Southampton Conservation Board delays decision on 35 East Beach Drive after heated debate over revetment and cobble berm

The Town of Southampton Conservation Board on June 26 postponed a decision on a wetlands permit application for 35 East Beach Drive after hours of testimony over a proposed rock revetment capped with a cobble beach berm.

Marty Shay, the town’s chief environmental analyst, read a June 24 memo recommending denial of the permit. Shay told the board the application ‘‘is incompatible with the purposes and findings listed in section 325‑1 and 325‑2’’ of the town code and that the proposed work would ‘‘result in significant unmitigated loss of intertidal wetlands’’ and ‘‘undue adverse impacts to the quality of the wetlands and adjacent areas.’”

That assessment set up a technical clash with the applicant’s engineer and agent, Aram Terchunian of First Coastal, who said the project team had conducted a thorough alternatives analysis and presented engineering evidence from local examples showing that a properly designed revetment with a buried cobble berm can maintain a usable beach. ‘‘We’ve shown you a lot of evidence,’’ Terchunian said, adding that many softer measures ‘‘are just not going to work’’ on this site given the energetic wave regime.

The two positions framed the hearing: Shay emphasized likely ecological harms — including impacts to horseshoe‑crab spawning, shorebird use and juvenile fish habitat — and legal thresholds under Chapter 325, while Terchunian emphasized short‑term protection of the dwelling and said the applicant was open to mitigation and off‑site measures.

Several board members voiced concern about downstream or ‘‘domino’’ effects of shore‑hardening structures and urged a community‑scale solution. The chair summarized the board’s view as favoring a temporary, flexible approach: ‘‘I’m not opposed to putting cobble in front of your client’s house,’’ the chair said, but added that ‘‘we don’t want to be part of the team that grants approval for a rock revetment that’s going to damage the neighbor’s house or the neighbor’s beach.’’

Attorney Carolyn Zank, who identified herself as certified in ocean and coastal law, told the board that the application may have to be retyped under New York’s environmental review process from a Type II to an unlisted action — and that buried or substantial shore hardening could trigger SEQRA review and legal scrutiny over downdrift sand rights and public‑trust impacts. ‘‘Even a cobblestone beach may need to be evaluated with engineering plans,’’ she said.

Neighbors and experts who spoke at the public hearing urged preserving habitat and, where possible, a multi‑property cobble approach. Landscape architect Michael Michelle advised heavy planting and careful engineering of cobble design; neighbor John Petrello cited an estimated per‑house cost of roughly $144,000 for installing a cobble berm if multiple homeowners participate.

Before the public comment period closed, the applicant’s team agreed to prepare and submit a detailed engineered design for a cobble‑beach berm. The board then voted to adjourn the hearing and reconvene on July 8 to review the submitted plans; no permit vote was taken June 26.

Next steps: the applicant will deliver detailed engineering drawings for the cobble berm to the Conservation Board prior to the July 8 meeting, when the hearing will resume or be closed depending on the submittal. The board also signaled continued attention to legal and ecological standards in Chapter 325 when evaluating any shore‑hardening proposal.