FARRAH MAFFAI Sharon Burnham, executive director of the Monmouth Conservation Foundation, Middletown, takes her turn at the microphone at a public hearing at Sandy Hook’s Post Theater Saturday on the proposed adaptive reuse development of Fort Hancock.
A last-minute effort by state Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D) may keep the historic buildings on Fort Hancock out of the hands of a private developer.
Pallone said at a public meeting on Saturday, which was held to discuss plans to redevelop Fort Hancock, that Monmouth County residents don’t want to see sprawl extend to Sandy Hook and called for a last-ditch effort to find an alternative to private development of the public land.
He noted that Sandy Hook is the last piece of undeveloped shoreline in Monmouth County.
"Maybe at the eleventh hour there is some way to put together some alternative by the state, county and private organizations," he said.
"In Monmouth County, people every day are worried about overdevelopment. They see high-density development and they always saw Sandy Hook as a place that would be beyond that," he said before almost 100 people who attended the meeting held at the Post Theater on Fort Hancock.
"The race for ratables and office construction has lessened the quality of life," concurred Judith Stanley Coleman, chairwoman of the Monmouth Conservation Foundation, Middletown, and the most prominent opponent of a plan to commercialize some of the historic Fort Hancock buildings.
"We already have a glut of open office space," she said, referring to tens of thousands of square feet of local office space vacated by Lucent Technologies, AT&T and other companies.
During the four-hour public meeting, a panel of park service representatives fielded questions from the public, many of whom expressed frustration with the continued resistance to provide information about the rehabilitation proposals.
More than two dozen individuals commented at the hearing on the environmental impact of the plan to redevelop historic Fort Hancock and its surrounds. Out of 22 development proposals submitted, the park service chose a plan by private developer Sandy Hook Partners LLC and a proposal by the American Littoral Society to rehabilitate its Sandy Hook headquarters.
"This proposal will take public lands out of public hands and put them in private pockets for 60 years," said Holmdel resident Carole Balmer, referring to a tentative 60-year historic lease agreement between the National Park Service and Sandy Hook Partners.
"We’re trying to figure out whether this project is good for the environment and we still don’t know enough about it," said environmentalist Stephen Knowlton. "We need more information. This process keeps going on and on because it didn’t come out in a full manner from the beginning."
"Our gravest concern is the park service’s poor record at public process," said Ann Roemmele, president of Monmouth County Friends of Clearwater, calling for a standing committee with public representation to ensure public process and monitor the proposed development.
Pallone told the meeting he’s struggled to understand the public outcry over the National Park Service proposal for Fort Hancock.
"It’s not just the people who are here," he told the meeting. "A lot of people call my office or walk up to me. People are very fearful of the proposal chosen. They fear if it doesn’t work out… the developer will want to build more."
A third public hearing may be necessary, he said, because people did not have time to study the findings in a traffic study released only a day before the meeting.
Pallone, like several others who commented, was critical of the traffic study carried out at his behest by the Eastern Lands Federal Highway Division of the National Highway Administration.
The study, which most members of the public did not see until the meeting, concluded the development would have "no negative traffic operations impact," basing its findings mainly on improvements planned by the state Department of Transportation to an existing Route 36 bridge.
"It bothered me" Pallone said of the study, "because it assumed certain things are going to happen, like the bridge. But that isn’t scheduled until 2006. It concerned me that it is depending on that happening, given the fact that the state has little money. It is presumptuous to assume it will be built by 2006. Is the public infrastructure like this bridge really going to be there?"
The environmental assessment of the plan, prepared by the park service in conjunction with the developer, concluded the redevelopment and the infrastructure necessary to support it would have no significant environmental impact on areas of concern, including traffic and threatened and endangered birds and plants.
The park service maintains it does not have the funding to prevent loss of the deteriorating buildings and a public/private partnership is a way to do that.
"We’re asking the public not to invest your money," said Michael Adlerstein, associate regional director for the northeast region of the park service, at the meeting. "We’re asking for the concept of the re-use of the buildings. The Fort Hancock buildings are deteriorating and they are national landmarks. We are required by law to find a solution. We have a $4.5 billion backlog of work that needs to be funded."
Comments were limited to three minutes and some who had signed up to speak gave their time slot away so others could have more time to get answers from panel members.
One speaker whose comments on stewardship of the environment went well beyond the time limit was escorted from the podium by park service personnel. The meeting was monitored by the League of Women Voters.
At the behest of Pallone, the park service agreed to release all proposals submitted plus the draft lease, to hold two public hearings on the environmental assessment, and extend the public comment period until June 15.
In his comments, the Democratic congressman criticized the lack of government funding for National Park Service properties.
"It concerns me that the National Park Service doesn’t have enough money to fix up the buildings and operate them as the park service," he said, drawing applause from the audience.
Pallone said he wants to sit down with the park service and Stanley Coleman "to see if there is some way to repackage this to keep it without office buildings."
He acknowledged it is late in the historic lease process. "It’s the eleventh hour and the National Park Service has its back to the wall. They’ve got to fix up those buildings," he said.
"One more time, before the decision is made, we have the opportunity to see if there’s some way to do it differently," he said, adding that last minute intervention years earlier had brought the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration lab to Sandy Hook.
Acknowledging that the effort may not work out, he said that he would at least like to see some nonprofits brought into the plan.
"Proposals by nonprofits like the Monmouth County Friends of Clearwater and the Aids Resource Foundation for Children were rejected, and that bothered me," he said.
The nonprofits formerly had seasonal leases for buildings on Fort Hancock, which were terminated in anticipation of the development.
"Those already here should have been given a break," Pallone said. "I ask the park service to see if they could incorporate them in the plan again.
"My perception is we don’t want things to change very much as to what national parks are all about — for people to enjoy," he said, again eliciting applause.
Roemmele said the Monmouth County Friends of Clearwater supports saving the historic buildings on Fort Hancock.
"However, if saving them means excessive commercialization and loss of public access, we would rather let them go," she said.
The environmental group had offices on Fort Hancock for 25 years until a change in park service regulations prohibiting the sale of goods forced the move of its annual Clearwater Festival off Sandy Hook. The group’s proposal for a building was one of the 20 rejected.
Roemmele also criticized the government’s failure to fund rehabilitation of the buildings.
"Had this park been properly funded and managed for the past 25 years, we would not be facing this crisis," she said.
The group’s concerns, she said, include the financial viability of the project and whether the projected revenues it will generate will actually remain at Sandy Hook — a concept she called "naive at best" — or be diverted to other park service properties.
Paul Kaylor, Highlands, a member of the Sandy Hook Foundation Board, said the park service has acted responsibly in coming up with a successful model to save the deteriorating buildings.
Gregory Harquail, mayor of Sea Bright, appeared for the second time to "personally, wholeheartedly support this proposal." He noted that the Two River Council of Mayors, a group of mayors from area towns, recently has endorsed the Sandy Hook Partners proposal. "It’s long overdue," he added.
Stephen Knowlton, Fair Haven, chairman of the Jersey Shore group of the Sierra Club, raised concerns about the terms of the proposed historic lease which, he said, are missing from the draft lease made available to the public, citing exclusion of compensation terms, design and construction documents, construction schedule and other specifics.
Adlerstein responded that the draft lease was missing information because it has not been finalized.
Sharon Burnham, executive director of the Monmouth Conservation Foundation, reiterated the request that easements be placed on the Fort Hancock properties to ensure development does not go beyond what is outlined in the current proposal, and asked for a public oversight committee.
Wilson responded that safeguards are already in place in federal law and that it would take an act of Congress to put easements on the federal property.
"We, the people own the national parks. It is us," she said. "We have a right to demand that our parks be protected from being commercialized. The process has been way out of line and patronizing, and I resent it."