Letters

In response to recent notification and discussion over the application for permission to operate a demolition recovery facility at 76 North Summit Boulevard in Westhampton, owned by IGC Sitework [“Details Emerge on Reclamation Plan at Former Westhampton Sand Mine,” 27east.com, August 22], I would like to voice my opposition to the matter and highlight points that are being overlooked by the government agencies involved.

In 2017, I built a new home on my family’s property, located immediately to the west of the former Westhampton Mining Aggregates site. At that point, a reasonable person would assume that town code would be upheld and the property would have lost its prior use, since it had been seven years since said use was exercised (nonconforming use is revoked after three years).

During a town work session on August 17, representatives of IGC stated to the Town Board that the mine is currently inactive — which is a very false statement. There are machines operating five days a week, processing and playing a shell game with the materials, moving them around to change grades and slopes.

I do not believe I should have perceived any of the risks noted when making the decision to invest in a home that I intend to pass on for generations. The owners of IGC, however, should have considered the risk to their investment when they bought property that was mined out and had no future value beyond being returned to its natural state.

The Southampton Town fire marshal’s office has recently issued the new owners of the mine permits to construct a temporary structure on site, a permit normally reserved for victims of house fires and disasters to give them a temporary residence while their home is being restored.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation granted the previous owners of Westhampton Mining Aggregates permits to receive and process contaminated materials, and although the receiving portion of the project was completed, there was no processing. This left the residents of Southampton Town at risk of groundwater contamination and should have been immediately addressed by the DEC when the mine was abandoned in 2010, a responsibility that was grossly neglected.

Thirteen years later, it is my position that the DEC is still financially responsible to see that project through to resolution. Public funding is available to finance such projects, and is common practice in other areas within the state.

It is also my position that the Southampton Town Community Preservation Fund purchase the land from IGC, once remediated, and allow the land to go back to its natural state, which is the intended expectation of all completed mining projects within the township.

Don Metcalf Jr.

Westhampton