Hook advocates will appeal court rejection District Court says developer's lease stands BY LIZ SHEEHAN Correspondent Save Sandy Hook will appeal a U.S. District Court decision that rejected the group's complaint that a developer's lease for historic buildings at Fort Hancock is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or not otherwise in accordance with law." The grassroots organization formed to block commercial development on Sandy Hook went to court to overturn a 60-year lease awarded by the National Park Service (NPS) to James Wassel, a Rumson developer, to commercially develop 36 or more buildings at Fort Hancock. Last week, a spokesman for the group said it would appeal the court's Sept. 13 decision that rejected Save Sandy Hook's challenge. "We're going to appeal this case," James M. Coleman Jr., an officer in SSH and a plaintiff in the case, said last week. Coleman, a former state assemblyman, Superior Court judge and county prosecutor, said, "We disagree with the judge. We have the right to appeal." He said the appeal would be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In a 56-page decision Sept. 13, Judge Mary L. Cooper said the "NPS has considerable discretion to administer, use and lease the properties it is tasked with protecting as long as it complies with applicable environmental laws." She said "The issuance of the FONSI (Finding of No Significant Impact) with respect to the Fort Hancock rehabilitation project and the lease with the SH {Sandy Hook} Partners did not violate any provisions" of the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Historic Preservation Act and the Gateway National Recreation Area. "The Administrative Record demonstrates that the NPS extensively analyzed all potential impacts of the rehabilitation and reuse of the Fort Hancock Historic District, including any impacts that would be caused by the SH Partners lease," the judge said. Coleman said he had written to the inspector general of the U.S. Department of the Interior asking that the investigation into the lease agreement signed in 2004 by Wassel and the park service be continued. In July, Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., (D-N.J.) wrote to Earl Devaney, the DOI inspector general, and asked him to investigate the Wassel lease. In his letter, Pallone said he "seriously questioned Mr. Wassel's ability to produce the necessary funds to move forward with the three-phase project." "From my vantage point this entire process has been a debacle," Pallone said. "Beyond the commercialization concerns the NPS should never have signed this lease agreement without SHP demonstrating the requisite financing to complete the plan. I have been told of similar circumstances where NPS officials at other sites refused to enter into commercial development without evidence of sufficient financial resources." Pallone asked if there were "any prohibitions or limits on the NPS' ability to continue extensions of the lease agreement. To date, as many as four or five extensions have been granted for six months to a year. Does NPS require any proof of financing to approve these extension?" The inspector general agreed to investigate the lease in July. Last week, after the judge's decision was released, Pallone said that he found the court ruling "disappointing, but it is by no means the final act in preventing Sandy Hook Partners from moving ahead with its plans." He said the DOI's Inspector General is currently investigating the lease agreement. "I am hopeful that investigation will shed some light on why the agreement was signed when SHP had not proven the requisite financing to complete the plan." Wassel's plan for Fort Hancock was selected by the park service in early 2000 from almost two dozen submitted in response to a request for proposals for the rehabilitation and re-use of buildings at Fort Hancock. He received a series of extensions of the time allotted to show he had the financial resources to complete his plan for at least 36 of the buildings before the lease was signed with the park service in 2004. In 2004, SSH filed a suit against Wassel, the park service and the Department of the Interior challenging the lease. Last year, Judge Cooper issued an opinion that turned down the challenge to the lease by SSH and the group appealed. Last week, Cooper ruled in favor of the NPS and Wassel again. Wassel plans to turn the leased buildings at Fort Hancock, which is located in the Sandy Hook Unit of Gateway National Recreation Area, into restaurants, overnight accommodations, offices, conference centers and educational and environmental facilities. The lease he signed provides for 36 buildings to be developed by Wassel but allows for more to be added to the lease by the park service. There is now no commercial development at the fort. In June, Lawrence Luttrell, Atlantic Highlands, the attorney for SSH appearing before Cooper in Trenton, argued the uses proposed by Wassel for the buildings at the fort, including corporate retreats, did not conform with the goals that the park service was founded to fulfill of providing outdoor recreation and wildlife conservation. He said Congress had never contemplated such uses as those in the SHP plan when it turned the land over to the park service. But Ronald Heksch, the attorney for Wassel, told the judge that SSH had "no substantial arguments" concerning the Wassel plans, "but [they] simply don't like them. "It's our backyard, we like it the way it is. We don't want it to change," is what SSH is stating, Heksch said. Heksch also said Wassel had already faced a three-year delay in developing the Fort Hancock site caused by the SSH lawsuit, since lenders would not make a commitment before the suit was settled. "He can't get funding with the lawsuit pending," he said. Wassel did not respond to calls for comment on the appeal. Calls to Richard Wells, the superintendent of Sandy Hook, for comment were also not returned.