Southampton conservation board hears heated debate over Tempestas’ cobble‑berm plan, leaves record open

The Southampton Conservation Board on July 8 heard more than three hours of testimony and public comment on a proposed shoreline stabilization plan and house expansion for Steven and Jennifer Tempesta, then voted to close the public hearing while leaving the written record open for 10 business days for additional submissions.

Aram Tertunian, the applicant’s agent (1st Coastal, Westhampton Beach), presented the engineers’ design for a “dynamic cobble berm” sized to withstand a 15‑year design storm and described a mixed stone gradation of roughly equal parts 8‑inch, 11‑inch and 14‑inch material. Tertunian said the proposed cross‑section would be roughly 17–22 feet in horizontal footprint, with a crest near elevation 9 feet to provide about 1 foot of freeboard above calculated post‑scour runup, and that the blend is intended to be dynamic, not a static revetment. “We have the engineering; we consulted the authors of the published design guidance and we’re within a tenth of a percent of their calculations,” Tertunian said, arguing the design would protect the home and be maintainable.

Marty Shea, the town’s chief environmental analyst, replied that the plans presented to the board differ from a nature‑based cobble berm and instead read as a form of angled rock armor with significant subgrade construction and returns. Shea warned the drawings indicate extensive excavation (scour to minus roughly 2.5 feet elevation in plan view) and longer side returns, and he recommended the board require additional evaluation of practicable alternatives and clearer specifications. Shea also highlighted permit and setback implications under town wetland provisions (chapter 3‑25 and the town’s land disturbance rules) and called for clarifications on stone mix, excavation extent, and maintenance commitments.

Several technical witnesses and neighboring property owners clashed over likely effects on the adjacent shoreline. Chuck Hamilton, introduced by a resident as a longtime regional supervisor at the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, described risks from extensive excavation, possible scour, and long‑term habitat loss if the structure functions as a groin or fixed revetment. “When you create a headland like that you will change sediment drift and you will see accelerated scour downdrift,” Hamilton said, recommending a lower, more traditional cobble berm (a few feet high) backed by a vegetated dune rather than the large structure depicted on the plans.

Opponents — including local residents and counsel Carolyn Zank, who represents a down‑drift homeowner — argued the plan as drawn amounts to shore hardening that could cause downdrift erosion, limit public beach access, and create liability for the town. Zank called the application “a rock revetment in disguise” and urged caution, noting property owners downstream had signed a petition opposing hardening. Several speakers filed or referenced notices of claim, and multiple residents urged the board to favor non‑structural measures or a buyout if retreat is necessary.

The applicants and their engineer pushed back, saying a smaller berm would be overtopped by the waves observed at the site and that, without an engineered cobble approach tailored to local wave climate, the house and septic system would remain at risk. “Vegetation and sand nourishment have not proven durable here,” the applicant’s engineer said, noting the site’s fetch, wave heights and a history of dredging at the nearby inlet.

Board members asked detailed questions about stone gradation, toe burial depth, returns and maintenance access. Multiple speakers flagged the timing of revised plans submitted the morning of the meeting and requested additional review time.

After extended discussion, the board moved to close the public hearing but to leave the written record open for 10 business days for additional written comments and for staff to complete its review. The deadline was set for close of business two calendar weeks from the meeting (written comments accepted until 4:00 p.m. on the stated date). The board scheduled follow‑up consideration thereafter. The hearing remains technically open for written submissions and for any materials requested by staff and the board.

What happens next: staff will compile the record and advise the board on whether additional information (technical specifications, an environmental assessment, or revised drawings) is required before the board makes a permit decision. No final wetland permit was issued at this meeting for the Tempesta property.

(Reporting note: direct quotes and technical parameters in this story are drawn from testimony given at the July 8, 2026 Southampton Conservation Board meeting; at the hearing the applicant’s agent described the design wave as about 4.61 feet and a recommended crest height of roughly 9 feet including one foot of freeboard. The board left the written record open for 10 business days for comment.)