2 Photos
Ed Romaine
Ed Romaine. EXPRESS FILE
The Central Pine Barrens Commission is set to meet on Wednesday afternoon, January 20, and cast perhaps the most meaningful vote in its history, signing off on the largest development proposed in the environmentally sensitive Pine Barrens region that it oversees.
Ed Romaine is one member of that five-member panel — though there are currently only four members, since Carrie Meek Gallagher, the commission’s chair and Governor Andrew Cuomo’s representative, resigned just weeks before and has not been replaced.
Mr. Romaine, a former Suffolk County legislator and currently the supervisor of Brookhaven Town, consistently has raised issues with the proposal by Discovery Land Company for an exclusive 118-unit golf course and resort on nearly 600 acres in East Quogue.
The proposal before Southampton Town regulatory boards, formerly called The Hills at Southampton and now officially known as the Lewis Road Residential Planned Development, is within an area of the Pine Barrens where development is permitted — with the commission’s approval.
Mr. Romaine has argued the project has been a moving target that has changed so much that it should start from square one with the commission. He and Ms. Gallagher have been the lone dissenting voices at the table, saying the project doesn’t meet the standards of the Pine Barrens Act; on Wednesday, he likely will stand alone.
Mr. Romaine discussed the project via Zoom on Friday.
Q: The commission’s meeting on Wednesday — what do you expect to happen?
Well, I expect that they will probably approve this project and say it meets the requirements. And the reason we had a meeting the previous Wednesday was so staff would be able to prepare a document that would go along with the majority view.
It was unfortunate that the governor’s representative … that the governor did not appoint a representative to attend this meeting, so there were only four members: myself, [Southampton Town] Supervisor [Jay] Schneiderman, [Riverhead Town] Supervisor [Yvette] Aguiar, and Dorian Dale, representing the Suffolk County executive.
And all of the votes, on every pile, were 3-1, with myself objecting because I did not feel it met the requirements. I know some of them, I did feel it did, so about five or six of them I felt met the requirement. But, the others, I did not.
Q: You’ve stated all along that you believe this application has changed significantly enough as the review continues, that it really needs to be reintroduced again, correct?
Absolutely. I’ve never seen an application like this that constantly changed. Every time we came close to making a decision, over the last — and this has been with me since I started with the Pine Barrens [Commission], almost eight years ago. Every time we came close to making a decision, and they could see that the decision wasn’t going in their favor, I would assume — I made that assumption — they submitted a revision.
Q: Why does it make a difference if we start over at this point? How might that affect the final outcome?
Well, obviously … I know the thinking of my fellow commissioners. It probably will not affect the outcome.
But, at least it would have had a clean start, and we would not have confused so many other things. Because there was so many standards that we were looking at that seemed to change as this application changed — as the layout changed, as the fragmentation of open space changed, as the sewage treatment plan changed, as steep slopes changed, the impact of the golf course and nitrogen. As expert testimony … on the nitrogen impact … Dr. [Christopher] Gobler [of Stony Brook University] said that this project really is not a project that should be built [if] you’re concerned about nitrogen loading.
Q: And you maintain that the standards set by the Pine Barrens Act are not met by this project?
That’s correct. … I sent [a memo] to my fellow commissioners and the staff, what my issues were.
Q: How do you compare this project to other projects that you’ve had to review on the Pine Barrens Commission?
Well, the other projects I had to review on the Pine Barrens Commission were pretty straightforward — either they met the standard or they didn’t. And there was no opportunity to keep on resubmitting, resubmitting, resubmitting … I would say that this was a very high-profile project that did not want to die.
… I attempted to call a vote for this back in October, in opposition to this, because I felt we should not consider it any longer, because it did not meet the standards. And, in that vote, I was supported by the governor’s representative, the regional director [of the State Department of Environmental Conservation], Carrie Meek Gallagher, who, just before this meeting, was given another title, and no one else represented the governor at this meeting.
Q: And Ms. Gallagher was the lone other potential “no” vote on this project, correct?
That’s correct.
Q: Her replacement won’t be seated in time for a vote on Wednesday, correct?
I don’t think we’ll see her replacement for a while.
Q: Did this project get the same level of consideration of other projects, more …
Absolutely not.
Q: It got less?
So much more consideration. So much more … So much more consideration that it was a project that just did not want to die. No matter how evident it was, particularly at the beginning, that so many of the standards of the original project, The Hills, did not meet the Pine Barrens requirements.
Q: So, it got a different level of interest from the commission. Why did that happen?
I really don’t know. I assume that many of the people who were backing this project had financial resources in others to make the case that it did comply with the Pine Barrens Act. I did not feel it complied.
I don’t live in Southampton, but I did not feel that … I spent some time looking at this. I felt it did not meet the standards that we normally would apply to projects.
Q: Was there political pressure applied throughout this process?
No, as far as I’m concerned. I don’t know about the other commissioners. You would have to ask them. But I had no political pressure.
At the very beginning of this process, when it was The Hills, I did get a call from an ex-governor of the state, an ex-DEC commissioner. But it was a very friendly call, and it was many years ago, and since that time I haven’t gotten any calls
And people know what my opinion is on this — I tend to favor protecting the environment whenever it’s possible.
Q: Are you worried about the precedent that approval may set?
Tremendously worried, because when you make decisions like this, it can be used by others to justify and to litigate if the decision doesn’t go in their favor. And they can point out things in this application that I think would allow things that normally the Pine Barrens [Commission] would object to, and even may still reject in the future. But, to be litigated in all the terms.
Q: It really raises the bar on the size of proposals, as well, doesn’t it? I mean, this is the biggest proposal you’ve ever had before the commission, that is about to be approved.
It is the biggest proposal, and if you quote Dick Amper, who is the executive director of the Pine Barrens Society: “This is the biggest and baddest project to ever come before the Pine Barrens Commission.” … I try to take a detached view, and I try to look at the Pine Barrens Act and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. … I was very specific where I felt that this application fell short of that. This many-times-revised application, in its current form, despite its attempt to meet the requirements, still fell short. But, obviously, my fellow colleagues disagree with that.
Q: And now we go to court?
Well, I don’t know. I thought from the very get-go that this was going to be litigated, because there are strong feelings on either side, and you have a developer with deep pockets, and you have environmental groups such as the Pine Barrens Society and the Group for the East End who are deeply committed to seeing this project not built.
Q: So, you think it’s likely that whichever way this decision was going to go, this was all going to end up in court?
I believe that there’s a very good chance that this will be litigated. But, again, when you get into litigation, it’s not about the issues that the Pine Barrens Commission considers, it’s about a whole host of other things.
Q: As a town supervisor, can you, in some way, empathize with the situation that Jay Schneiderman is in? In the sense of having a project of this magnitude proposed, and it definitely brings some economic aspects with it.
I have a certain amount of empathy. Jay, in a review meeting this past Wednesday, was very specific on why he felt it met the requirements, and was very careful to go over things.
I’ve known Jay a long time, as you know — I was Jay’s seventh grade social studies teacher in another life.
Q: Where was that?
In Hauppauge. I taught in the Hauppauge school system many, many years ago, in the 1970s, a long time ago. Should have stayed with teaching — I would have been long retired at 74.
But, he did a good job explaining why he thought it met the criteria.
But, I still remember when Jay and I were legislators — I represented the 1st District, and he the 2nd, for the East End. And Jay mentioned The Hills to me — it’s the first time I heard about it — and … “bad project.” He said, “We should see what we can do to buy it.” And he came to me — I have never said no to an acquisition — and I said, “Absolutely, Jay, I’m 100 percent behind you.”
But, I guess things changed over the years
And I think Jay did a good job of representing his point of view. I did disagree with it. There were some, four or five items that I agreed with, standards where I felt they met the standard. But the overwhelming majority of the standards, I felt they did not meet the criteria to be approved by the Pine Barrens Commission.
Q: That’s been Jay’s position, that he still prefers preservation over anything else. But that they don’t have a willing seller.
… I want to see as much of Long Island preserved. I don’t want to see all the development. I’m concerned about many of the things that we’re confronted with, particularly with the nitrogen impact of development on all local bays.
So, I have a point of view, and people can be critical of it. I try to make my point of view as best as I can. I have got respect for my fellow commissioners and I look forward to working with them in the future.
I’m just concerned about the potential precedent that this sets, and I think that there will be a litigation on this matter. And I hope that doesn’t undermine the credibility or the good work that the Pine Barrens Commission tried to build.
