Trustees Or Z.B.A.?

R. David Campbell's application to replace 680 feet of a crumbling bulkhead at his Georgica Pond residence is unfolding as relevant to the proposal to shift most regulatory powers involving the waterfront from the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals to the Trustees.

Arguing that the site, Burnt Point, which projects into the pond at the mouth of Siney's Cove, would erode unless the bulkhead were rebuilt, Mr. Campbell won Trustee approval last year to replace his bulkhead. During deliberations on Sept. 30, a majority of the Z.B.A., however, was clearly opposed to its full reconstruction. Instead, members said, Mr. Campbell should be permitted to rebuild only its northern and southern tips. If this becomes the Z.B.A.'s formal decision, as expected, Mr. Campbell would be left with permits that contradict each other.

Proponents of the proposed Trustee environmental review permit, which would give them sole authority over the waterfront everywhere but in Montauk, say it would eliminate dual review in many circumstances and the potential for such conflicting decisions as this one on Burnt Point.

They point to another instance a few years ago, when Kevin Murphy wanted to rebuild a fixed dock on Three Mile Harbor. What happened in that instance gave impetus to the Trustees' attempt to wrest authority over lands that the Trustees own on behalf of the public from the Z.B.A.

That the vagaries of the town zoning code sent Mr. Murphy on an expensive and frustrating odyssey is unfortunate but not entirely relevant. Mr. Murphy's problem stemmed from what seemed to be a glitch in the Town Code. In the case of the Campbell property, the boards had similar jurisdiction and arrived at different conclusions.

The Trustees decided a new bulkhead was better than the stone armament Mr. Campbell had at first requested; the Z.B.A., going along with a Town Planning Department recommendation, is of the opinion that erosion is not an imminent danger inside Georgica Pond and that the applicant would have the right to reapply should it become so.

The Z.B.A. has relied more and more heavily in recent years on a section of the code that withholds a natural resources permit for a shore-hardening structure unless there is rapid erosion that is "impossible" to control through lesser measures. It is a hard test to meet, and, as a result, the Z.B.A's rulings have gone both ways.

For example, Dora Barmack's proposed revetment on King's Point Road in Springs was denied by the Z.B.A. Its members agreed that her property was not immediately threatened. The Trustees, on the other hand, decided that the Barmack property had been scoured as a result of erosion-control structures to the east and that there were no properties to the west that would be damaged if her revetment went in. A subsequent court decision upheld the Z.B.A.

The hard test for bulkheads and revetments has been carried into the language of the law that would establish the Trustees as sole authority. In addition, the present Trustees have agreed to comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act when acting as a regulatory body.

A further complication is on the horizon - a full ban on shore-hardening structures has been proposed for much of the town in the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan. The waterfront plan has been a decade in the making, primarily under Democratic administrations. The Trustees, however, have complained that they were not always included in the discussions and, not surprisingly, have sought to reopen them.

The larger question remains, however: Which of the boards reaches conclusions more in keeping with the public's overall best interests?

The Z.B.A. watches the Town Code and listens to the town's planners carefully. The Trustees, who have relied in the past to a great extent on personal experience, say they are willing to abide by similar protocols.

Nevertheless, had the TERP law been in place, Ms. Barmack probably would have her revetment and Mr. Campbell would be able to go ahead with his new bulkhead. At least to some degree, the public ought to be guided by these cases in considering how to vote in November.