'The Hills' PDD Vote Could Happen Just Before Election Day--If County Panel Moves Quickly

A final vote on a proposal for a luxury golf course resort community in East Quogue now appears likely to be delayed until nearly Election Day—if not after.

Approval of the findings statement, a document that marks the end of the mandated State Environmental Quality Review process, won’t happen before Thursday, October 19, at a special Town Board meeting at East Quogue Elementary School on Central Avenue in East Quogue, starting at 6 p.m.

But Southampton Town Supervisor Jay Schneiderman said that in order to take a final vote on whether Discovery Land Company is granted a special zoning designation, a planned development district, for the proposed development, “The Hills at Southampton,” the Town Board also must have comments from the Suffolk County Planning Commission.

The referral from the town was received by the Planning Commission on October 2, but it will not be discussed by the county panel until its meeting on the afternoon of November 1—just six days before a town election that includes the supervisor post and two Town Board seats.

Mr. Schneiderman said he was “optimistic” that a vote would happen before Election Day.

“I’d like to try to vote by November 2,” Mr. Schneiderman said in a recent interview. “But if we don’t get the comments [from the Planning Commission], we will have to wait.”

Arizona-based Discovery Land Company is asking the Town Board for a special change of zone, called a planned development district, or PDD, to build 118 units and an 18-hole golf course along Spinney Road in East Quogue.

The supervisor said in late August that he’d hoped for a vote before the end of September.

But a planned vote on the findings statement was tabled at a September 26 meeting after Town Board members John Bouvier and Julie Lofstad both said they would vote against its adoption. Although a 3-2 vote would approve the findings statement, it likely would mean the resulting PDD—which requires a supermajority of four votes—would not have enough support.

The supervisor opted not to hold a vote on the findings statement, pulling it off the table to rework it.

An updated findings statement was made available to the public on October 3—exactly one week after the meeting. The original document discussed in the meeting the week prior, however, has not been released to The Press, even though it was the subject of a Freedom of Information Law request.

Connie Conway, chief of staff to the supervisor, who released the updated findings statement, said the original would have to be issued by the town’s Planning Department. Principal Planner Janice Scherer, in turn, said the document would need to be obtained from the town clerk’s office via a FOIL request. The request was filed on October 4 and has yet to be honored.

The new findings statement was written to be “positive,” meaning that it determines that the project avoids or minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent possible.

The 12-page statement was prepared for the town by AKRF, an environmental engineering company hired by the municipality, and Martin Petrovic, a town consultant.

“Based on an independent review of the proposed project, it is concluded that with the above measures in place, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts on groundwater or surface waters,” the document reads.

In addition to reviewing the final environmental impact statement, which was already deemed complete by the town, the statement adds additional measures to limit pollution to the groundwater. Also included in the statement were a number of conditions of approval, mandates that would be incorporated into the local law approving the PDD.

One condition in the statement would give the town the right to monitor the developer’s Integrated Turf Health Management Plan, or ITHMP, which includes the use of liners under the greens on the golf course to capture polluted drainage water. In the developer’s plans, it would recycle that already polluted water to irrigate the golf course.

Under the condition, the town would limit the ITHMP to minimize the amount of fertilizer used to no more than 2.5 pounds per 1,000 square feet on the greens, and 1 pound per 1,000 square feet in the rough and in residential areas.

As per the proposed PDD law, the developer could be subject to a “substantial fine” if it does not comply with the fertilizer standards.

The findings statement also imposes a condition that puts added restrictions—on top of Department of Environmental Conservation conditions—on pesticides used at the development.

The findings statement also shows the applicant pitching 118 units—differing from the 117 units in the FEIS. Mr. Schneiderman explained that the town passed a law a couple of months ago that patches a loophole in a state law that allows a developer to lower its density in lieu of paying into an affordable housing fund.

Now that the loophole was closed, the developer would be able to build 118 units—although it also will have to pay approximately $2.6 million into a town affordable housing fund. That fund can be used for various programs, including building affordable apartments or offering benefits to first-time homebuyers.

The findings statement also addresses most of Mr. Schneiderman’s own 10 criteria for analyzing the project—which includes environmental impacts, as well as potential impacts on traffic, the East Quogue School District, and property taxes.

Mr. Schneiderman said he is in support of the new findings statement, though it was not immediately clear earlier this week where the rest of the Town Board stands on the document. Most of the members of the board were still in the process of analyzing the detailed document when reached this week.

The stance of each of the Town Board members on the document will be vital, as findings statements are generally indicators as to how the Town Board will vote on the final proposal—typically, a town official wouldn’t reject a findings statement but then vote in favor of a project, or vice versa.

The November 7 election involves the seats currently occupied by Mr. Schneiderman, Ms. Lofstad and Town Board member Stan Glinka.