Could the golf courses at Sand Hills & Pacific Dunes be built in NJ,

[Patrick_Mucci]

based solely in the context of the environmental climate in NJ ?

In the past, the answer was clearly NO.

But, in light of the current and future economic conditions and the reversal of the outlook on development by municipalities and the State alike, would a minimalist course like Sand Hills be the ideal development model for a developer, and will the environmental constraints, a huge impediment to development in NJ, be softened to accomodate minimalist courses ?

One would think that the less the land is altered, the more desirable the golf course, from an environmental perspective.

COAH surcharges have been suspended in order to encourage development in these difficult times.

Wouldn't a minimalist course appeal to everyone, the environmentalists, the developer, the municipality and the retail client ?

Wouldn't Sand Hills and Wild Horse be the poster courses for minimalist development ?

[archie_struthers]

 

Patrick Mucci ,  absolutely not , unequivocably a nada, no way Jose.
 a NIMBY for sure.


We're talking NJ...not Aberdeenshire LOL

[RJ_Daley]

Pat, I'm not sure what COAHsurcharges are, but how do you get to a minimalist anything in the realm of the astronomical land prices, even if you did do minimalist construction and somehow got permitted?  It seems to me that once you've invested huge $$$ just to acquire enough land, and paid for all the studies and permitting, you'd need huge recovery of investment.  Then, doesn't minimalist anything go out the window?  Could anything actually be built as a stand alone course without R.E. with such huge investment upfront in land? 

I don't know the area well enough in terms of sand barrens and actual terrain characteristics, having only passed through there once.   But, how is most of that forested pine woods owned?  Large parcels, small parcels, or mostly government forests?

[John Moore II]

I suppose a 'minimalist' course could be built anywhere, so long as the definition of minimal is moving small amounts of dirt to make the holes and such. Its just that the 'less good' the land is, the less good the course will be. I mean, you could build a pure 'minimal' course on dead flat land, but it you truly move very little dirt, etc., then it will be a fairly boring, if not plainly bad course.

But yes, a 'minimal' course could be built nearly anywhere. Now, if you are asking could be build a course that LOOKS like Sand Hills or Pac Dunes in NJ, well, that depends on whether the land on a given site is sandy, etc. like those sites. If the land is sandy and rolling, sure, you could build a Sand Hills type course. If the land is clay and semi-flat, not likely you could build a Sand Hills style (unless you move mountains of dirt and import sand to make it 'sandy')

What about Bayonne? While certainly not minimal since it was done at very high cost as a land reclamation project, it is a very natural styled course. Where does it fit.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

You're a North Jersey guy, right; and consequently you claim you know the score there, right?

If so, you better start looking over your shoulder with some of the things you're putting out there for public consideration such as minimalism that might go hand in hand with reduced cost et al or I swear to God Tony Soprano might consider whacking you!

[Dan Herrmann]

Archie is right.  NJ is where NIMBY started.

Check out the beautiful NJ33 (unfinished to the shore) or I-95 (the only part of this great road that's still not completed).  I'm still shocked they managed to build I-287 up in the Ramapo Mountains.

[Craig Sweet]

Solely on the environmental climate?   Certainly, given the population, landuse patterns, zoning, industry, etc. in NJ there will be different environmental concerns for ANYTHING being built than there would be in the remote, rural, sand hills of NE...

[JMorgan]

I know a university president who wants to build one if you can find 300 acres.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

When we did the work at Atlantic City, I didn't find New Jersey an unreasonable state to work in.  As a matter of fact, because we proposed creating a bunch of new wetland area as part of the redesign, they were very accommodating in other aspects of the design process.

That wasn't exactly a "minimalist" job, as we moved a fair amount of earth relative to some of my other work ... for one thing, as you know, we had to raise up three holes by about five feet so they would stop getting flooded by seasonal high tides.  But I don't think they would have said "boo" if I'd wanted to do LESS earthwork.

[archie_struthers]

 

 Pat, I think the question is an interesting one given my experiences with permitting and the like.  If you are asking do you think there has been a move to de-codify the system in response to our economic woes in NJ I would say that would be dreaming .

The people that elect our officails year in and year out are the beneficiaries of continuing and expanding the bureaucracies control, so to think this will change is really a stretch.  

From a practical consideration, if a piece of ground like that of Mullen , Nebraska existed in NJ, it would quickly be claimed as state property  LOL!
Where else can you look on some map in Trenton and claim that an old stream ran under a persons house over a hundred years ago and thus the state owns a piece of the property ?

[Peter Pallotta]

Not within the scope of your question, Patrick, I realize, but it strikes me that the minimalsim you describe might appeal to everyone in New Jersey, except to the golfers themselves. It's one thing to find simplicity and naturalism after driving 200 miles on a deserted two lane roadway to the middle of Nebraska; but it may well be another when you encounter minimalism just off the New Jersey Turnpike, after fighting traffic all the way from Gramercy Park.  But maybe I'm taking the site natural ethos a little too far....

Peter   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

In all fairness, the foot pad of the golf course was already established.
It dated back to the begining of the last century, so I don't think you can equate the environmental and permiting issues you faced, with those of a new golf course.

Peter Pallota,

I'd disagree with you.
Just ask anyone who's played Hidden Creek, which is about 10 minutes off the Atlantic City Expressway and 15 minutes off the Garden State Parkway.

Archie Struthers,

You're probably the most qualified to answer this question because you probably have the most experience with the processes in NJ.

With COAH being suspended, and the ongoing and very serious need for revenue by municipalities, counties and the State, I can see a relaxing of the environmental and permiting issues, with the permitting process being the first to relax.
The environmental zealots will never relax, but, ratables will become a very desirable commodity, to the point that practical, prudent minds MAY prevail.

If a truely minimalist course could be built, one that has little impact on the current environment, one thats cost's to build was low, why wouldn't it be a desirable development ? 

Craig Sweet,

Why, if the impact is minimal ?
What's the objection ?

JKM,

I take it that you've never played Pine Tree and/or Boca Rio, two superior golf courses built on dead flat land, with minimal movement of dirt..

[John Moore II]

Pat-No, I've never played either. Perhaps I should rephrase a little bit. MUCH of the time, a course built on dead flat land with minimal earth movement will not turn out to be any kind of real gem. I suppose what I didn't take into account is built on flat land that is also sandy. I was once a member of a club build on flat land where only the greens were built up (and some ponds dug out to give the green area dirt) and it was average at best. It was also built on what was basically swamp land in eastern NC so it drained poorly.

I can also think of a few other clubs that come readily to mind that I would consider average-to-poor that have been built on flat ground.

I have not played a course built on pancake flat ground with minimal earth movement that I would consider very interesting.

[Craig Sweet]

Pat...not sure what the impacts are...you are assuming that a minimalist course has minimal impacts...I do not think that is necessarily true....for example...would a course projected to have 50,000 rounds have more impact than one projected to have less than 10,000 rounds?  Think vehicle trips...for example....or water use.

What is taken into consideration when permitting a course? Would a developer seek permits  for maximum water use even if they did not plan on using much water...just to be safe?  Is the site primarily open to begin with or would there be a lot of tree and vegetation removal?

NJ has the environmental regs.  that they have based on past/present/projected  landuse....rural Nebraska has landuse regs. based on past/present/projected use...when rural NE looks like Orange County NJ permitting golf courses might become equally as difficult there.  Hopefully, they will have the good sense in NE to never let it come to that...

[Craig Sweet]

By the way Pat...I do not think a period of tough economic times is a signal to weaken environmental protections...the rough times will pass...the potential environmental problems often last for generations and end up costing way more to correct in the future....yes, I know we have been over this before...impacts from golf courses are minor compared to industry or even farming....but regulations protecting public health have to be painted with a broad brush with a process for mitigation of impacts. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Craig Sweet,

When the regulations are an impediment to development and development is critical to job creation, foolish or extreme regulations are likely to be modified, ameliorated or repealed.

I'd like to know how many golf courses get 50,000 rounds a year.
I can assure you that NONE in Northern NJ get anywhere near that much play.

20,000 is a lot of rounds in this area.

On a 200 acre site, would you prefer a golf course or a residential community ?

[Craig Sweet]

Pat..."foolish or extreme regulations" are in the eye of the beholder...NYMBY was mentioned earlier...but Pat, I really don't see many regulations, enacted to protect human health and welfare, being weakened during an economic slump...that is a slippery slope if ever there was one!  However, I could see the permitting process sped up under certain conditions.

On a 200 acre site would I rather see a golf course or a residential community?....well, if job creation is the desired outcome, housing...if my personal wishes are considered, a golf course....or perhaps an organic farm of some sort...just as an aside...I think the issue of food security is going to be a much bigger concern in the near future than how many golf courses we have.

[Bruce Katona]

Pat: Archie is/was my partner and we suffered together at Twisted trying to do the correct thing on and with permitting....it's only getting harder,  not easier to build in NJ....environmntal permitting and affordable housing are a difficult combination...

To a degree Tom Doak is correct as ACCC may have been permitted as a renovation and improvement, not a new course...the burden of proof to build new in NJ is much more difficult than to fix and existing facility (think irrigation permitting - upgrade an existing system versus permitting a new withdrawl - can we say 4 years and in excess of a hundred thousand dollars to get this permit!!  Ask your friend Jerry Vogel, Esq. about this (I'm Jerry's client on a small R E project in his backyard - 10 years for approvals and counting, not yet approved - though not all with Jerry and his firm.

[Craig Sweet]

Bruce....why do you suppose permitting in NJ is as difficult as it is, and getting "harder"?   Is there a particular industry (in the broadest use of the word) that has it any easier?  How easy is it for someone to place...lets say 300 acres...in a conservation easement in NJ?  What qualities do people living in NJ value most deeply?

[Bruce Katona]

Craig: If you have a 300 acre tract here in NJ that is undeveloped, the first thing to do would be to reatin either a civil engineer or environmental consultant to do an environmental inventory or the site.  This would include:

Steep slope analysis
Flood Plain Analysis
Wetlands Inventory from GIS mapping
Stream Mapping (for water quality)
Threatened and Endangered Species analysis for the site/surrounding area
Phase 1 Environmental review for pollutant/spill/landfill/groundwater issues
Zoning analysis to see what can be built on the site after you've excluded all areas above

After reviewing what and where you can build on this hypthetical parcel, you may by default have placed the site into a conservation easement as the site constarints don't allow for any real development.

We had a 700 acre site not far from AC we had under contract...due to wetlands, wetland buffers and some T/E species on site we had about 50 acres we do could do something with....we took a pass after the review was done.

Why is it so difficult here....proximity to 2 major metropolitan areas, people want to live here and a limited resourse (land & infrastructure -water & sewer) availability.

Where is it easier to get things approved and built in NJ - the urban redevopment/brownfield areas where infrastucture already exists - the challanges in urban/brownfields is id'ing what the environmental issues really are, what they will cost to fix and in the end will the end user be comfortable that the issue is resolved, as environmental concerns must be disclosed to any end user here.

Qualities folks look for here - sustainable growth, but not too much growth.

You got me on my soap box on a favorite topic of mine.

Craig: you're from where?

[Craig Sweet]

Bruce thanks for the detailed reply...I'm in Montana....grew up in Vermont.

Having been on a governing board, I like a system that requires a developer to explain how they plan to solve any potential concerns...so they do that work up front, spend some money...I understand this can be risky for the developer...but heck, we would have 250 lot subdivisions, on steep hillsides come before the city council with nothing more than a plat map....no drainage worked out at all...and they would say to us.."you approve this project first, and THEN we will spend the money to determine how we'll deal with the drainage issues"....so, once approved they would beat up our engineers and planning staff to get what they wanted..."you have to approve this drainage plan because the city council approved the project...blah..blah..blah"

With your brownfields...isn't there some coordination with state and local officials to determine what those environmental issues are, and the costs of clean up?  Isn't there often agreements to share mitigation costs as an incentive to get developers to develop the site?

[Bruce Katona]

Craig: we're ok with spending the $$$$ to engineer the site, because we need to kow what the cut and fill balance of the site is and what we'll need o budget for infrastructure (drainage, manholes, roads, etc).  But to spend what we have to to do academic exercises to obtain permitting is frustrating, costly and time consuming.

On the brownfields issue, you don't know what you're getting yourself into until you do the due diligence and a bit of testing on the site...State and local data bases don't necessarily tell the whole story.... .here in NJ, you buy it, you clean it up, so we're all very careful about what environmental liabilities we're willing to accept.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bruce,

Jerry is a very dear friend and a terrific fellow.
We've been playing golf and friends for over 40 years.

Jerry has told me nightmare upon nightmare when it comes to the permitting and environmental approvals he seeks, so I'm somewhat familiar with the permitting climate in the area.

I've related a few of Jerry's stories on this site.

The one I love/hate is the one where the owner of the land wanted to build homes on the site.  The State built a roadway adjacent to his property that diverted water onto his property.  Then, when he went for the permits, they told him that the land was wetlands.  He told them it wasn't and that the wet conditions were due to the State diverting water onto his land.   The State replied that it didn't matter how the land became wetlands, only that they were now classified as wetlands and he couldn't build.

My question is, how was the State allowed to divert water onto someone else's property ?  And, shouldn't the land owner be compensated for the loss of the use of the land due to the State's actions ?

I love some of the steep slopes issues, ESPECIALLY in the context of drainage.  When last I tested the law of gravity, it was still functioning in Northern NJ.

Good luck with your project.

I thought the work at Twisted Dunes was terrific.

What's mind boggling is that quarries and other industrial activities are permitted on a site, but, when application is made to convert that site to a golf course, you have to jump through ridiculous, unreasonable hoops and the environmentalists go bonkers.

Where were they when the quarry and/or industrial operation was running ?

I believe reality is going to smack some of these towns/counties/states and agencies right between the eyes.

Create a hostile environment for business and you won't have any business.

No business equals no jobs and NO tax revenues.

Then we'll see where everyone's priorities lie.

[Craig Sweet]

Bruce...the only brown field sites I'm familiar with around here are being developed...the state and local governments worked with potential developers to determine what they were dealing with...i think it made it much easier for everyone to determine the value of these parcels by working together...

[Bruce Katona]

Craig: Your spot on- cooperation would be best, but that just doesn't always happen.