Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Coastal Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Amagansett owner proposes to relocate house, remove geocubes and restore shoreline; ZBA closes hearing after detailed debate
Summary
The Curtis application to relocate a house landward and remove geocube revetment drew extended technical testimony about methods to slice open and reuse sand from the geo cubes, the amount of sand available, and potential impacts to neighboring properties; the board closed the public hearing but asked for careful restoration methodology.
The Zoning Board continued and then closed the public hearing on a proposal by Nigel Curtis to relocate a shoreline residence landward and remove an existing geocube revetment on Cranberry Hole Road in Amagansett.
Attorney Richard A. Hammer and coastal contractor Billy Mack described a staged removal protocol: excavate and expose the geocube bags from above, strap and slice open the bags, let the beach‑compatible sand spill landward, and reshape the dune to an appropriate angle of repose before revegetating with native beach grass. "That sand will remain and will utilize that sand to stabilize the eroded bluff," Billy Mack said when explaining how the sand from the bags would be handled.
Planning Department staff supported removal and restoration but warned the board that existing survey data may be outdated and stressed that careful protocol is needed because portions of the work occur at or near high tide; Brian Frank said the planning department would encourage placing as much sand as possible above mean high water and planting beach grass to help long‑term stability. Neighbors and an adjacent property owner’s counsel asked for more detail on how removal would avoid harm to downdrift parcels and requested that plans address flank erosion on the neighbor’s lot.
The board discussed timing: applicants said removal is likely to follow relocation of the residence (construction access and safety considerations), and that DEC review and other permits may also be required. After extended technical testimony and planning commentary, the board voted to close the public hearing and record; the planning department and applicants agreed the proposed protocol—if followed—would be an environmental improvement compared with leaving geocubes in place, but several technical details (updated survey, volumes, and neighbor protections) were left for post‑hearing submissions or permit review.
