted ‘no’ today,” said Ms. Lofstad, before pointing out that she still had concerns about the project’s potential impact on the aquifer.

That comment was followed by a blend of applause and boos.

Mr. Bouvier backed Ms. Lofstad, noting that he did not intend to vote for a positive findings statement because of the “unpredictability” of the environmental impacts. The findings statement is now scheduled to be voted on during a board meeting on October 19, following a public hearing on The Hills application, which requests approval of a special change of zone called a planned development district, or PDD. The hearing is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. at East Quogue Elementary School on Central Avenue in East Quogue.

Arizona-based Discovery Land Company is seeking permission from the Town Board to build 117 residential units and an 18-hole golf course centered on 168 acres along Spinney Road in East Quogue. The rest of the property would be preserved, according to plans.

Mr. Bouvier’s and Ms. Lofstad’s position against the findings statement was the first time either lawmaker has publicly made a stance on the project. The findings statement can still be accepted without their support as long as it gets “yes” votes from Councilwoman Christine Scalera, Councilman Stan Glinka and Mr. Schneiderman.

The PDD vote—the final vote in the process—needs a supermajority vote, however.

Mr. Bouvier’s and Ms. Lofstad’s stance was interpreted by many in attendance on Tuesday as an indication that they would also vote against the PDD, meaning it would not pass.

Mark Hissey, vice president of Discovery Land Company, took to the podium during the public comment portion of the meeting to express his “anger” with the two board members. “I’m really appalled about what has happened tonight,” Mr. Hissey said.

He noted that his company has worked with Town Board members to address all of their concerns about the environment and it was surprising to him that he apparently did not have their support. “You asked for science,” said Mr. Hissey, his voice racing and increasing in volume. “We’ve given it to you.”

Mr. Bouvier dismissed Mr. Hissey’s claims, noting several times throughout the course of the night that board members devoted hundreds of hours each studying the project. “It’s not simple, and I think we need to be more civil with this issue,” Mr. Bouvier said. “We are trying to find a solution to a problem that is in front of us.”

The meeting was attended by an energetic crowd of more than 100 people. At least half signed up to speak during the public comment portion. Multiple speakers, both for and against the project, ended their three minutes at the podium with a rumble of both applause and booing. It was a tense room, with insults thrown around for much of the night.

In fact, Richard Amper, executive director of the Long Island Pine Barrens Society and a vocal opponent of the project, called for Mr. Schneiderman to resign, charging that the supervisor is not reviewing the project “fairly and legally.”

Mr. Amper also charged that the supervisor has misrepresented the science in a report filed by Dr. Christopher Gobler of East Quogue, a marine science professor at Stony Brook Southampton College, who said that the PDD would likely have the least environmental impact compared to alternatives, and that the supervisor was working too closely with the officials preparing the findings statement.

Mr. Schneiderman dismissed all of Mr. Amper’s comments. “I don’t think there was a shred of truth to a thing you just said,” Mr. Schneiderman fired back as Mr. Amper left the podium.

Others speakers voiced either their support for or opposition to the project.

“When I look at the facts, when I look at the reports, when I look at the science, it doesn’t say it’s the wrong decision,” said Robert Dallas of Southampton, a project supporter. “In fact, I think it’s the right decision.”

Donna Lanzetta, president of the East Quogue Chamber of Commerce, added to that sentiment.

“When Dr. Gobler says that the PDD is better environmentally than the as-of-right development, I don’t see how you can vote ‘no,’” Ms. Lanzetta said.

Ron Kass of East Quogue, on the other hand, urged the Town Board not to accept the positive findings statement.

“There are a lot of opinions here that were stated as fact,” said Mr. Kass, stressing that he feels the project would be a bad addition to the community that he has called home for two decades.

“It’s over,” he continued. “You have the information. Let’s get on with this one way or another and get it done.”