Debate Proposed Revetment

   Despite an owner's plea for a shore-hardening structure to protect a King's Point Road, Springs, property, the East Hampton Town Planning Department recommended last week that Dora Barmack's request for a rock revetment be denied.

   A planner, Brian Frank, told the Town Zoning Board of Appeals Sept. 17 that it should require an environmental impact statement on the project.

   That would allow the board "to better assess the impacts" on the subject as well as adjoining properties and the beach in front, Mr. Frank said, as well as give an opportunity to explore alternatives.

   Dora Barmack, who owns the Gardiner's Bay property with her fam- ily and who hopes for a nat- ural resources permit to build a 180-foot-long stone revetment with a 20-foot return at its western end.

Domino Effect

   This is the most recent of a string of similar requests that the board has faced. This winter, the Z.B.A. approved a similar revetment for Paul Frahm at his Gerard Drive, Springs, property, but only after the board wrestled with the fact that each time it approves a shore-hardening structure, other requests from adjoining neighbors follow since the structures block the natural flow of sand.

   At the time of Mr. Frahm's revetment was approved (his revetment is under construction this week), the board agreed to ask the East Hampton Town Board for better defined policies on shore-hardening structures. The Town Board earlier this month held a hearing on the Waterfront Advisory Committee's report on controlling flooding and erosion, which was finished just after Mr. Frahm's approval.

   Yesterday, Supervisor Cathy Les ter said she wanted to see the report adopted into the Town Code and would direct deputy town attorney Richard Whalen to start drafting an amendment to the code.

   At last week's hearing, Roy Haje of En-Consultants of Southampton told the Zoning Board that the bluff on the Barmack property is eroding, mostly from surge tides during storms, and scalloping around the return on the adjacent property to the east.

Devastated By Storms

   Mrs. Barmack's daughter, Laura Kaiser, a part-owner of the property, said her late father had always favored "soft solutions" because he liked the beach natural, but that now her family has no choice.

   In the 1980s they started to see erosion of the property, Ms. Kaiser said. Then, in 1991, Hurricane Bob and the Halloween storm "devastated the property." She estimated from 900 to 1,400 square feet, or eight linear feet, of property have been lost since her family bought it in 1969.

   Their neighbor's bulkhead makes it "infinitely worse," she added. "Some properties are forced to be vulnerable while others are protected. I submit to you that this is an injustice."

Actually Accreting

   A differing view was offered by Mr. Frank, who told the board that the Barmack property has not undergone severe erosion in the last few years, and that in the bigger picture, that area of King's Point Road, roughly between the eastern jetty of Hog Creek Inlet and Hog Creek Point, is actually accreting.

   Some of the erosion on the property was "self-created, even if it was inadvertent," Mr. Frank added. Sparse vegetation, a patio at the bluff's edge, and a stairway and landing over the face of the bluff were all contributing to erosion there, he said.

   The Barmack house is set about 80 feet from the edge of the bluff, and is no immediate danger from storms.

   The rest of King's Point Road, continuing in a southeast direction, is heavily armored with bulkheads and revetments, and in some places the beach has all but disappeared. To the west of the Barmack property, until the jetty that helps maintain an open inlet to Hog Creek, the properties are unarmored.

Soft Sell

   Mr. Frank said the Barmack property was a reasonable place to deny a revetment request and stop the so-called "domino effect" these structures create. He noted that the flooding and erosion report suggested looking at the shoreline of a whole region when assessing its protection and recommended no hard structures be allowed in the immediate area where the Barmack property is.

   "You have enough information to deny it right now," Mr. Frank concluded. He suggested the Barmack family try a soft solution, such as adding sand and plantings to provide natural protection, instead.

   Mrs. Kaiser countered, however, that her family had tried a soft solution and that it didn't work; letters of support from six neighbors agreed with her. Mrs. Kaiser told the board that a vegetation plan begun the day before the December 1992 storm was wiped out.

Revised Plan

   "This is $13,000 of soft solution that lasted 26 hours," she said. "The storm took it out."

   Mr. Frank pointed out that plant ings need time to become established and need to be maintained to provide any meaningful protection.

   According to Mr. Haje, the proposed revetment before the board last week was revised from an earlier plan, which the State Department of Environmental Conservation had said would cause "physical loss of beach," the town engineer had called "excessive," and the East Hampton Town Trustees had called "too drastic."

   They have yet to review the new proposal, but Mr. Haje said conceptual approval had been given by the D.E.C. The board will seek the opinion of the Trustees and the engineer on the new design.