Letters

“My issue is not with the work … it’s with the process,” you report Sag Harbor Village Trustee Aidan Corish saying of the amphitheater being built in Steinbeck Park [“Some Look Askance as Work Begins on Steinbeck Park Amphitheater in Sag Harbor,” 27east.com, November 30].

That sums up the challenge currently facing Sag Harbor.

At the Sag Harbor Historical Museum’s forum on December 3, “Preserving Our Village Heritage,” moderator Randy Croxton observed that “Sag Harbor is different.”

The forum was organized to discuss the review processes of the Harbor Committee, and the Zoning Board of Appeals, Planning Board, and Board of Historical Preservation and Architectural Review. Each of the board chairs talked about the importance of preserving the scale and character of the village.

Yet, by avoiding any specific proposal, the forum ignored the elephant in the room.

With the fast-track passage of Local Law 12 in June, processes developed over the past half century involving those boards have been largely replaced by executive action reminiscent of the worst of Albany-style government.

Those of us who filed the Article 78 petition challenging Local Law 12 did so because we believe the Village Board failed to follow due process enshrined in state law.

By transferring most of the review of mixed use commercial and affordable housing to the Board of Trustees, Local Law 12 significantly undermines the role of the independent boards, particularly the Planning Board.

During their review of Local Law 12, the village’s own planning consultants concluded that the new law could involve significant adverse environmental impacts. Were the trustees fully briefed about those impacts and about the consequences of Local Law 12 in terms of flooding, hazardous waste, traffic, parking, and razing buildings that contribute to Sag Harbor’s National Historic District?

Were the trustees properly informed about the process under state law, and about the gravity of their decision that Local Law 12 would “not result in significant adverse actions”?

One of the documents used to make that determination was signed by the mayor after the law was passed. Was the information in that document available to the trustees when they made their decision?

Those are the issues now before the courts.

There is an alternative. The Village Board could stop spending taxpayers’ money arguing against the Article 78 petition and take a timeout to reconsider the implications of code changes that facilitate the construction of massive buildings in a Federal Emergency Management Agency flood zone in the center of the village.

Isn’t “Preserving Our Village Heritage” worth a little more time and thought?

Douglas Newby

Sag Harbor