Frustration boiled over as a group of commercial shellfishermen confronted the East Hampton Town Trustees Tuesday about the efficacy of the town shellfish hatchery’s annual seeding program, which the trustees help fund. The meeting was marked by multiple angry exchanges and those in the small room in the town’s Lamb Building on Bluff Road, Amagansett, talking over one another. When the shouting was over, all agreed that a survey after the seeding was completed would be in everyone’s interest.

The hatchery, on the shore of Fort Pond Bay in Montauk, was established in 1989, four years after algal blooms began sweeping through local waterways and decimating shellfish. Its staff of five, two of whom work part time, oversee the spawning of millions of clams, oysters, and scallops, which are then put in Northwest, Three Mile, Accabonac, and Napeague Harbors as well as Hog Creek and Lake Montauk.

“There are large amounts of clams that are being put out in these places, millions of seeds,” Greg Verity, one of the angry baymen, said. “They’re simply not there, they haven’t been there for five years.”  He added that the seeded clams that are found look noticeably different from those that grow naturally.

Deborah Klughers, a trustee, said there were many reasons why the seeded clams would be hard to find, such as recreational clammers, those harvesting without a license, natural die-off, predators, and the spraying of insecticides to reduce mosquitoes. “Our aquaculture program is, I’d say, the finest on Long Island,” she said.

“The finest on Long Island?” Mr. Verity responded angrily. “Where are all our clams? Where are all our commercial shellfishermen?” He said he had asked John Dunne, the hatchery’s director, if a survey had been done, but the answer was no. “Millions of clam seed, all this money spent. Where is it? Because I can’t find it. . . . It should be a top priority to find out whether this stuff is living or not before they continue to put the stuff in the same places.”

 Anthony Sciffedi, another fisherman among the half-dozen who sat in the room or crowded into its entryway, agreed that a survey was needed. “It’s nice that we’re trying, but it’s getting less and less and worse and worse,” he said.

Stephanie Forsberg, a trustee who has a doctorate in marine science, reviewed the reasons for the decline of shellfish. “I’ve worked specifically on climate change and how that was affecting our local bay scallop, oyster, and clam population. . . . I’ve written several papers on this and have to say it’s scary, what we as society are doing, not just locally but globally. It has to do with ocean acidification, with pollution, with spraying.” Dr. Forsberg detailed the water-quality monitoring implemented last year with Christopher Gobler of Stony Brook University. “The thought is, if we can get this data, we can go back and work with our constituents, our other levels of government — the town board, and higher; go to the county, go to the state, and start being part of the solution. I hear you, but you can’t just point at the hatchery.” But she was frequently interrupted, prompting the ire of Diane McNally, the trustees’ presiding officer.

“Don’t interrupt the clerk when she’s speaking,” Ms. Forsberg later told Mr. Verityas he spoke over Ms. McNally. “What would you like us to do?” Ms. McNally asked. “Ask the town to remove the support of the aquaculture facility?” Mr. Verity repeated that, at the least, he wanted a survey.

Order deteriorated as others spoke over one another. “Hey!” Ms. McNally yelled, banging a gavel hard on the table. “Enough! What I am going to ask is if you have a concern, put it in writing so I know specifically what your concern is, how you’d like us to address it.”

Mr. Dunne said the hatchery distributes maps that indicate the quantity of shellfish seeded in particular waterways. “I’m not sure what other proof you need other than a nursery and field full of clams, numbers in our annual report, on our maps,” he said. “I have no incentive to make this stuff up.” Because his staff is minimal, Mr. Dunne said the hatchery must rely on anecdotal information from commercial and recreational fishermen. He had recently heard positive reports, he said, “but it also concerns me that there’s six, seven of you here that are having problems finding clams. . . . I’d be more than happy to do surveys, but honestly, the time to do surveys is the fall when everything is seeded.”

Mr. Verity continued to interrupt until Brian Byrnes, a trustee, told him, “This can’t continue like this. Otherwise, we will have to ask you to leave. I don’t want to do that, but I will.” Mr. Verity said he didn’t want the aquaculture program to be disbanded, but “I want there to be somebody to show me that this stuff is there.” 

“We will all try to work together,” Ms McNally said. “We can at least modify our policies and procedures, but you have to realize, the number of recreational shellfishers are increasing exponentially.” The trustees are concerned, Mr. Byrnes said, “and frankly a little alarmed, and will get to the bottom of it one way or another, because that’s what we do.”

A hearing on a new plan to curb drinking at Indian Wells Beach in Amagansett by banning alcohol during lifeguarded hours only on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays through the rest of the summer is expected to be scheduled for July 17. But, by the time a new hearing is held and the law put into effect, there will be only a few weekends left of the summer season.

The East Hampton Town Board already held a hearing on an alcohol ban that would have applied to Atlantic Avenue Beach, as well, and would have been in effect every day of the week. The proposal was scaled back in the face of opposition by the East Hampton Town Trustees, who have jurisdiction over those ocean beaches based on a Colonial-era patent. Town board members agreed to go along with what the trustees have said they would support, though several did so reluctantly and with disappointment.

The compromise includes reducing the area of beach where the weekend ban would be in effect to 1,000 feet in each direction from the beach road-ends.

“I think it’s the best we’re going to achieve, working together with the trustees,” Supervisor Larry Cantwell said Tuesday. “It addresses the problem where it’s occurring, at this specific beach.”

Residents have been complaining over several seasons about rowdy summertime crowds at the beach. Access to the parking lot has been restricted, and the situation there, which some deemed “chaotic,” is more orderly.

Extending the alcohol ban to the neighboring Atlantic Avenue Beach was proposed to prevent the crowd from simply shifting to another beach.

“I’m disappointed that we’re at July 1, and there is still nothing in place,” said Councilman Peter Van Scoyoc. By the time a new law is in place, in early August or later, he said, “this year’s done, without any meaningful change.” He said he would prefer to adopt the law proposed by the town board, and consider revising it for next year.

Councilwoman Sylvia Overby also said she was disappointed. “We did hear from our constituents,” she said, referring to the many people who asked the board to do something to tamp down the situation. “They are the same as the trustees’ constituents. I guess the trustees heard something different,” she said.   

East Hampton Town

Aircraft Noise Study

A study of noise over East Hampton and surrounding areas from aircraft using the East Hampton Airport got one step closer to fruition on Tuesday, when a committee that reviewed consultants’ proposals made a recommendation to the town board as to whom to hire.

Proposals from Young Environmental Sciences and from Harris, Miller, Miller, and Hanson, both of which have done other airport-related work for the town, were both deemed to be satisfactory, with some differences between the two firms, Pat Trunzo, a review committee member, told the town board at the work session earlier this week.

Ultimately, he said, the group voted, 4 to 2, to recommend Young Environmental Services, as their price, at $59,261, was less than the other firm’s $112,000 estimate, and they would provide two things Harris, Miller, Miller, and Hanson did not offer: an interactive, web-based noise map, and direct future access to a database of the information compiled as a result of the study.

Supervisor Stresses Farming

The future of the approximately 19-acre property on Montauk Highway in Amagansett, which was bought by the town after a large luxury senior citizens housing complex was proposed for the site, will be for agriculture, Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell stressed on Tuesday.

The town will begin next week accepting proposals from farmers and others seeking land for agricultural pursuits. A detailed proposal describing what agricultural activity is planned along with other information such as a financial plan and the farmer’s experience and background, will be required.

Scott Wilson, the town’s director of land acquisition and management, said that he has already been contacted by a number of people interested in using the land, whose activities represent “quite a large range, from microgreens to llamas and sheep.”

The property, which has been known as “555” in reference to its Montauk Highway address, needs a new name, Supervisor Cantwell said Tuesday. He suggested Amagansett Farm.

A plan to build 12 affordable townhouse condominium units on land owned by East Hampton Town is being re-energized after languishing for five years.

A former tennis court at 181 Accabonac Road in East Hampton next to the Windmill Village senior citizens housing complex would house the one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom units contained in three “manor houses” on the two-acre property. They have been “designed to look like a farmhouse,” Tom Ruhle, the town housing director, told the town board on Tuesday.

The project was developed initially by members of a community housing opportunity fund committee appointed to advise the town board on projects that could be undertaken using a dedicated affordable housing fund.

Its members included Amado Ortiz, an architect who designed the townhouse complex so that it could serve as a template and be easily replicated by the town in various configurations on other properties, Mr. Ruhle said.

The affordable housing project was included in the town’s 2009 capital budget, but was not pursued, he said.

Recently, the town board reconstituted a community housing opportunity fund committee, with former Councilman Job Potter as the chairman. That group, said Councilwoman Sylvia Overby, its board liaison, endorses the townhouse project.

According to an estimated budget for the $3.4 million project, the condos would be sold for prices ranging from $155,000 for the smallest, $195,000 for a two-bedroom, and $210,000 for the largest condos with three bedrooms.

The town would apply for state and county affordable housing subsidies that could cover a large portion of the remaining cost. An application for a state grant that was previously submitted was withdrawn when the project was put on hold, Mr. Ruhle said.

The town’s existing community housing opportunity fund has an approximately $500,000 balance, Mr. Ruhle said, which could be tapped to cover outstanding costs.

The housing director said that about $25,000 would be needed up front to prepare a site plan application to be submitted to the town planning board, for legal costs to create a condominium association, and to develop requests for construction proposals.

The project would also require a town board-approved transfer of development rights, which have already been set aside for the purpose.

Mr. Ruhle said that, optimistically, the project could be finished in 18 months.

The housing office, he said, has retained a list of more than 100 people seeking affordable housing, which had been compiled when initial efforts were made on the project.

As with other town affordable housing projects, he said believed that, even if state and county money is used on the condominium complex, housing applicants who live or work in East Hampton could be given preference over those from elsewhere.

Suffolk County

Credit vs. Cash

Legislator Jay Schneiderman is cosponsoring a bill that would require gasoline retailers in Suffolk to display credit card prices as prominently as cash prices.

Luring drivers in with a cash price, when gas may be much higher per gallon for credit purchases “is deceptive and inconveniences drivers who will either pay the additional fee or have to get back on the highway to find another more affordable station,” Mr. Schneiderman said in a release. This is not the legislator’s first attempt to address thd practice. Earlier this year he attempted to force retailers to have an electronic prompt give consumers warning. Retailers protested and the measure was tabled.

Legislator Kara Hahn, a member of the Legislature’s Consumer Protection Committee, and Legislator William Lindsay III are also sponsoring the bill. “The purpose of this law is not to dictate pricing to the market but only to require gasoline retailers to honestly present their prices,” Mr. Lindsay said in a release.

The bill will come before the Government Operations, Personnel, Housing, and Consumer Protection Committee on July 23. 

Mosquito Spraying

The Suffolk County Department of Public Works’ Division of Vector Control this week began using a helicopter to spray salt marshes in East Hampton and Southampton Towns with an larvicide in an effort to control mosquitoes. On the list to be treated in East Hampton Town were marshes on Napeague and around Beach Hampton and Accabonac Harbor. In Southampton Town, the county is to spray near Meadow Lane, in North Sea, and at Jagger Lane, among other locations. According to the Health Department, it is unlikely that residents will be exposed to the spray, which is not significantly toxic to humans. More information can be obtained from the Division of Vector Control at 852-4270 or the spraying hotline, 852-4939.

The New York State Public Service Commission has set in motion a process to address the depletion of phone numbers with the 631 area code, which is projected to occur by the first quarter of 2016, and has scheduled public hearings on alternate strategies for doing so. A public hearing before an administrative law judge will be held in Riverhead on Tuesday at the Riverhead County Center, 300 Center Drive, at 2 p.m., preceded by an informational forum at 1 p.m. Those wishing to speak need only appear.

As of May 2014, telecommunication carriers were already using 727 of the 792 codes available for assignment to the 631 area. As a result, the P.S.C. has come up with two ways to meet future demand for new numbers. The first course of action, called an overlay, would entail providing a new area code for all new numbers in the geographic area, while allowing pre-existing 631 numbers to remain. Callers would be required to dial the area code for all calls in Suffolk County. The reasoning behind this, according to a press release, is that it would be unfair to require consumers with new area code numbers to dial all 10 digits,  without requiring consumers with the 631 code to do so as well.

The second strategy is a geographic split in which part of Suffolk County would keep the 631 code, while the rest of it would have a new area code. A map drawn by the commission identifies a prospective split as running along the western borders of Smithtown, Central Islip, and Islip, and through Fire Island. The projected date at which the area code numbers on each side would be exhausted would be considered in deciding which side would keep 631.

Dividing the county into two code areas would require dialing all ten digits when calling the neighboring geographical area. It also would require thousands of customers to take their wireless phones to their service providers to be reprogrammed with the new area code.

To educate citizens on the process, the commission has published information  on AskPSC.com and will send mailings to those affected by the change. Anyone  interested may also comment by voice message at the P.S.C. toll-free opinion line, 800-335-2120, or by submitting comments at AskPSC.com.  One may also write to Kathleen H. Burgess, secretary, New York State Public Service Commission, 3 Empire State Plaza, Albany 12223-1350 or email her at [email protected]. All comments must reach the commission by July 31. Those doing so should include the term “631 Area Code Case” or “Case 14-C-0182.”

A hearing in State Supreme Court in Riverhead this week may have been the beginning of the end of an ongoing battle between East Hampton Town and the owners of Cyril’s Fish House, the popular eatery and bar on Napeague, but the case is not over yet. The town is seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the owners, Michael Dioguardi and Cyril Fitzsimons, from operating a business in any other form than existed in 1984, when it was a small roadside cafe. They, in turn, have brought suit against the town for what they say is malicious prosecution and abuse of process.

Friday’s hearing on the request for a preliminary injunction cuts to the heart of a controversial issue: how to regulate businesses that predate zoning and are grandfathered as legal in areas where they are no longer permitted. Both sides agree that Cyril’s is a business on a site zoned for residences. The dispute is whether it has been expanded, which would be a violation of the zoning code. The owners contend the bar and restaurant was always there in some form, while the town argues the use was expanded in 1990. The owners’ suit is being held in abeyance until the current matter is settled.

The hearing got off to a rocky start when the attorneys for the owners, Dianne K. Le Verrier and Conrad Jordan, were not present at 10 a.m., as scheduled. Mr. Jordan explained he had been involved in two trials in Queens, but Acting Supreme Court Justice Joseph Farneti was clearly unhappy. He scolded Mr. Jordan,  saying that because there was no jury involved, he would have been able to be flexible in handling the case. “You denied me that flexibility by not being here at 10 a.m.,” he said.

 Joseph W. Prokop, representing the town, told the court that he had subpoenaed several witnesses for that morning. Because the hearing did not get underway until after the lunch break, he had time to call only one: William J. Walsh, who surveyed the property several times, beginning in 1984. The other witnesses were to have been a former owner of the site, a representative of the State Liquor Authority, and an aerial photographer. Also present as potential witnesses was Tom Preiato, the town’s chief building inspector, and other officials. 

Mr. Walsh told the court that, according to his survey as well as original notes, there was no exterior bar or awning there in 1984. When asked if there was anything different when he revised the survey in 1990, his answer was, “Yes. The deck and the bar, and a walking ramp to step up to the deck level.” Mr. Jordan’s cross-examination quickly became adversarial. He pressed Mr. Walsh about whether an exterior counter might have been there in 1984. “If there was a counter, it would have been in the survey,” Mr. Walsh answered.

Mr. Jordan then questioned Mr. Walsh about a phone conversation he had with Debra Choron, another attorney with the Le Verrier firm, asking whether Mr. Walsh had expressed concern that he could be legally liable if he had left anything off the original survey. “I returned a phone call. I didn’t expect to be interrogated,” Mr. Walsh responded, saying the call upset him, and he didn’t recall all the details of the conversation.

Justice Farneti told Mr. Walsh that he should not take any of Mr. Jordan’s questions personally, saying it was just part of the process. That process will continue either on Tuesday or July 7, depending on the status of Mr. Jordan’s Queens trials. 

It isn’t usual for the East Hampton Town Planning Board to actually welcome an application for site plan review of commercial construction, but that was the reaction on June 11 when a proposal for a two-story building in the downtown area of Montauk came up. Two other site plan applications also were on the agenda, and in those cases the board called for more narrative.

The Montauk application was submitted by Peter A. Kazura, who plans a two-story building with a single business on the first floor and a two-bedroom affordable apartment on the second. The property is one of five undeveloped  rectangular lots on the north side of South Euclid Avenue. The lots are on one of the last undeveloped commercial blocks in the hamlet. The lot in question is 4,100 square feet. The building would be constructed in Tudor style, something Nancy Keeshan, a member of the board who has a real estate business in downtown Montauk, applauded.

The plan, including the apartment, which would require a special permit, was welcomed by the board, although there was a hitch when they heard a report about the plan for parking from JoAnne Pahwul, assistant town planning director. The problem, she said, is that an adjacent property already has site plan approval with a totally different configuration for parking. She suggested that the sidewalks between the parcels  be better aligned and the parking spaces on the Kazura lot pulled farther back into the right of way. The board agreed that the parking plans needed to be modified before Mr. Kazura’s next go-round in front of the board.The review of East Hampton property at 79 Spring Close Highway, which is the title of the limited liability company that owns it, brought up groundwater questions. Slightly under an acre, the property is the site of Spring Close Antiques and Restorations, which is seeking a 245-square-foot greenhouse, concrete slabs around its workshop, and to add parking. Access is via a long strip of land running parallel to the Long Island Rail Road tracks, with the entrance on Spring Close Highway. The site is unique in being zoned for commercial-industrial use, whereas all the other properties in the area are residential. The owner’s representative, Britton Bistrian, told the board that the workshop had been there over 100 years.

In a memo to the board, Thomas D. Talmage, the town engineer, expressed skepticism about elements of the initial plan. One question was about groundwater, which is apparently only 2.3 feet beneath the surface. This would hamper any effort to put in a septic system, he noted. “I do not find the engineering elements to be satisfactory,” Mr. Talmage wrote.

Ms. Bistrian countered that Mr. Talmage was referring to water trapped between the surface and a thick clay deposit. Pat Schutte, a board member, agreed. Mr. Schutte, a builder, said he had worked on a nearby house. “The first two feet were muck. The next eight feet were real pottery clay. You couldn’t drive a truck on it. It was like ten feet down. When you got through it, it was fine. Sand. But it is fine. It is just trap?ped water.”

Overall, the board expressed a desire to see a narrative on the uses of the site, and one that would address Mr. Talmage’s concerns about parking and other issues as well as groundwater. Diana Weir, a board member, said nearby wetlands needed to be reflagged, and another member, Reed Jones, noted that no additional landscaping would be needed. “It is really tucked away back there.”

The second initial site plan review that night was for a storage shed on land also zoned for commercial industrial use, 14 Plank Road in a water recharge area. The site is home to Paul Consiglio Contracting. According to a memo from Eric Schantz of the East Hampton Town Planning Department, the company wants to legalize an existing 275-square-foot shed on a 6,480-square-foot parcel. In this case, however, surrounding properties are similarly zoned. Nevertheless, Mr. Schantz noted that the applicants had “not stated the nature of the intended use of the storage shed.” The board agreed, asking the owners to produce a narrative that explains the use.

The board also discussed changes to the town code regarding exterior lighting, which have been proposed by the town board. A public hearing on it had been held on June 5, and board members expressed some confusion about why they were being asked to weigh in on the matter after the hearing had been held. In the end, the board agreed to support most of the proposed legislation except a clause that calls for a range of color temperatures. They expressed the belief that 3,000 Kelvins should be the maximum.

East Hampton Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell has suggested a countywide ban on disposable plastic shopping bags.

Mr. Cantwell said he had proposed the idea at a recent meeting of the East End Supervisors and Mayors Association. “That is a more comprehensive way to do it,” he said. “I’m hoping that the supervisors are going to support that request to the county.”

The East Hampton Village Board voted in 2011 to outlaw the bags, which are blamed for wildlife deaths, require petroleum to manufacture, and release toxins into soil and waterways as they decompose. Southampton Village prohibited them in 2013.

The East Hampton Town Litter Committee is preparing to launch a lobbying effort in support of a ban, East Hampton Town Trustee Debbie Klughers, a member of the committee, said.

Mr. Cantwell this week also called the quantity of roadside litter “troubling” in East Hampton Town.

The town’s Highway Department, he said, “does a very respectable job. The state and county do a much poorer job of keeping the sides of their roads clean.”

A result of budget cuts to the county roads program and the state’s Department of Transportation, “those efforts are deplorable compared to 20 years ago,” he said. “The burden falls on everyone else.”

On LTV

“Cleaning the Sands of Time,” a film depicting the Feb. 22 beach cleanup organized by Dell Cullum, a nature photographer and wildlife specialist, is airing on LTV. The 28-minute film chronicles the day on which 84 volunteers collected and removed 3,510 pounds of mixed debris from the ocean shoreline from Montauk Point to Georgica Beach in East Hampton Village.

“It’s a really good message,” Mr. Cullum said. “We’re anxious to get it out there so the summer people can see how hard we worked prior to the summer, and give them an idea of what we’re trying to do here and how they can help — by not littering, bringing out what they bring in, picking up after their dogs. The simple things that everybody is neglecting.”

It will be broadcast tonight at 6:30 and 11 more times through July 7. It will appear with Mr. Cullum’s “Imagination Nature,” a program that recently debuted on LTV in which he discusses wildlife and nature. Each episode features “Trash Talk,” a segment in which an individual or group delivers a message about keeping the town free of litter.

“Dell is raising awareness to get people to stop littering,” Mr. Cantwell said. He is also raising the awareness of government to stay on top of garbage removal from receptacles, he said.

Mr. Cantwell “has done a lot for the cause,” Mr. Cullum said. “Even though there’s more to do, if he can do it, he’s going to do it.”

“Every single person is responsible to not litter,” Ms. Klughers said. “It’s so simple: Bring it home with you, find a garbage can.” One of her concerns is road-end dumping, people leaving household garbage in or around receptacles at the roadway endings at public beaches.

“Dell sees the same people every morning. The rest of the residents are paying for their trash removal,” she said.

The town, Mr. Cantwell said, “has got to keep doing a better and better job of providing the facilities and doing all it can to pick up the trash that is left, in some cases left legitimately. Maybe we’re not picking it up as frequently as we should, although this year we’ve increased our schedule of pickups,” he said.

An Army Corps of Engineers’ amphibious vehicle known as a LARC, for Lighter Amphibious Resupply Cargo, will be out in the ocean and along the beach between Ditch Plain and the eastern edge of Washington Drive in Montauk today in preparation for the design of a beach protection and reconstruction project.

The “vehicle is designed to allow surveying in the water, across shoals, and even through the surf zone up to the base of the beach dunes,” according to a release.