Gardiner’s Bay ‘Dock’ Okay Expected

The East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals is considering, for the second time in three years, an application to replace a decaying 1930s dock in Gardiner’s Bay, and this time, the Z.B.A. is expected to approve the application. Even the man who shepherded the town’s Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan, which in general recommends against hard structures, has given it his blessing.

The application is from the Broadview Property Owners Association, which represents the owners in a 1980s subdivision of what was once about a 550-acre estate in Amagansett owned by Dr. Dennistoun M. Bell.

 The bay beach from Barnes Hole Road to Albert’s Landing Road apparently was deeded to Dr. Bell by the East Hampton Town Trustees, and it is now shown on the town’s land database as owned by the association. The now-mostly landlocked dock, built to provide a deep water berth for Dr. Bell’s 70-foot yacht, is about halfway between those roads.

 Perpendicular to the shore, the dock was 110 feet long, with an upside down L running parallel to the shore for 125 feet at its end. The perpendicular section of the dock is now almost completely submerged, and sand has accreted along the beach and built up the dunes. That is because, according to Brian Frank, the East Hampton Town Planning Department’s chief environmental analyst, the dock was made of steel sheathing instead of open pilings, which are more frequently associated with fixed docks. Were the dock not in place, sand would drift naturally southward toward Albert’s Landing. Mr. Frank said the dunes had flourished as a result of the dock, creating excellent habitats for plants and animals.

In 2011, the association came before the board to replace the perpendicular section of the dock, while removing the L section. It also planned to put in 31 feet of rock armor at the seaward end of the new pier. At the time, it was thought that the association needed both a permit and a variance from the section of the town code prohibiting such structures.

The 2011 hearing was contentious, pitting association members against each other and prompting Philip Gamble, then chairman of the board, to express displeasure. He called the proposal “disingenuous,” saying the dock was simply a groin. “To this date, no one has ever asked to put in a groin or jetty or whatever you want to call it,” Mr. Gamble said. The board voted 4-1 to deny the application, with only Don Cirillo voting in favor.

The application is before the board again because in a recent re-examination of the code, it was learned that an obscure section was overlooked, according to Mr. Frank, that gives the town’s chief building inspector rather than the Z.B.A. jurisdiction over docks built perpendicular to the shore.

 The code also bans the Z.B.A. from issuing any variance involving perpendicular erosion control structures, unless they are to “ensure the safe navigability of a boat channel.” It also says the building inspector can approve the construction or removal of perpendicular groins, jetties, or other structures if the change “would result in a reduction of the size or length of the structure and a public or environmental benefit.”

Patrick B. Fife, an attorney with Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelly, Dubin & Quatararo, made aware of this interpretation of the code, had brought a plan for a somewhat smaller dock to Tom Preiato, then chief building inspector, who rejected the application, prompting the association to present its case to the Z.B.A. by appealing his ruling.

The proposed reconstruction meets the demands of the town code, Mr. Fife said at a Z.B.A. hearing on Oct. 28 because the “overall size and length of the structure will be dramatically reduced.” It also was his opinion that the reconstruction would result in “public or environmental benefit.”

Although the beach is private property, the public has the right to walk on it between the low and high tide mean water marks, something that happens daily, he said. The new dock would largely be submerged, and the public would be able to cross it on foot.

Unlike at the 2011 hearing, there was no opposition to the proposal voiced last week. Besides members of the Broadview Property Owners Association, members of the Barnes Landing Association, owners of residences immediately to the north, spoke in favor of the plan. Furthermore, Rameshwar Das, who helped craft the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan, submitted a letter in favor of the proposal. He had previously told The East Hampton Star that “the Bell dock is the only thing holding the Barnes Landing beach in place.”

The board received one letter in opposition to the proposal from an association member, Neal Gabler, who also opposed the 2011 application.

Despite the favorable comment, Mr. Frank suggested that the board uphold Mr. Preiato’s denial of a building permit so that the association could fine-tune the plan and resubmit it to the Building Department. However, Elizabeth Baldwin, the board’s attorney, told the members this week that they could act as building inspector in this case and allow a building permit to be issued.

David Lys, a member of the board, asked that the record be kept open and the association asked to submit the actual deed for the beach to make sure that the public has the right to walk on it in perpetuity. His request was granted.