> Golf Course Architecture

Friar's Head

<< < (2/6) > >>

Ken Bakst:
Before this thread gets too far from away from the facts :)  I would like to offer the following points of clarification.

A request for relief, which included a request to force the town to restore the property to its pre-developed state, was in fact made by the complaining parties to the same Appellate Division panel of judges that originally overturned our zoning action.  That request for relief was denied.  As such, I am highly confident that Friar’s Head is not going to be dug up anytime soon!  :)

In the meantime, we are not able to “open” until we resolve our zoning issue through a supplemental administrative proceeding in the town.  People have, however, played the golf course (which is not yet fully grown-in) as our private guests and that is now a fairly well known fact.  A number of them have commented in the past, so I’m not sure why people believe that there is some kind of “code of silence” in effect at this time, other than perhaps out of respect for our circumstances.  So those of you that have played or seen the golf course should feel free to comment, or not comment, about Friar’s Head as you please.

With respect to the original permitting, Tom Paul is both right and wrong.  Our original focus was to build a great golf course and housing wasn’t even on our radar screen.  So left on my own, I would have studied the impacts from only the golf course.  But counsel properly advised us that the DEC, which administers the NYS Environmental Quality Review Act, requires that you study the maximum impacts of a phase of a project which is uncertain with respect to either its design and/or timing, so that’s exactly what we did with respect to the “potential” housing.  Unfortunately, the appellate division court said that the town didn’t study the environmental impacts of any housing, so all of the maximum impact studies that were included in our environmental impact statement with respect to “potential” housing (i.e., traffic, school impacts, woodland/farmland impacts, etc.), and which were relied upon by the lower court in affirming our permits, don’t exist at all?  You can say they aren’t there, but that doesn’t make it so!

Now if Guest believes that I made serious mistakes in the permitting process, he/she is certainly entitled to that opinion.  And who am I, under the circumstances, to say he/she is wrong.  :)   But at this point, it doesn’t really matter whether I made mistakes or not because my belief that we did a proper environmental review is not going to fix the problem!  Sometimes life just isn’t fair, just as golf shouldn’t always be fair, so you have to just get on with it.  And that’s exactly what I am doing!

Have fun!

Ken Bakst,

It didn't surprise me that TEPaul was wrong..... again    ;D
And, it didn't surprise me that you wanted to keep this thread confined to the FACTS.   ;D

I haven't posted much regarding Friar's Head because I was concerned that to do so might be creating a highly visible profile that might not be in the Club's best interest.

But, since you've given the green light to everyone,
I'll make some general comments without getting into a detailed analysis.

My initial impression is that Friar's Head is the type of golf club that every golfer would like to belong to.  
It is the type of golf course that you could play every day and never tire of it.  It offers challenge, yet is fun to play.
It offers diversity, simplicity and quiet elegance.  And, it possesses one of the most desireable elements in golf.
THE WIND, along with a beautiful setting

The extensive  practice facility and par 3 course compliment and enhance the aura that permeates the property.

In addition, Friar's Head offers a culture long extinct in American golf, a return to a purer version of golf and tradition.

It represents a special fusion which combines the best in golf course architecture, a spectacular setting and a golfing culture unique to modern times.  

It's a gift to golf and will hopefully inspire others to follow suit.

Tim Weiman:
Pat Mucci:

When you are right, you're right! I couldn't have said it any better.

Ken Bakst:
Tom Paul

You might want to delete that post too, because it’s not right either.  :)

There is only one environmental impact statement, which goes through a review, comment and revision process until the Town accepts it.  So the court didn’t say that the town didn’t do the max housing study because it doesn’t get credit for what the developer did.  The court just said that the Town studied only the golf, which means that our max housing study does not exist at all.  The court didn’t say that the max housing study wasn’t done properly, it just refused to acknowledge that it existed at all.  I don’t have to understand the judgment, and probably never will, but I have to live with it.  It’s the way of the world!

Now if you keep referring to AmPer as AmBer, I might just figure out a way to get in the proverbial “bed” with her….er, I mean him!  :)

You are right about the Talmages.  The are very civic minded and highly respected in the local community.  But we never had a problem with the local political process.  Every single vote on our project was a unanimous 5-0.  And the lower court, which resides in our county, upheld the Town’s decision.  It wasn’t until we were dragged into the Appellate Court, which resides outside of our county, that we had a problem.

Ken Bakst,

If you keep telling TEPaul that he's wrong time after time,
and I know how easy that is, he's going to eventually accuse you of BIAS.   ;D

I know, I've experienced it myself.

On a serious note, is there a remedial solution ?

Can the study you prepared on the max housing impact be reviewed by the town, concurrently, with the ongoing lawsuit?

Wouldn't that create recognition by the court or courts of the existance of the study, and the towns review of same ?

Would the ceding of development rights (housing) to the state eleviate or eliminate the plaintiffs argument ?


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version