Letters

I have had intensive experience working on a property on Lake Washington in Seattle, which has a similar history and contamination profile to the National Grid “gas ball” lot in Sag Harbor (coal gasification and coal tar refinery). Our site is also a Superfund site.

We have a home and a long history in Sag Harbor, and I am following the National Grid case and the assertions by a Bay Street Theater spokesperson that the Gas Ball site is unbuildable, and after what I’ve heard, I must ask: Why, exactly, is it unbuildable? After remediation, the site should be buildable, especially if there is no ground-floor residential use.

Has anyone looked at this closely? What are the true restrictions? Even with remaining low-level contamination, an EPA-approved engineered cap is a pretty standard way of dealing with these coal tar sites. On my project, I’m planning on a mixed use with a residential use on the second-floor level.

I know Bay Street is fighting to build a theater building directly on the waterfront. I sincerely hope that doesn’t happen, especially as the National Grid site might, in fact, be a viable alternative. Why would you use some of the last remaining waterfront in Sag Harbor, when an alternate site is available across the street? Sag Harbor could have both the theater and the park.

I would hope that this alternative is explored in detail. What a wonderful thing if Sag Harbor could have both.

Robert Cugini

Sag Harbor