New attorney seeks to amend Sandy Hook suit

Would add violations

of historic preservation, environmental acts

BY LIZ SHEEHAN

Correspondent

An attorney for Save Sandy Hook (SSH), a grass-roots organization formed to block the commercial development of historic Fort Hancock on Sandy Hook, will go to U.S. District Court in Trenton on Dec. 18 to ask for permission to file an amended complaint in the group's attempt to overturn a 60-year lease granted to a developer for at least 36 buildings at the fort.

In July, U.S. District Court Judge Mary L. Cooper issued a decision dismissing the suit by SSH and Monmouth County Friends of Clearwater, an environmental organization formerly headquartered at Fort Hancock, that challenged the lease the National Park Service (NPS) signed with developer James Wassel, Rumson, in 2004.

Wassel plans to renovate the buildings for use as offices, restaurants, overnight accommodations, conference centers and environmental and educational facilities.

Cooper's decision said the two groups had not sufficiently proved they had standing to bring the suit.

In her decision, she said "assertions of a generalized and alleged violation ... does not communicate how the plaintiffs have been individually injured by the defendants' actions."

The judge gave the plaintiffs 60 days to appeal her decision, which was extended because of a change of the attorney representing the two groups.

Lawrence Luttrell, Atlantic Highlands, the new attorney for SSH, who will appear before Cooper on Dec. 18, said last week that his "motion to refile the case with leave to amend the complaint" has three separate counts: violation of the National Historic Preservation Act, violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, and violation of the acts establishing the national parks and the Gateway National Recreation Area.

He said that although there was a multimillion-dollar development planned, there was no Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared for the project. He pointed out that the park service had been asked to do an EIS for a much smaller project, the planned move of a walkway at Sandy Hook.

The NPS has issued a statement saying that after a study, it was determined that the Wassel project would not have a substantial effect on the environment, so no EIS was required.

But Luttrell said that the 1,000 extra people expected to be at the fort daily as well as the additional parking spaces needed, both a result of the project, could adversely impact the environment there.

He cited the presence of the piping plover, a protected shore bird at Sandy Hook, that could be affected.

The extra people attracted to the park would not "just stay in their parking spaces," he said, and their cars would add to the air pollution there.

The amended complaint states that the Sandy Hook Unit "represents a unique, uncommercialized outdoor recreation area within easy reach for millions of people living within the Greater New York metropolitan area, providing the opportunity to observe numerous species of waterfowl and shorebirds that use the area as a nesting ground and to experience one of the only remaining natural coastal habitats of its type and size in the region.

"For many of these people, Gateway will offer the only real hope that they might ever have to visit a unit of the national park system," the complaint said, quoting from the reasons given by Congress for establishing Gateway in 1977.

The complaint, which names Save Sandy Hook and James Coleman Jr. as plaintiffs, said that the park service "is charged with promoting and regulating the use of the federal areas known as national parks, monuments and reservations by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose" of these areas, "which is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such a manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."

The complaint also said that the plaintiff, Coleman, who is an officer in SSH, and other members of SSH "have visited and traveled within" Sandy Hook "in the past for aesthetic recreation and scientific purposes, and these and other members intend to continue or initiate such activities in the future."

It said "Save Sandy Hook members and staff include local residents with educational, scientific, research, moral, spiritual and recreational interests in the Sandy Hook Unit."

Another plaintiff, the complaint said, has an interest "as a citizen and user of Sandy Hook to see that Sandy Hook and the Fort Hancock district are used for the purposes established by the Gateway Act and not turned over to commercial interests inimical to those purposes."

Ronald Hekscht, the attorney for Wassel, wrote a letter to Cooper opposing extending the period in which the groups could appeal her decision.

He was not available for comment on the amended complaint.

Representatives of the park service could not be reached for comment.

Wassel's controversial proposal has met with opposition from those who say that commercial development will cause damage to the unique environment in the park and increase traffic in an area already severely impacted by park traffic.

Those who support the proposal say it is the only way to fund the renovation of the buildings since the park service lacks the funds for the work.