tennis, club, lessons, indoor tennis, camp
27east.com

Story - News

Dec 6, 2017 11:33 AMPublication: The Southampton Press

Southampton Town Board Strikes Down The Hills PDD

Ron Campsey speaks at Tuesday's meeting.  DANA SHAW
Dec 6, 2017 11:39 AM

A planned development district proposal for a luxury golf course resort community in East Quogue was shot down by the Southampton Town Board on Tuesday afternoon.

After years of debate, the five members of the Town Board had to decide whether or not to grant the developer, Arizona-based Discovery Land Company, a PDD—a special change of zone—allowing 118 luxury housing units and an 18-hole golf course on nearly 600 acres in East Quogue.

It was a special vote that called for supermajority support on the board—or the approval of at least four of the five Town Board members.

In the packed auditorium at Southampton Town Hall on Tuesday, with supporters of the project on one side of the room and opponents seated on the other, the vote was cast—3-2 in favor, but one vote short of what was required. Councilwoman Julie Lofstad and Councilman John Bouvier declined to support the PDD application, as they had previously said they would.

Both Ms. Lofstad and Mr. Bouvier explained in separate statements that they have concerns about the development’s environmental impacts.

“It’s not a good project in this location,” Ms. Lofstad said.

“There are so many unknowns,” added Mr. Bouvier, referring especially to the developer’s proposed techniques to both reduce nitrogen pollution and mitigate conditions that already exist in the property’s groundwater.

Both of the Town Board members questioned the fertigation technique, a plan to remove groundwater and use it to irrigate the site, an effort to remove existing nitrogen. They also expressed concern about the development’s potential to pollute the aquifer and noted that a proposed wastewater treatment system, pitched as part of the project, has yet to be approved by Suffolk County.

Aware that their vote was going to disappoint some of the approximately 100 people in the audience that afternoon, as well as members in the community who were not able to make the 1 p.m. meeting on Tuesday, Mr. Bouvier and Ms. Lofstad both stressed that they spent “hundreds of hours” studying the application. In the end, they agreed that they would prefer to rely on the Southampton Town code, and the site’s existing zoning—which is the most restrictive in the town, requiring 5-acre residential lots—to restrict the alternative to the PDD, a regular housing subdivision without a golf course.

The developer already has filed that alternative 137-unit subdivision plan, which includes 13 affordable housing units. The development also would include other amenities, such as a clubhouse, pool, event lawn, putting course and short game area, boathouse, pond clubhouse, four tennis courts, four pickleball courts, and sports fields.

Now that the PDD proposal was voted down, the developer will be scratching plans to buy and preserve a 33-acre swath on Montauk Highway in East Quogue, owned by Carolyn Parlato. The purchase of the property was part of the PDD proposal and was contingent on the approval of the project. Ms. Parlato has a plan for that property already filed with the Planning Board seeking a 30-unit subdivision.

Mark Hissey, a vice president of Discovery Land Company, and the face of the project locally, could not be reached for an interview on Wednesday morning. During the public portion at Tuesday’s meeting—ahead of the vote—he thanked the council for spending so much time on his application, while pointing to all the ways the Town Board asked him to make the plan better for the environment and the community, which he said he followed exactly.

“You got everything you asked for, and we are happy to partner with you on that,” Mr. Hissey said.

Several of Mr. Hissey’s consultants—including Chic Voorhis, managing partner of Nelson, Pope and Voorhis; Paul Grosser of P.W. Grosser Consultants; and Jeff Seeman, owner of East Quogue Golf Corporation—also spoke during public portion of the meeting, stressing the hard work the developer put in to make the project good for the environment.

“I rarely see a project with such overwhelming support,” Mr. Voorhis said at the podium. “This project is unique because it improves water quality. This is a demonstrated fact.”

The Town Board members who voted in favor of the application—Town Supervisor Jay Schneiderman, Councilman Stan Glinka and Councilwoman Christine Scalera—all noted in their own statements ahead of the vote that the proposal could have had a positive impact on the East Quogue community.

“The PDD gives us more control about what happens on the property from now until the foreseeable future,” Ms. Scalera said.

All three of the project supporters on the Town Board noted that they believe the PDD would be the best option for the economy, school district and environment.

The PDD law required a plethora of community benefits, which, for this project, included added revenue to the tax rolls, several donations to East Quogue Elementary School, donations to the East Quogue Fire District, upgrades to Main Street, on- and off-site sewage systems, shellfish programs to clean the bays, and the usage of advanced wastewater treatment systems, among other community donations.

You have read 1 of 7 free articles this month.

Yes! I'll try a one-month
Premium Membership
for just 99¢!
CLICK HERE

Already a subscriber? LOG IN HERE

The developer will apply for permission to build, on property zoned CR200.
By MikeMirino (2), east quogue on Dec 4, 17 1:00 PM
They already have made a formal application to the Planning Board (not the Town Board) for the property as per the CR200 zoning, plus a separate application has been submitted for the 33 acres across the street from the Stone Creek Inn. That property is zoned R-40 or one-acre lots.
By loxman (15), Remsenburg on Dec 5, 17 6:32 PM
I think that this article is overstating the number of residents that are in favor of the project, objectively it's probably only about 1/4 of residents who are in favor of the project.
By adlkjd923ilifmac.aladfksdurwp (424), southampton on Dec 4, 17 1:12 PM
Do you live in East Quogue?
By cmac (100), East Quogue on Dec 4, 17 2:11 PM
Would you restrict people from outside of EQ that are in favor of The Hills from voicing an opinion? The application is before the Southampton Town board making it a Southampton Town issue.
By Craigcat (187), Speonk on Dec 4, 17 6:22 PM
1 member liked this comment
I am curious how the writer knows how many people favor the Hills project from their vantage point. How can the writer claim 'objectivity' when all indications are it is wildly popular among the community with the exception of the East Quogue Civic Association, which is pushing a political agenda ?
By Brucetria (3), East Quogue on Dec 4, 17 2:02 PM
Oh, i think the opposite. From my vantage point, this project looks overwhelmingly UNpopular among EQ and Southampton town residents.
By adlkjd923ilifmac.aladfksdurwp (424), southampton on Dec 4, 17 2:12 PM
From my vantage point, I heard several of the Civic Associations and other Ad hoc and other Association talk on behalf of phantom residents. Those civic organization Board members need a civic lesson.
By HB Proud (781), Hampton Bays on Dec 4, 17 3:08 PM
Civic Associations questioned the consideration of a PDD after this board voted that PDD's are ineffective zoning tools.
As this PDD sits over the aquifer and CG pine barrens, it is appropriate for civic's outside of EQ to comment pro or con if they have consensus. It happens a lot.
By Craigcat (187), Speonk on Dec 4, 17 6:16 PM
1 member liked this comment
Civic Associations are supposed to be unbiased. They aren't supposed to make up their collective minds and then tell everyone what the entire Civic Association thinks. Not ever member of a Civic Association's general membership is going to think alike, nor are all board members. Yet, EQ and HB constantly say what they think.
By bb (743), Hampton Bays on Dec 5, 17 2:45 PM
1 member liked this comment
And what is your vantage point? Do you live in East Quogue?
By cmac (100), East Quogue on Dec 4, 17 2:34 PM
1 member liked this comment
adlkjd923ilifmac.aladfksdurwp lives in Fantasy land. Most Southampton residents don’t give a crap.
By Draggerman (689), Southampton on Dec 4, 17 3:07 PM
I live in EQ and am not in favor of "The Hills."
By crusader (371), East Quogue on Dec 4, 17 4:24 PM
Hi Crusader. Why are you not in favor of the resort? Why is the existing zoning of more subdivisions a better option in your opinion?
By SportsMom (16), Quogue on Dec 4, 17 7:14 PM
1 member liked this comment
because he does not like change! isn't that the real reason crusader.
By Erin 27 E (902), hampton bays on Dec 4, 17 8:03 PM
As an East Quogue resident I have yet to speak with someone that opposes the PDD. I see the occasional sign on residents lawns saying, 'protect our water' or similar- but I don't understand why the board would vote this down and have the developer get approval with their as of right proposal.

This will end up in a law suit if it is declined, and we the tax payers will bear the brunt of that cost.. Not sure how our Councilmen and Women can vote something down with a worse reality facing ...more
By EastEnder3 (12), East Quogue on Dec 4, 17 4:31 PM
An "as-of-right" approval is not as simple as it sounds. Just because the developer has zoning in place to do a residential subdivision, does not mean that it isn't subject to the SEQRA process or from mitigation measures or from pine barrens regulations, etc.

If / When an 'as-of-right' application is submitted, it is still a lengthy process that will require significant mitigation measures in order to receive approval.
By Nature (2963), Southampton on Dec 5, 17 9:12 AM
East Quogue needs this project not 150 new houses with their density, pollution and no benefit that comes with them!
By Erin 27 E (902), hampton bays on Dec 4, 17 8:01 PM
118 condos or 150 houses .. same density, and same polluters and all texting while driving ..what? who said that that they all text and drive ??
By david h (404), southampton on Dec 7, 17 7:54 PM
The current appropriate CR200 zoning requires each home to sit on 200,000 square foot lots, a minimum lot width of 200 feet, 100 foot front and rear set backs,125 foot combined side yards. Only special permission will allow anything else. A worthwhile thought would be requiring only well water irrigation systems, forbid, (Town wide) lawn fertilizers, and requiring innovative onsite septic systems.
By MikeMirino (2), east quogue on Dec 4, 17 11:00 PM
1 member liked this comment
The relentless crusade to develop every square inch of the east end continues. The more you fill it up the emptier it gets. Good luck EQ.
By country joe (11), sag harbor on Dec 5, 17 5:46 AM
That is easy for you to say in Sag Harbor when you have a vibrant downtown and growing real estate values and reasonable taxes. Doesn't look so grandiose in Hampton Bays and East Quogue. We should not be paying for the over development east of the canal.
By HB Proud (781), Hampton Bays on Dec 5, 17 2:00 PM
1 member liked this comment
The as of right needs SEQRA,will never be so many homes,plus there is no market for them. Stop repeating the same lies over and over, they will never be true. Erin27 is so obviously biased, just repeats DLC talking points.
By Taz (316), East Quogue on Dec 5, 17 10:19 AM
1 member liked this comment
It's not a very strong argument to rationalize an unwanted development over an imaginary 150 new houses. The majority of people constructing new homes are the seasonal - second homeowners, who tend to gravitate further east. This is a working family community with a quiet country charm, and for those lucky enough to be able to afford a new home, that's wonderful. But to reason that this behemoth should be approved or else EQ is going to turn into Levittown is just silly. This project needs to be ...more
By Harbor Master (82), Sag Harbor on Dec 5, 17 11:09 AM
2 members liked this comment
cgaigcat, you are missing my point. These civic association boards use their positions to move their own political, personal and social agendas and pretend to speak for phantom residents that have no idea what the Board is up to. The Boards should be ashamed of themselves. Many residents of Hampton Bays have figured this out about the HBCA Board. Did everyone see the emails sent from the EQCA - they turned into a political committee and probably should lose their not-for-profit status.
By HB Proud (781), Hampton Bays on Dec 5, 17 12:19 PM
1 member liked this comment
I understand. Have you attended the meetings to voice your concern. Most Civic/CAC meetings are open to anyone who wants to attend. I'm a board member of Speonk Remsenburg Civic, and I think you have a valid point. All civics should be very careful to avoid political agendas. I know we question it when we start to cross that line. Good point, HBP.
By Craigcat (187), Speonk on Dec 5, 17 2:32 PM
1 member liked this comment
That's good to know. HB Civic is blatant with their opinions. The President has often spoken her opinion without stating clearly that it is not in any way the opinion of the Civic Association. This is how you get a bad name. You are entitled to your opinion if you are on a Board, but you need to clearly state who's opinion you are stating.
By bb (743), Hampton Bays on Dec 5, 17 2:50 PM
When debates get contentious it is difficult to know exactly what the public thinks. Oddly, many people dislike voicing their opinions when they are going to be torn to shreds by those who think differently. They often just write/call their Town Board and tell them what they think. That is impossible to count, except by the Town.
By bb (743), Hampton Bays on Dec 5, 17 2:52 PM
1 member liked this comment
Totally agree. It wouldn't kill any of us to engage in civil debate. The Hills has been especially contentious. The lack of respect for a differing opinion is downright childish IMO.
By Craigcat (187), Speonk on Dec 5, 17 3:24 PM
It seems to me you can't debate reasonably and respectfully with unreasonable people. I use John Bovier as an example who said Hampton Bays residents spoke myths and unsubstantiated statements but could never substantiate his statement. There is no reasoning with people like him who have inherent biases and predetermined conclusions.
By HB Proud (781), Hampton Bays on Dec 5, 17 3:58 PM
3 members liked this comment
Well done Julie and John, well done!!!!
By bigfresh (3029), north sea on Dec 5, 17 5:07 PM
2 members liked this comment
Thank you Julie and John.
My first question on this project was How does a private golf course produce a public benefit?
My second question has to do with the developers themselves. I went to one of their information sessions. I was never greeted, glad-handed, introduced to the principals and I never even got a name tag. Nobody ever reached out to me to discuss anything. The hors d'oeuvres were tasteless cardboard. The question is If these guys can't run a professional schmooze, how on ...more
By bluelightning (20), Hampton Bays on Dec 5, 17 5:20 PM
2 members liked this comment
Many thanks Councilwoman Lofstad and Councilman Bouvier!!!
By crusader (371), East Quogue on Dec 5, 17 5:25 PM
THANK YOU JOHN & JULIE! We are much relieved and appreciate your thoughtful consideration.
By EastEndJoy (15), East Quogue on Dec 5, 17 5:54 PM
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By chief1 (2337), southampton on Dec 5, 17 7:06 PM
2 members liked this comment
THANK YOU JULIE AND JOHN!!!!!
By dalapine (5), hampton bays on Dec 5, 17 7:25 PM
Thank you John and Julie!!!
By Yes we can (15), Eastport on Dec 5, 17 7:49 PM
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By RANGER66 (9), WESTHAMPTON BEACH on Dec 5, 17 8:43 PM
1 member liked this comment
hopefully this is not the final outcome don't give up the fight DLC please the majority of us support you !
By Erin 27 E (902), hampton bays on Dec 5, 17 9:17 PM
1 member liked this comment
How east quogue residents feel is easily gleaned simply by looking at the votes in the EQ districts -- Dems running for TB were against the PDD and Republicans perceived to be for it. What did the EQ voters say about this project? Anyone have the numbers?
By fire11 (272), east hampton on Dec 5, 17 8:03 PM
Today's vote was a bitter disappointment. Not unexpected, mind you. But a bitter disappointment just the same. And unlike many of the writers here, I actually live in the hamlet.
By Brucetria (3), East Quogue on Dec 5, 17 8:29 PM
2 members liked this comment
Im so happy that this piece of dung is dead.....Who needs another subdivision that pollutes the Hamptons??? Go Home Hills! stick a fork in it You're done!!!
By photo (4), east quogue on Dec 6, 17 6:10 PM
We must find a way to overturn this decision !
By 27dan (2148), Shinnecock Hills on Dec 5, 17 9:14 PM

THEY WORRY ABOUT GOLF COURSE POLLUTION & YET WE HAVE A NEARBY CEMETERY LEACHING FORMALDEHYDE INTO THE GROUND WATER ? ALL GOLF COURSE CHEMICALS USED ARE DEC APPROVED !
YEARS BACK , WHEN THE PINES WAS IN ITS PLANNING STAGE WITH A GOLF COURSE SURROUNDED BY HOMES - "IT WAS VOTED DOWN" AND THE RESULTS WERE A BIG SUBDIVISION WAS BUILT GIVING US HIGHER TAXES AND A NEED FOR A BIGGER SCHOOL.
By NEWLONDON (40), westhampton beach on Dec 5, 17 10:33 PM
2 members liked this comment
They just dont like strangers coming through there town
By 27dan (2148), Shinnecock Hills on Dec 6, 17 12:09 AM
Golf courses are awful. Dumb game, too much poison, never ending fossil fuel burning engines 24/7 and lying to get out of paying their fair share of local taxes. Insofar as you don’t like your local representatives-perhaps stop lazily re-electing them endlessly.
By SlimeAlive (655), Southampton on Dec 6, 17 5:45 AM
Well now you got it! An uncontrolled development with all there fertilized lawns greener than the next one with no controls. Sebonic and Golf at the Bridge both have zero environmental issues and you had the chance to protect this land by permitting that, but alas, now you don't!. Just another development like all the others around there sitting atop the aquifer. This is environmentalism at its stupidist..
By North Sea Citizen (454), North Sea on Dec 6, 17 6:27 AM
This is 100% not true. They don't have the right to build their subdivision now. They still have to submit an application, go through environmental review, have pine barrens review the project, etc. Why people believe that the Town has on ability to put any restrictions or mitigation measures on an "as-of-right" development is beyond me.
By Nature (2963), Southampton on Dec 6, 17 9:49 AM
Assuming DLC continues down the road to try to improve the property to receive the approvals to build on this property- given the as of right parameters, the town will need to approve the application. If they do not, there will be a legal- Unless the town buys back the property.

Can the town make them jump through some hoops? Yes. Are these people well funded and prepared to do what they need to do? Yes.

Believing that nothing will be developed here is naïve.. It's a gamble ...more
By EastEnder3 (12), East Quogue on Dec 6, 17 6:48 PM
1 member liked this comment
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By North Sea Citizen (454), North Sea on Dec 6, 17 6:27 AM
UNDO SANDY HOLLOW NOW !!!!!!
By pw herman (727), southampton on Dec 6, 17 7:50 AM
Well that's that then. Can we move on now?
By johnj (695), Westhampton on Dec 6, 17 8:38 AM
Thanks brave Julie and John! Best headline my eyes have seen! After 4 long years David has beaten Goliath! Or at leat given him a good poke in the eye. Now we go on to the next phase, stronger than ever!!!!
By Taz (316), East Quogue on Dec 6, 17 9:25 AM
Thank you, John and Julie, for your courage, your eloquence and your long hard work. You have justified our faith in you and done one of the great things that you were elected to do. It is not too much to say that you have saved our town for us and our children and their children.
By Turkey Bridge (1762), Quiogue on Dec 6, 17 9:38 AM
1 member liked this comment
Thank you John and Julie for your votes for our future and our children. You are cementing your place in the Progressive pantheon in Southampton. And once again, an Independence politician running on the shoulders of Democratic sweat and Eguity again votes against the overwhelming Democratic position in another betrayal of the Party faithful.

It seems just like ATH never left. Who are again in the Dems group are responsible for this continuing travesty of supporting non-
Democrats for ...more
By Obbservant (440), southampton on Dec 6, 17 10:18 AM
... fear not, January 1 right around the corner.
By William Rodney (465), southampton on Dec 6, 17 10:48 AM
Let the lawsuits begin!! I'll have to get more popcorn
By G (308), Southampton on Dec 6, 17 11:24 AM
Lawsuits? I'm hoping for ARRESTS! What FOOLISH WASTE of the Towns time and money. What blatant pandering to private developers who clearly have lined the pockets of our officials! What obvious OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT of our elected officials who clearly side against the very same people who elected them and entertain an outside interest... Smells like BRIBE RECEIVING to me. DEMAND AN OUTSIDE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION! DEMAND A FORENSIC ACCOUNTANT FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL! Southampton deserves much ...more
By DisgustedHamptons (18), Hampton Bays on Dec 7, 17 4:07 AM
1 member liked this comment

If DLC files an article 78 suit, the process will be officially scrutinized. That's why the process took so long, the town had to be methodical and precise. People are divided on the outcome, but the process is the process. Please provide examples of the obvious misconduct. Also, who do you suspect took bribes and what evidence is there to support your claim? My guess is there is no evidence at all and never will be because it never happened.
By Craigcat (187), Speonk on Dec 7, 17 9:08 AM
2 members liked this comment
im sure you are c z
By Erin 27 E (902), hampton bays on Dec 7, 17 4:36 PM
Lets look at who (and their friends and family) donate to who's campaign. Lets look at who (and their friends and family) pay for certain peoples re-election campaigns and fundraiser events. Let a forensic accountant look at who deposited how much in who's family members bank accounts. If you believe for a second that ANY elected official would favor an outside interest / private developer without any incentive or ulterior motive while there is such dissent concerning a project from their constituents, ...more
By DisgustedHamptons (18), Hampton Bays on Dec 9, 17 12:42 PM
That's a whole lot of conjecture there, DH. People were split on this application as were our town board members. Jay Schneiderman articulated his 10 point checklist and DLC satisfied the criteria in his mind. This was all very public. I don't chase conspiracy, nor do I engage in debate about it. Stan Glinka and Christine Scalera voted in favor of the PDD too. Both honest and honorable people. I think your energy needs refocusing. Good luck.
By Craigcat (187), Speonk on Dec 9, 17 7:07 PM
The people who opposed this project are just like the people in East Hampton back in the late 70s and early 80s that opposed the Sunrise Highway extension east through farmland. The arguments then were disconcertingly familiar to the present: too many people, too much development will follow, preserve the farmland, if you build it they will come so don't build it....... and so on. Guess what, the farmland is gone, the development came and so did the people. The only thing that didn't come with ...more
By nyc511 (7), Southampton on Dec 6, 17 11:27 AM
1 member liked this comment
Andlook at EastHampton now.Shame.Just fold and give up-very positive thinking.
By Taz (316), East Quogue on Dec 6, 17 11:52 AM
Exactly! Saying "no" got east Hampton nothing except the same development, the same lack of farmland, the same people, and because of their refusal to allow a highway extension, they and all the surrounding villages/hamlets have increased traffic and congestion!
By nyc511 (7), Southampton on Dec 6, 17 12:55 PM
spoken like a true NYC transplant.
By bigfresh (3029), north sea on Dec 6, 17 6:12 PM
Thank you John and Julie for your thoughtful and well documented vote, thus ending "The Hills PDD" nightmare for the people of Southampton, GW . Future generations of Hampton residents will forever be in your debt.
By SpeedRacer (71), Southampton on Dec 6, 17 12:56 PM
1 member liked this comment
I believe thinking that this is 'over' is incorrect.

DLC would not have spent the 100k on their new application for 137 units- if it was over. Also- let's not forget the Parlotto property and the 30+ units proposed there.

I'm curious: what are the environment safeguards in the As of right development for residential homes that really like green lawns?

Once that all goes down will we all still be congratulating John and Julie? Be careful what you wish for. Take this opportunity ...more
By EastEnder3 (12), East Quogue on Dec 6, 17 6:58 PM
1 member liked this comment
An as-of-right development is still subject to SEQRA, Pine Barrens and Town regulations.

Fertilizer dependent vegetation would be capped at 15% per parcel (very difficult to enforce - though it's no different than enforcing it for PDD). Clearing limits imposed, cluster design could be mandated preserving a large chunk of the land as open space and reducing the total lot sizes.

The Town and Pine Barrens can have push for the new I/A sanitary systems, among other things.

The ...more
By Nature (2963), Southampton on Dec 7, 17 9:13 AM
Nature, clearing limits, fertilized areas, sanitary loads, etc. for the as-of-right development were studied in the DEIS/FEIS, and met the required threshold for adequacy under SEQRA. It’s doubtful there is much more analysis required. The more difficult question is how will the Town, with an approved positive Findings Statement supporting the proposed PDD application, now wrestle with and justify an alternative development assessed during a full SERQA review (as an alternative) to have greater ...more
By Lion (260), southampton on Dec 8, 17 7:04 AM
1 member liked this comment
The town doesn't have to wrestle with anything.
DLC requested a zone change with their PDD, that request was denied.

Any other project is just that, a new project that exists under current laws and zoning. Not so hard.
By adlkjd923ilifmac.aladfksdurwp (424), southampton on Dec 8, 17 9:27 AM
1 member liked this comment
What? Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
By Draggerman (689), Southampton on Dec 13, 17 8:21 PM
I live in EQ for 18 Years and I am really Happy that this Tasteless, Water Pollutant project is dead!!!!! Thank You God and Southampton Town!!!!
By photo (4), east quogue on Dec 6, 17 6:06 PM
3 members liked this comment
a good result
By kuali (23), southampton on Dec 7, 17 11:30 AM
If the "Hills" land is so critical to the acquirer and maintaining the water quality in the Town of Southampton, the Community Preservation Fund (CPF) should up their offer from the $35 million that was turned down and pay the owner a higher price for the 600 acre property. The CPF fund was used to purchase a 1 acre $4 million dollar lot on Lake Agawam a few years ago so why can't they up their offer for an East Quogue parcel that is larger than all the other potential purchases available in the ...more
By Ernie (70), Hampton Bays on Dec 7, 17 1:30 PM
The Town can legally only offer what the land appraises for. Without the PDD approval, the land has no change in value and thus the appraisal will not be higher. Unfortunately, the cost of the project is such that a not-for-profit such as Peconic Land Trust can't swoop in and offer a higher amount as they are not bound by the CPF laws
By Nature (2963), Southampton on Dec 7, 17 2:13 PM
All i can tell you is Peconic Land Trust should mind there own dam business! I lost a job last year because they recommended an out of state vendor for a job I was bidding on.. Nice why to support your community ? Why would you do such a thing? It is me that has to live in the Hampton's and pay crazy labor and material prices ???

What are you getting a kick back ????
By Undocumented Democrat (1543), southampton on Dec 7, 17 4:34 PM
..there is always eminent domain
By zappy (46), east quogue on Dec 7, 17 2:02 PM
1 member liked this comment
CPF rules require willing seller. Precludes condemnation
By aging hipster (130), Southampton on Dec 8, 17 6:37 AM
Is DLC a sore loser who will spend time on diminshed profits in EQ or will cooler minds prevail in Arizona? They should accept a CPF offer and move on to other more advantageous projects elsewhere with larger profits. We shall see if they make the intelligent business decision.
By Taz (316), East Quogue on Dec 9, 17 10:43 AM
1 member liked this comment
Are you seriously saying you are know more about their business than they do and you know what the "smart" decision is? How of those posting have run businesses much less a development business this size, but yet you all seem to think you should tell people how to run their business. They may leave just because they can't deal with the small town narrow minded mentality this project seems to have highlighted in our community. Unless you all have a time machine, you can't go back to 1950.
By HB Proud (781), Hampton Bays on Dec 9, 17 4:07 PM
1 member liked this comment
Respectfully Taz, it will never happen. DLC is going to build and now they will have a turn and burn attitude. EQ screwed them out of there well notated PDD. Now they are going to develope garbage homes and sell them to whoever! You people should have excepted the lesser of to evils.

Golfers are the kind of folk who would have spent $ in your town, they are the kind of people most places are trying to attract, but not you guys, lol go figure ?
By They call me (2174), southampton on Dec 9, 17 4:13 PM
So far no comments fromHissey,question is how spiteful is DLC vs EQ? Obviously my postings here are my opinions, do I have to say IMO every time I post?
By Taz (316), East Quogue on Dec 10, 17 11:25 AM
a developer NEVER has a guarantee of a change of zone , let alone a change to a PDD. They speculated incorrectly , thems the breaks.
By bigfresh (3029), north sea on Dec 9, 17 5:04 PM
1 member liked this comment
Great votes by John Bouvier and Julie Lofstad. By killing this project, they saved our town. They deserve our profound thanks.

Offer the developer nothing until the “as of right” application goes through the Planning Board, the Pine Barrens Commission, and the whole SEQRA process. What emerges from all that may not be worth so much, and the CPF should get a bargain.
By Turkey Bridge (1762), Quiogue on Dec 9, 17 5:42 PM
1 member liked this comment
PRESERVE SANDY HOLLOW WITH CPF FUNDS !!!!!!
By pw herman (727), southampton on Dec 11, 17 10:50 AM
Sandy Hollow is a fully funded, state sponsored, middle income complex. The funding ($30 million as I recall) is bundled with the Speonk 38 unit complex that will break ground in the coming weeks. Both projects approved and funded, both will be built. Each will offer rentals for folks making $37K to $86K annually. You can argue about govt's place in housing if you like, but "overturning Sandy Hollow" and "CPF for Sandy Hollow" simply will not happen. Meet with the builder and ask him about the program ...more
By Craigcat (187), Speonk on Dec 11, 17 12:01 PM
There is a large section 8 component to this project that will prevent this from being middle income residency and will destroy the immediate area. The neighbors and locals don't want it and that should have been enough. The corrupt politicians should not be flying their freak flag here.
By pw herman (727), southampton on Dec 12, 17 9:18 AM
///////--------////////
--------
{{{{{_____}}}}}}}
By Summer Resident (209), Southampton Town, NY on Dec 9, 17 11:08 PM
I guess Lion isn't getting paid to respond here anymore...
By adlkjd923ilifmac.aladfksdurwp (424), southampton on Dec 10, 17 6:27 PM
Lion was asked a number of times if he had ties to DLC, but never answered the question. The lack of answer telling and his points of views taken with more than a few grains of salt.
By Craigcat (187), Speonk on Dec 11, 17 10:32 AM
1 member liked this comment
Alphabet Soup and C-cat, I guess it took two of you to post, since a single half wit wouldn’t have provoked a response.
If you believe I’ve lost interest in the outcome of this debacle the Town Board thinks is over, you’re both quite wrong. Not surprising since you’ve been wrong 99 percent of the time, with a 1- percent human error added in. If you’ve paid attention to the fine print, as I posted above, the applicant has a SEQRA positive findings statement on which ...more
By Lion (260), southampton on Dec 11, 17 7:01 PM
Conspicuously missing from that comment is a confirmation or denial of ties to DLC.
By Fore1gnBornHBgrown (675), HAMPTON BAYS on Dec 11, 17 7:20 PM
What is your point RE: SEQRA? If DLC pursues an AOR development, it will still be a positive declaration and still require an EIS (which will largely have been written already). The Planning Board and staffers would need to determine based on the merits of the application, if a significant environmental impact will occur and if the mitigation measures offered are adequate enough to offset said environmental impacts.

While it's not starting over from ground zero, nothing is a done deal. ...more
By Nature (2963), Southampton on Dec 12, 17 9:36 AM
Nature, you’re clearly knowledgeable about the EIS process but appear to prejudice the truth about the SEQRA process and scrutiny of the Hills EIS. Applicant’s do not skew the outcome of an EIS because it is subject to public review and in this case reviewed by the Town staff, it’s professional consultants and of course the 100s of hours (belch) by the Board.... nothing indicates it was twisted for the best outcome... quite the opposite when the bar was continuously raised by ...more
By Lion (260), southampton on Dec 12, 17 8:53 PM
Your last sentence is precisely my point. IF DLC seeks to build their AOR, they will have to demonstrate that what they propose does not cause a significant environmental impact that cannot be overcome by mitigation measures. Just because there is an "as-of-right" proposal, does not mean it cannot be denied or strongly scaled down to meet the requirements of the law.

My guess is that IF DLC seeks to build AOR, their EIS will have a rosier view of their proposed development than the previous ...more
By Nature (2963), Southampton on Dec 13, 17 9:16 AM
** correction: Solidified not solicited
By Lion (260), southampton on Dec 11, 17 7:03 PM
Lion, as an adult I will ignore your childish need for insult and sarcasm and hope that you can focus all of your attention to answering the following question:
Do you have professional or personal ties to DLC?
Please answer directly, without grandstanding or long winded diatribes.
Also, please find the post where I stated that DLC does not have a SEQRA positive finding statements. As a half wit, I may have lost track of things that I've said, maybe because I never did.
By Craigcat (187), Speonk on Dec 11, 17 7:42 PM
If you compare the comments written by 'lion' to those written by 'mark hissey' throughout this debate you do see a lot of similarities. Overlapping phrasing, word choices, defensiveness, etc...

I would guess that DLC finally asked Mark to quit arguing with anon internet commenters without using a pseudonym.
By adlkjd923ilifmac.aladfksdurwp (424), southampton on Dec 12, 17 8:55 AM
Freudian slip if ever there was one.
By Taz (316), East Quogue on Dec 12, 17 11:07 AM
C-cat- Ok , acceptance of SEQRA Positive Findings Statement by the Town Board, resolution 2017-906 on Dec 05, 2017 and a vote called; there were 3-yes votes and 2-no votes. And under a majority rule, that resolution was adopted. It's in the books.
Pull your brain trust together, and correct me if there was an error in the math.
As I have stated in the past my purpose is to convey the facts- funny how you, Wordy Gurdy perhaps others fail to volunteer who you work for and what special interests ...more
By Lion (260), southampton on Dec 12, 17 6:11 PM
I work for myself. I'm following this file because it's interesting and I think a private golf course on that land is a pathetic waste. To that I turn to my town board, who shot the PDD down. I also know the zoning restrictions and don't see the AOR model as viable in spite of DLC's claims. I'm certainly not alone on that judging by the many posts on the subject. It's my opinion that the current AOR model is just another bad idea. I'm sorry if that makes your hair burn. I've seen firsthand how large ...more
By Craigcat (187), Speonk on Dec 13, 17 2:43 PM
What does it matter who Lion is in reality? The writer is clearly connected to Discovery in one way or another. If you want to imagine it’s Mark Hissey, or Discovery’s counsel, or one of the company’s several consultants, it’s all the same.
By Turkey Bridge (1762), Quiogue on Dec 12, 17 12:39 PM
It matters in that he presents a singular and rigid point of view, assuming building mandates based on AOR zoning. It's a scare tactic and consistent with DLC methods. Knowing he's arguing on behalf of his or DLC's interests at least gives people an opportunity to pause and consider the source. That and most of his posts start with a personal attack on whoever he's debating with. If he's a DLC guy, then I wouldn't want to do business with him based on that character flaw alone.
By Craigcat (187), Speonk on Dec 12, 17 1:54 PM
I don't really care who 'lion' is either.
By adlkjd923ilifmac.aladfksdurwp (424), southampton on Dec 12, 17 2:59 PM
C-Cat and TB- Really? where did I make those statements exactly?
You don't actually debate... careful how far you go with speculation and hypothetical nonsense ...collect information before suggesting my post uses "scare tactics" " or "rigid point of view" -
The town zoning code permits the AOR use, and it is somewhat clear that there is no "alternative" but to follow the code- isn't that what the opposition wanted?
By Lion (260), southampton on Dec 12, 17 6:26 PM
Agree completely, Craigcat, and I'm prepared to spend whatever amount of time it takes debating him to demonstrate the weakness of his position. I just don't believe that I or any of us should waste time speculating on who he is in reality. He's an unwavering and apparently tireless DLC supporter, and that's enough.
By Turkey Bridge (1762), Quiogue on Dec 12, 17 4:28 PM
1 member liked this comment
The level of paranoia and conspiracy theory talk here is absolutely hilarious. Theorize away everyone.

Lion seems to be a very level-headed, sensible, knowledgeable and dilligent person. I'd love to meet him/her one day. What I can assure you is that your forensic efforts between Lion and me are totally off the mark.

Debate away TB. I won't spend much time on you. I'm confident that Lion will give you a run for your money because h/she does deal in facts and not in illusions ...more
By Mark Hissey (167), East Quogue on Dec 13, 17 12:43 AM
Mark, Lion...what do you intend to do about all of the phosphorus???
By adlkjd923ilifmac.aladfksdurwp (424), southampton on Dec 13, 17 7:53 AM
In the town election that Damon Hagan ran for town board, I was accused of being Damon’s alter ego... by none other than TB himself. He’s not too good at outing people...
By Draggerman (689), Southampton on Dec 13, 17 8:30 PM
... I'm sure.
By William Rodney (465), southampton on Dec 13, 17 7:40 AM
Build as of right Hissey, good luck selling multimillion dollar homes on 5 acres up in Spinney Hills.
By bigfresh (3029), north sea on Dec 13, 17 8:31 AM
3 members liked this comment
See there it is, right there in Mark Hissey’s concluding sentence above: “Are you sure about your property-rights deprivation strategy?”

That’s the very core of it. These guys at Discovery think that since they have legal title to the land, that gives them “property rights” entitling them to do any old thing they believe will yield profit.

It’s not so, and they know it’s not so, despite all their protestations about “property ...more
By Turkey Bridge (1762), Quiogue on Dec 13, 17 1:22 PM
3 members liked this comment
Turkey, care to elaborate on exactly what State,County and Town laws were violated under the PDD application? I recall the Town law permitted an application for a PDD, the County Heath Department required proper sanitary disposal and water supply (which the application exceeded the standards for), the State permits golf courses and residential development of this type in the Pine Barrens Compatible Growth Area (providing it meets clearing and fertilizer limits, which the Hills EIS showed that it ...more
By Lion (260), southampton on Dec 13, 17 7:10 PM
Key word here is "application",NOT"approval":"Town law permitted an application for a PDD" - DUH
By Taz (316), East Quogue on Dec 14, 17 11:51 AM
Alphabet soup, if you please, what phosphorus are you asking about?
By Lion (260), southampton on Dec 13, 17 2:01 PM
Lion , the developer had no guarantee of a change of zone to a PDD. Period, the end.
By bigfresh (3029), north sea on Dec 14, 17 6:18 AM
3 members liked this comment
Harbor Hot Tubs, Holiday Special