There’s no doubt Stonington’s plan to transform a Mystic River brownfield into a public park and boathouse site is challenging and complex. While the town has secured public funds for parts of the plan, it must pass muster with a variety of state officials. Those working to make the park a reality must also satisfy a set of local regulations and public preferences about boathouse design, parking and public access.

That means many interests, some which don’t easily mesh, have and will continue to weigh in on this project. Stonington officials say they understood these complexities before seeking residents’ approval in 2016 for $2.2 million in bonding to create the park. And because of those complexities the park may be developed in phases and progress might be slower than the public had expected.

Those officials recognize they must be flexible in working out details. The master plan may change a little or, perhaps, a lot depending on future decisions by state and local agencies and commissions.

Despite the challenges, the people of Stonington, who voted to support this project, have reason to remain optimistic that it will come to fruition and that the fundamental vision for the site remains worthy.

Count us among the supporters. Our reasons for urging voter backing for the project are still valid — eliminating a brownfield in one of the region’s most highly visible and visited areas, providing greater access to the Mystic River for kayaks and other paddle craft, and erecting a privately funded boathouse for the popular and successful high school crew team.

These goals remain worthy of support.

Still, the obstacles to redeveloping this property are real and cannot be underplayed. Two potentially major obstacles to park development — environmental hazards at the site and the fact that a house and garage at the site are included in a historic district — have been highlighted by Day columnist David Collins. While there’s plenty of evidence that town officials understood the environmental concerns, moved forward in an appropriate manner to address these and never exposed students to health risks by allowing them to store boats at the site, park backers may have unjustifiably downplayed the need to satisfy state officials seeking to protect the historic district.

It’s been common knowledge the site was used for industrial purposes for decades. That use, along with the fact a portion of the property long has been vacant, means the property is littered with coal debris, glass shards and wood scraps. Numerous environmental studies of the site also found some underground petroleum contamination, as well as concentrations of arsenic and lead in the soil. One test hole that found possible PCBs was later determined to be a false positive, according to town officials.

After a recent site visit, Ledge Light Health District issued a letter noting contaminant concentrations are not high enough to have posed any threat to high school athletes who access the site to store crew boats or who last year participated in a summer crew training. The district’s letter notes the contaminants could pose a danger to young children if they regularly accessed the site and ate the soil. The health district recommends it be kept closed to unsupervised general public access until environmental cleanup is complete.

The town is also in contact with the state’s Office of Historic Preservation concerning the two on-site buildings. Park proponents say the buildings are deteriorated and have been extensively modified through the years, removing most historically significant architectural features. Little public concern has been voiced about the possible demolition of these structures.

While we tend to agree these buildings are far from historically pristine and their value is questionable, representatives of the state’s Historic Preservation Office who recently visited the site have a different view. They concluded both buildings contribute to the story of the Rossie Velvet Mill historic district.

Current plans show the buildings removed. If the Historic Preservation Office ultimately decides the town must incorporate one or both into the park plan, where does that leave boathouse proponents already working to find an acceptable design for a new structure? Where does it leave Stonington High School crew supporters who comprise a generous chunk of the support for this project?

There is little doubt much work remains before the dream of a waterfront park and public boathouse become reality. We urge both state and local officials to find the path to compromise that will make the park and boathouse plan a reality, even if all involved might have to accept it is not ultimately all they originally envisioned.

The Day editorial board meets with political, business and community leaders to formulate editorial viewpoints. It is composed of President and Publisher Timothy Dwyer, Executive Editor Izaskun E. Larraneta, Owen Poole, copy editor, and Lisa McGinley, retired deputy managing editor. The board operates independently from The Day newsroom.