Re: July 16 issue Enterprise Pilot front page article on Octagon Hotel development, and the inside editorial:
I am pleased that someone actually has the money and the patience to build another Octagon down the road from my office in Oyster Bay, on a historic lot that has been severely neglected over the years. I’m happy with the proposed historic Octagon that is sound, and looks good, whether it’s on preserved brick or reconstructed brick. These arguments of preservation vs. reconstruction by several successive village groups, all unfortunately spaced months apart, serves to dampen any progress.
I don’t understand how preservationists in Oyster Bay think that it may be feasible and wise to spend about $2 million in construction of an historically researched, reconstructed Octagon on anything less than a sound foundation. While either preserved or reconstructed, a foundation is most important and significant to the building structural safety, soundness, and insurability. Why it is bad if a builder determines that he needs to start with a modern, technically sound foundation if that is what his contractors, architect, and masons feel is the best plan to start the Octagon construction?
Developers will certainly be gun shy of Oyster Bay. If we lose this Bevola Co. development of a historically researched and reconstructed Octagon, and the site is then put up for sale, then the Oyster Bay preservationists should be held responsible; responsible to raise millions for the sites re-development, in a timely fashion that does not leave the small blighted corner depressing us for years to come.
I say we celebrate the Bevola company’s interest in Oyster Bay and have confidence in their team’s architectural research, planning, safety, and investment in an Octagon for Oyster Bay.
Carla Panetta
Bladykas & Panetta Land Surveyors
