Revisiting a Rock Revetment

At its meeting on Friday, the East Hampton Village Zoning Board of Appeals briefly revisited the application of Mollie Zweig of 11 West End Road. In October 2013, Ms. Zweig received approval to construct a rock revetment on the ocean beach in front of her house over the strong objections of the East Hampton Town Trustees, who asserted jurisdiction. The revetment was constructed in November of that year, and the trustees filed an Article 78 court challenge to that determination.

In November, Judge Andrew G. Tarantino Jr. ruled in State Supreme Court in Riverhead that the zoning board’s State Environmental Quality Review Act determination had been incorrectly categorized as a Type 2 action, meaning the project had been found to not have significant adverse environmental impact. Instead, it should have been categorized as an unlisted action, requiring further review.

In light of that ruling, the board voted on a new environmental assessment form prepared by the applicant and Gene Cross, a consultant to the village, reaching the same conclusion it had in 2013: The revetment project “will not result in any moderate-to-large impacts, and therefore will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment,” Frank Newbold, the board’s chairman, said. The board voted unanimously to adopt a negative declaration pursuant to SEQRA, ending the review process.

As three of the town trustees looked on, Brian Matthews, an attorney with the firm representing the trustees, insisted on addressing the board. The only public hearing notice issued with respect to the application, he said, listed the now-invalidated Type 2 designation. “Therefore, it’s our view that you have not held a proper public hearing,” he said. A zoning board’s public hearing notice must fully state all the facts, circumstances, and relief sought in an application, he said, “and to issue a negative declaration in the span of five minutes” does not meet the board’s obligation to conduct a proper environmental review, including the holding of a proper public hearing on the application.

Mr. Matthews submitted a letter responding to the new environmental assessment form. “Our counsel will review it,” Mr. Newbold told him.

Stephen Angel, an attorney representing Ms. Zweig, then insisted on offering a rebuttal of sorts. “I didn’t think it appropriate for him to speak,” Mr. Angel said from the floor. Once at the lectern, he said that no public hearing on the determination was required. “All the causes of action asserted by the trustees that dealt with the substance of your determination . . . were specifically dismissed,” he said.