Letters

Adam Potter’s new proposal for Sag Harbor Village fails to address most of the concerns about his previous plan [“Potter Development Plans Submitted to Sag Harbor Village Show Pair of Three-Story Buildings,” 27east.com, August 30].

The village identified 13 potential “moderate to large” environmental impacts of the previous plan and determined that it needed a full environmental impact statement. The impacts of the new plan are much the same.

A full evaluation of the proposal is difficult, given that several pages are missing, and it is difficult to understand the renderings; one shows wide steps on a corner leading to a grassy area, yet there is no such feature on the site plan.

The new plan assumes that the property can be connected to the village’s sewage system. Over the past year, the village has made considerable progress in its plans to connect existing properties in low-lying areas, which ultimately will require expansion of the existing facility. The taxpayers must not pay for further expansion to handle “liquid waste” from Mr. Potter’s plan.

Mr. Potter now acknowledges what every resident of Sag Harbor knows: the area floods. He proposes a 65,000-gallon tank to collect stormwater. An off-the-shelf tank is 29 feet in diameter, 16 feet tall, and could hold water from 1.66 inch of rain on the 62,935-square-foot property. For perspective, the rainstorm in mid-July dumped 2.67 inches on the village.

Put simply, the tank would be too small for site stormwater management, let alone stormwater management for the surrounding area, as Mr. Potter has suggested.

Mr. Potter also now acknowledges that there is legacy ground contamination. The State Department of Environmental Conservation capped remaining contamination after remediation in the 2000s. Mr. Potter says he will undertake further site remediation — he has no choice under the 486-page site management plan with the DEC — but he does not address the scope, time, cost or environmental/community impact of such work.

Mr. Potter’s parking plan continues to be laughable: 40 spaces for 39 apartments, 11,000 square feet of retail space, offices, and a 299-seat “performance space,” requiring a major variance.

The best thing about the original plan was 79 affordable housing rental units, now vastly reduced to 19 “ownership affordable” housing units, whatever that means.

The new plan is ill-considered and, like the old plan, would profoundly alter the character of the village. If it goes forward, the village must require an environmental impact statement to determine the impacts and whether the plan is even viable.

The proposal would require several major variances, effectively precedent-setting code changes; the village should reject all such applications.

With planning review returning to expert committees, I encourage the Board of Trustees to engage with the whole community to establish a vision for the future of our beautiful, historic village.

Douglas Newby

Sag Harbor