When it comes to evaluating a complex development proposal, splitting up the application into separate parts may seem tempting, especially when environmental uncertainties loom. But in the case of Adam Potter’s plan for 7 and 11 Bridge Street, the Sag Harbor Village Planning Board should resist any temptation to segment the project for review.
Potter’s attorney has asked the board to consider the gas ball property at 5 Bridge Street — a site that could provide the 93 parking spaces required for Potter’s 48 residential units and commercial spaces nearby — separate from the main development. The reason is understandable: Coal tar contamination discovered decades ago, and traces recently uncovered, could delay progress for years if a major cleanup is required. On paper, treating the parking lot independently might appear to expedite the rest of the process.
Yet, this is precisely why segmentation is inappropriate. The proposed parking is not ancillary; it is inseparable from the viability of the main project. Without these spaces, the development cannot meet the village’s requirements, making any environmental review of the rest of the project incomplete or misleading. To separate the two would be to ignore the interconnected nature of the plan and could undermine the board’s ability to evaluate the true impact on the community.
Environmental review is meant to give residents and officials a complete picture of how a development will affect their village. Piecemeal reviews risk obscuring potential problems, leaving the community and the board to deal with unforeseen consequences later. Planning Board members, including Chairman John Shaka, rightly questioned the logic of treating the parking separately; it is difficult to see how the board could approve one without considering the other.
If Potter’s project is to move forward responsibly, it must be evaluated as a whole. The board should ensure that every aspect — from housing to parking to environmental remediation — is fully vetted before any approvals are granted. Anything less risks setting a dangerous precedent allowing developers to fragment their projects in ways that could bypass a comprehensive review.
Sag Harbor residents deserve a Planning Board that protects both their environment and the integrity of local decision-making. Segmentation of this application would do neither. Discussion of the proposal suggests the board members agree: That’s a sign that they’re definitely paying attention.