A toll-free telephone number at which residents could register complaints about construction and landscaping noise was one outcome of the East Hampton Village Board's ongoing discussions on restricting the offending activities.

     At its meeting last Thursday, the East Hampton Village Board moved closer to reducing the hours in which construction and landscaping work could be done, and continued to debate restrictions on parking in municipal lots. But a hearing on the former debate was closed and reopened after representatives from the affected industries pressed for clarification of the proposed new rules.

     Barbara Borsack, the deputy mayor, said that she, Richard Lawler, another board member, and Becky Molinaro, the village administrator, had met the day before with representatives of the construction and landscaping industries and the Village Preservation Society. At the meeting, which she described as "very constructive," it was agreed that construction and landscaping work must conclude by 6 p.m. on weekdays and 3 p.m. on Saturdays between June 1 and Sept. 15. Such work by anyone other than a tenant or homeowner is prohibited on Sundays. It was also agreed that radios would be banned from work sites.

     The starting date in which the restrictions would be in effect was moved from May 15 to June 1 "so they could get through Memorial Day, because that's when the big push is to get everything done," Ms. Borsack said.

     A 7 a.m. start time for construction on weekdays was allowed to stand, as representatives of the industries insisted it was essential. "They felt it would be a huge hardship to start at 9," as the board initially proposed, Ms. Borsack said.

     Regarding commercial use of gas or diesel-powered landscaping equipment, the board proposed a start time of 8 a.m. on weekdays and Saturdays from June 1 through the second Friday in December, the latter date coinciding with the conclusion of the village's leaf pickup service.

     "We talked about decibel levels," Ms. Borsack said. "We talked about phasing in new equipment for leaf blowers. I think that's going to take some investigation on our part. . . . We may want to make that a separate issue."

     Joe Morgano of Power Equipment Plus, which sells and repairs landscaping and construction equipment, told the board that Stihl, a manufacturer of such equipment, "is working with me, and they work with other towns and cities across the country, to help with this problem." Mr. Morgano also suggested that landscape companies "need to train their help." A handheld leaf blower, he said, is quieter than those incorporating a backpack and should be used for smaller jobs, for example.

     Margaret Turner of the East Hampton Business Alliance applauded the institution of a hotline for complaints. "That's important to hear the data," she said, "and get some statistics as to where the problems are, perhaps help the village focus in on where the problems lie."

     Kathy Cunningham, speaking on behalf of the Village Preservation Society, told the board that homeowners have to do their part in policing the noise issue. "This can only work collaboratively if there's a functioning hotline, and homeowners need to understand that they need to hire contractors that are observing these rules and regulations."

     "We'll go through the mechanics to get that in place," Mayor Paul F. Rickenbach Jr. said of the telephone hotline, "and to make appropriate notification to the public."

     The hearing was closed, but later reopened when Michael Tuths, a landscaper, told the board that a group of his colleagues in attendance were still unclear on how the proposed legislation would affect them. How would the new rules apply to a landscaper who is building a patio, he asked. That is construction, Linda Riley, the village attorney, responded.

     Declan Blackmore of Summerhill Landscapes in Sag Harbor said that 70 percent of his business is construction. "I'm a landscape contractor, but we build gardens," he said.

     "Construction has a starting date and an ending date," Ms. Borsack said, "whereas landscaping is all the time . . . . Supposedly, if you're constructing a patio, it's going to be done, you're not going to be doing it week after week."

     "We're trying to reach agreement between those that don't want the noise and those that have to create some noise to do their work," Mr. Lawler told Mr. Blackmore. "We're not targeting landscapers, we're trying to target the problem."

     The board also continued to seek a solution to the shortage of parking in the village. Its most recent proposal would restrict parking in municipal lots to two hours between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. from May 1 through Dec. 31, and on Fridays, Saturdays, and federal holidays from Jan. 1 through April 30.

     Mayor Rickenbach asked Scott Fithian, the superintendent of public works, for input. Mr. Fithian suggested limiting parking in some or all of the spaces directly behind Village Hardware in the Barnes-Schenck lot to 15 or 30 minutes. "I've had a lot of people complain about getting into the hardware store," he said. Capt. Mike Tracey of the village police said that Chief Gerard Larsen had suggested imposing a 15-minute limit to the spaces adjacent to Waldbaum’s in the Reutershan lot.

     The board also discussed the efficacy of signs in the section of the Reutershan lot designating it exclusively for compact cars. Mary Anna Morris, general manager of the Ladies Village Improvement Society, told the board that, "As someone who is right there every day, that is absolutely not enforced." Sport utility vehicles, she said, regularly occupy spaces there. Many volunteers at the nearby L.V.I.S., she said, are senior citizens and have stated that they would not volunteer their time if they must park in the long-term lot near Lumber Lane during the winter months. "Please keep the local population's needs in mind," she said.

            The mayor said that the board should come up with a definition of a compact car. He asked Mr. Fithian to study that section of the Reutershan lot to see if it could be reconfigured so that the overall lot could accommodate more vehicles. "We have a finite number of parking spaces within the central commercial business core in the village," he said. "We're doing our best to deliver a product that works for everybody."

The East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals gave a Wainscott property owner unanimous approval Tuesday night for a second house on a single property, an apparent first since two houses on one site are prohibited by the town code. Members not only approved the proposal but praised it, although one, Don Cirillo, questioned the sincerity of one of the applicant’s stated goals, the preservation of a historic farmhouse.

Jeff T. Blau, the chief executive officer of Related Companies, which Wikipedia calls the largest developer of luxury residences in New York City, bought two adjoining parcels on Five Rod Highway, a town trustee road off Wainscott Main Street, in the summer of 2012 for about $25 million. He plans to create what will essentially be a three-house compound there.

The smaller lot is 2.7 acres and has a house on it which is to be torn down and replaced with a much larger one. The larger parcel, which contains the farmhouse, is largely an open field of just under 11.8 acres. Mr. Blau will build an even larger house there, on the southeastern corner of the property, forming a triangular cluster of three houses. This house will require its own variances, but on Tuesday the board was only considering whether to allow two houses on the larger of the two lots.

Denise R. Schoen, an attorney for Mr. Blau, told the zoning board during an April 1 public hearing that the old house belonged to the Wainscott Topping family and dates to as early as 1660. It is to be moved to the northeastern corner of the property, where it will become a guesthouse, with a section converted to a gym and a tennis court, pavilion, and walkways surrounding it. Ms. Schoen told the board that the house would be preserved for future generations.

Although Mr. Cirillo voted with the majority, he pointed out Tuesday that the house would not be visible from nearby roads. Nor was it to be open to the public. “Better than nothing, I suppose,” he said. “I am not so sure that turning it into a gym is preserving it. I think it would be a nice gesture to allow people into the house once a year.”

Bryan Gosman asked his fellow board members Tuesday if the owner could “mow down the house” at a future date. Cate Rogers, one of the board’s newer members, gave him an emphatic yes.

Although an application to build a second house on a single property has rarely, if ever, been seen in East Hampton, both the town’s lead attorney, Elizabeth Vail, and the attorney for the Z.B.A., Elizabeth Baldwin, said on Monday that such a request was legal.

The 11.8-acre parcel was part of a larger Topping parcel that was subdivided in 1983. Because it is now zoned for five-acre minimum house lots, Mr. Blau’s desire for two houses might have been achieved through another subdivision. However, the land is also in an agricultural district where 70 percent of the land would have had to be set aside. Mr. Blau has promised to leave 70 percent of the lot open in return for the second house.

Alex Walter, the board’s chairman, called the property dazzling on Tuesday. “It is an excellent proposal. I am very much in favor of preserving this historic house,” he said.

The East Hampton Town Board will hold hearings next Thursday on three potential property purchases, including the 19 acres of Amagansett farmland where a luxury housing development had been proposed, as well as on new legislation governing the establishment of chain stores in the town.

The new zoning law, if enacted, would limit the possible locations for chain, or “formula” stores — those with 10 or more locations worldwide — to central business zones, excluding spots within or within a mile of historic districts, or within a half-mile of a designated historic building.

Planning board approval, after a specific review process and issuance of a special permit, would be required, and limits would be placed on the size and appearance of the formula business.

In addition to hearing from the public on the legislation, the town board will receive a memo about the idea from the planning board, which discussed the code addition at a recent meeting.

The acquisition of the Amagansett acreage is proposed not only to preserve open space and vistas, but also to enable the town to help foster agriculture by leasing the acreage to a farmer. The cost of the site, which is held by a limited-liability corporation called Amagansett Farms Holdings, is $10.1 million, which would come from the community preservation fund.

The plan by the landowners, also known as a Connecticut company called Putnam Bridge, to put up 79 housing units, and their appeal to the prior town board to change the zoning code to allow them to do it, created controversy in the community.

The town’s proposed purchase would include the majority of the land, which is on Montauk Highway at Amagansett’s eastern edge. Putnam Bridge would retain 4.5 acres with highway frontage, which is zoned for affordable housing.

Another subject of a hearing next week will be four parcels on Napeague Harbor Road on Napeague owned by the Bistrian Land Corporation. The cost would be $1.1 million, also to be borne by the preservation fund. The property would be purchased for open space.

The board will also take comments at next week’s hearing on the purchase of an almost half-acre lot on Waterhole Road in Springs from William Kuhl, for $225,000, using the community preservation fund.

The hearings will begin at 6:30 p.m. at Town Hall.

East Hampton Town

Deer Management Online

Deer management in East Hampton Town is now the subject of a new page of the town’s website, at ehamptonny.gov. Included on the page are the deer management plans adopted by the town and by the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation, aerial deer population survey results, a guide for hunters and landowners who might wish to allow hunting on their properties, information about local venison donation, and links to information about numerous deer-related topics such as tick-borne illnesses and the environmental impacts of deer.

Recent state legislation has reduced the required setback from buildings from 500 feet to 150 feet for bow hunters, which will add to the areas where hunting may take place, with landowners’ permission. In a recent press release, both Town Councilman Fred Overton, the liaison to the town’s deer management advisory committee, and Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell underscored the importance of hunting in controlling the deer population.

Capital Plan Adopted

With a vote last Thursday, the town board adopted a three-year capital spending plan with close to 100 projects totaling $12.9 million.

 The projects in the 2014 through 2016 plan, which must be individually approved and bonded for, include repairs to several town buildings and sports facilities, the purchase of Police and Highway Department vehicles and equipment, a vault for town records, the digitization of records, and new public garbage cans.

Because some existing debt is due to be retired, the town’s overall indebtedness will go down by approximately 20 percent, despite the new borrowing, Supervisor Cantwell said Thursday, while allowing the town to accomplish some needed work.

Seek Contractors for Affordable Housing

Through May 1, the town housing office agent will accept proposals from contractors interested in building affordable single-family houses on two town-owned lots.

The town board will choose an approved contractor, who would then be hired by those next in line on a waiting list for affordable housing maintained by the housing office. The future homeowners would pay for construction of a house. The town will maintain ownership of the lots.

Information and proposals packages will be available beginning Monday from the Office of Housing and Community Development in Amagansett, which will hold a pre-proposal conference for contractors on April 23 at 10 a.m.

Stanzione on Energy Committee

Former Town Councilman Dominick Stanzione was appointed to the town’s energy sustainability committee through a resolution approved by the town board last Thursday. Mr. Stanzione had served as liaison to the group during his time in office.

A second new appointee to the committee added last Thursday is John Franceschina, a representative of PSEG Long Island.

A revamp of the laws regarding large gatherings in East Hampton Town is under way in advance of “the season,” when town officials often juggle scores of requests for large fund-raisers, parties, and sporting events.

Draft legislation that would rescind two existing chapters of the town code and combine their regulations into one new section was developed over the last few months by Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell and John Jilnicki, a town attorney, who reviewed it at a town board meeting on Tuesday.

The new rules would maintain a requirement that permits be obtained from the town for outdoor assemblies of more than 50 people at residences, commercial sites, and public properties.

However, board members agreed Tuesday, the law could establish three tiers of permit review. For events with 50 to 100 attendees, the town clerk could issue a permit administratively. Those with 101 to 249 expected participants would be reviewed by a mass gathering permit committee that includes town staff and board members, and events exceeding that number of attendees would be reviewed by the whole board.

Cleanup deposits and “impact fees” — charges to cover costs to the town police for traffic control or other municipal services — could also be tied to the size of an event.

Assemblies on commercial properties, which have town site plan approvals and certificates of occupancy for particular uses, could be held only under limited conditions, according to the draft law: if sponsored by a charitable organization, if defined as a “social event,” according to the code (where no goods or services are sold), or if considered a “public amenity,” which is defined as a free entertainment, activity, or pastime, such as a movie or concert.

If allowed, however, special events could not be held on areas of commercial properties that are normally used by the business for a required function, such as parking lots.

No sales of goods or food would be allowed at any gathering, except by a charitable organization that provides services or funds to town residents, or by local civic organizations.

The proposed new legislation drops a section in the old code on “commercial gatherings,” which was developed to address the commercial use of public properties. It required businesses, such as those offering surfing lessons at the beaches, to obtain permits for activities including five or more customers.

While under the proposal parks or other municipal properties could be used only for social events, public amenities, or events sponsored by charities, and similar limitations would be applied to privately owned properties that are open to the public, the draft law does not specifically impose those limitations on beach events. However, in all public places, it says that “no assemblies that the town board deems to unreasonably impede the use of the premises by the general public shall be permitted.”

A proposal to ban the use of tents on the beaches for events, except when required by the Suffolk Health Department for food preparation, or by charities, is subject to the opinion of the town trustees.

The draft legislation will be the subject of additional town board discussions at coming meetings.

A meeting that was to have happened last week between local officials and representatives of PSEG Long Island did not take place. Its purpose was to discuss the future of the electric utility’s six-mile transmission line project through East Hampton Town.

According to Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell, PSEG has maintained the stance that if East Hampton residents want the new high-tension overhead transmission lines buried, the community must bear the entire cost.

The company, said Jeffrey Weir, a spokesman, yesterday, does not agree with the scenario laid out in a letter from East End local and regional elected representatives, similar to one used five years ago in Southampton, when the utility, then the Long Island Power Authority, charged all its ratepayers for the base cost of extending lines overhead, and town residents within a town-designated affected area for the extra costs of burying them.

“We feel that it does not apply to the project in East Hampton,” Mr. Weir said.

According to PSEG, which has completed its installation of new, larger poles along the transmission line route from East Hampton Village to Amagansett — and has insisted that the overhead work must be completed before summer, even if lines are eventually to be buried — the cost of the entire project, including what has been done and future modifications, would reach $28.6 million.

“At the moment, it’s a standoff,” Mr. Cantwell said Monday. “But I’m going to do what I can to break the ice.”  He said that PSEG had indicated that discussions with the town will not continue until any modification of the project is “100 percent funded.”

However, Mr. Weir said that PSEG “will continue to have regular dialogue with our local officials out there,” and remain “committed to finding a win-win solution.”

 “I’m going to continue to press the case at the highest level of state government,” Mr. Cantwell said, reaching out to the governor and the head of the  Public Service Commission “to appeal PSEG’s decision.”

The supervisor called it “troubling” that after Governor Andrew M. Cuomo announced in January, with Vice President Joe Biden by his side, a $17 billion project to bury up to 500 miles of overhead transmission lines, including $1.3 million specifically to improve the state’s energy transmission system, he has “failed to respond” to the PSEG issue in East Hampton.

Local residents who have formed Save East Hampton: Safe Responsible Energy to protest the overhead lines and advocate for burying them canceled a rally last weekend because of bad weather. It will take place on Saturday at 1 p.m. at the Hook Mill in East Hampton Village.

Efforts to preserve two East Hampton historic sites and open them for public use are continuing, while the fate of a third property, the Sherrill Farm in East Hampton, remains undecided.

The former Duck Creek Farm in Springs and the former Selah Lester farm at the corner of North Main and Cedar Streets in East Hampton were bought by East Hampton Town with money from the community preservation fund. Repairs to the structures at both sites are being made.

Speaking to the East Hampton Town Board on March 11, Prudence Carabine, a main force behind volunteer committee efforts to turn the Lester farm into a museum depicting the life of a farm family in the early 1900s, said there was continued interest in seeing the Sherrill Farm, just north of the Lester property on the other side of North Main Street, also preserved.

It dates to 1792, when Abraham Sherrill bought land at the foot of Fireplace Road in East Hampton, at its juncture with North Main Street, from Jacob Conklin. It is, Ms. Carabine said, “the jewel in the center, that in my opinion has to be saved.”

The house, which is on the National Register of Historic Places, was made over in 1858 in the late Greek Revival style, but elements dating from 1760 or earlier remain.

In 1910, A.E. Sherrill established the Sherrill Dairy at the family farm, which once extended all along North Main Street’s east side from Cedar Street to what is now Floyd Street.

The property, still in the Sherrill family, now includes three separate lots — some of the original pastureland, which abuts 16 acres preserved by the town through the purchase of development rights, the lot holding the historic house, and a separate lot with a contemporary house that has active and passive solar power installations.

A private party has made an offer to purchase, Ms. Carabine said, but it has not yet been accepted.

“The force of Bonac that I have captured and enrolled . . . to help with the Lester property, is also interested in helping with the Sherrill property,” she told the town board on March 11.

Discussion of using the preservation fund to preserve the Sherrill site has taken place, Supervisor Larry Cantwell confirmed this week. However, he said, “Every time we consider a historic site that includes a building, we’ve got to be concerned with the long-term costs of maintaining and operating any structure.” The fund may be used to buy and restore a historic site, but not for ongoing maintenance costs.

This is “a particularly difficult time,” Mr. Cantwell said, to add to the town’s financial commitments, “because we have existing issues with maintenance and improvements.” For instance, he said, Second House, the oldest building in Montauk, now operated as a museum by the Montauk Historical Society, “has major needs . . . and the list goes on and on.”

On the other hand, he said, “preserving our historic sites and history weighs heavy,” and is “always an important part of C.P.F.”

Various approaches other than an outright purchase, such as paying for a facade easement to protect a historic building against changes, could be considered, Mr. Cantwell said.

Ms. Carabine and her supporters are eager to volunteer their help in managing not just the Lester farm site but the Sherrill site as well, she told the board earlier this month. The group, which includes members of several of East Hampton’s founding families — Sherrills, Daytons, Fosters, and Talmages — along with historians and working farmers, sees the Sherrill property as a site for a facility melding the agricultural past with modern-day farming.

Exhibits at the Sherrill house, where, according to Ms. Carabine, some of Teddy Roosevelt’s troops once stayed, could provide an opportunity to delve into historic East Hampton topics that have been little explored, such as the history of the Dominy family of clock and furniture-making fame, whose house and workshop was once nearby; the Freetown area not far away, and activities here during Prohibition.

The Dominy farm, Ms. Carabine noted, was once the subject of preservation efforts, but after the attack on Pearl Harbor, drawing the nation into World War II, the focus was lost and the buildings torn down.

A number of Dominy pieces originally owned by the Sherrill family remain in East Hampton and have been tracked down by the East Hampton Historical Society, Ms. Carabine said, and could be exhibited. In addition, because the Sherrill house has remained so long in the family, numerous historical artifacts remain.

The family has offered a $50,000 endowment toward public administration of the site, which could increase if the town purchases the property, Ms. Carabine said. And, she said, a New York City architects’ group has expressed interest in funding its annual maintenance costs in exchange for being able to hold occasional retreats there.

At the Lester farm, Ms. Carabine said the museum group would like to see outdoor tables for chess and checkers placed out front, and to use the barn for musical performances.

In a media room in the house, which is being restored to portray a typical farm family’s life at the turn of the 20th century, more than 300 tapes of interviews with local residents speaking about life here from the early 1900s on will be screened continuously. Ms. Carabine predicted that the site will be important “countywide” as a working farm museum.

At Duck Creek, two public events took place last summer and fall, an art exhibit sponsored by the Parrish Art Museum and a Halloween celebration.

The town board recently voted to hire D.B. Bennett, an engineer, and the historic preservation consultant Robert Hefner, for a total of up to $37,900, to help guide further work on both sites.

Hampton Racquet at Green Hollow, a tennis club on Buckskill Road, is expected to fight 30 East Hampton Town citations in Justice Court on Monday for work allegedly done without permits and ignoring a stop-work order. According to Michael Sendlenski, an attorney for the town, the club and the town are nearing a resolution. The slightly larger than six-acre property is zoned for residential use, but the club is a legal use because it existed before the zoning was put in place. “We want to see them come into compliance,” Tom Preiato, the town’s chief building inspector, said last week.

A possible amicable resolution of the matter did not satisfy the owner of a neighboring property, Greg Gordon. “If they don’t enforce the law, why pass the law at all?” he asked Monday. Tiffany Scarlato, the attorney for Hampton Racquet, which is operated by John Graham and Monica Graham, did not return phone calls on Monday and Tuesday.

“They built four youth tennis courts. They took down extensive vegetation to build a volleyball court. They converted a garage into a food preparation area,” Mr. Gordon said. He went on to list other changes on the property, all of which, he alleged, are contrary to permitted use. He has amassed a six-inch-thick folder and is ready to present it to the court.

 The then-Green Hollow Tennis Club was granted variances from the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals on Jan. 3, 1984, that allowed it to expand from 10 tennis courts to 13. The decision carried certain conditions, which Mr. Gordon says have been violated. In particular, one of the conditions states: “Applicant will remove no trees or growth nearest to the residence of Gregory Gordon in constructing the additional tennis courts.”

The club went before the East Hampton Town Planning Board last October with a preliminary application for site plan approval, but Eric Schantz, a planner for the town, found the application vague and asked the company to provide the exact uses intended. There has been no further action.

Mr. Gordon pointed to three surveys done over the years by the George H. Walbridge Company. Although the land that adjoins his property was supposed to remain wooded, a 1993 survey shows a foot path there. A more recent survey, he said, describes the foot path as a “dirt drive.” Mr. Gordon’s attorney, William J. Fleming, has subsequently exchanged numerous letters and emails with an attorney for the club, Mark Catalano, about the drive.

Many of the violations the Building Department has cited are, in a sense, triplicate, since they say the club does not have site plan approval, building permits, or a certificate of occupancy. The town also argues that the club failed to comply with a stop-work order issued when retaining walls were being built. The violations also allege the club cleared a half-acre more than allowed, the conversion of a tennis court to a basketball court, and the construction of two sheds.

The club’s website advertises weekday openings for tennis lessons for children from 3 years old through teenage years. Meals and transportation can be had for extra fees. The club also has been praised for a tennis tournament it sponsored as a benefit for the Retreat, the East Hampton agency that assists victims of domestic abuse.

The East Hampton Town Board has backed away from the purchase of a house and land in Springs that was opposed by the Springs Citizens Advisory Committee and will instead hold a hearing next Thursday on the purchase of a 12-acre portion of the parcel for $1.2 million.

Excluding the house and its surrounding four acres will bring the original $2.7 million purchase price down by $1.5 million. Members of the citizens advisory committee had argued that buying the relatively new house was unnecessary to achieve adequate land preservation, and had suggested the plan now being discussed.

According to a subdivision plan for the land at 115 Neck Path, the house would sit on a separate lot, while two other building lots and an eight-acre reserve area would be created. The town is now proposing to purchase those two lots and the reserve. The money would come from the community preservation fund.

The revised proposal led David Buda, an outspoken board watcher and member of the Springs Citizens Advisory Committee, to give kudos to the board at a meeting last Thursday.

Mr. Buda has expressed concerns over the years about a number of proposed preservation fund purchases, “in some instances . . . based on the dollar amount of the price to be paid, and in other instances . . . about the necessity for, or wisdom of, the proposed C.P.F. purchase,” he said last Thursday.

“By your consideration of another approach, you are showing that public hearings actually serve a useful purpose, and are not just a ‘dog and pony’ show,” he said. “You are demonstrating that you listened to what a unanimous Springs Citizens Advisory Committee had to say. And, by being flexible and by transcending your prior views, you are making it clear that this town board truly understands the meaning of the Ralph Waldo Emerson quotation: ‘Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.’ ”

In some instances, Mr. Buda has argued that an outright purchase of property by the town was unnecessary to achieve the public goals of maintaining a wooded roadside buffer or protecting habitat, asserting that town zoning and land-use regulations in effect can achieve the same result.

He echoed that position in comments about another proposed land purchase that was the subject of a hearing last Thursday — 2.5 acres at 54 Northwest Landing Road in East Hampton, which include a house, for $630,000. It is owned by Robert Aldrich.

Although the preservation fund is flush, and does not add to the townspeople’s property tax burden as its proceeds come from a 2-percent tax on real estate transfers, “you have a legal and moral obligation to be fiduciaries,” Mr. Buda told the board.

 He called several previous and proposed acquisitions of parcels containing a house an “unfortunate trend.”

The Northwest parcel, he said, is not proposed to be subdivided and contains wetlands, so if left in private hands it will not become more developed.

“When the C.P.F. has nothing better to do than to buy a house and to tear it down, that is wasteful, it is illogical, it’s destructive,” he said.

The land is primarily undeveloped, with freshwater wetlands that empty into Northwest Creek and Northwest Harbor, and is adjacent to other preserved sites, Scott Wilson, the town’s director of land acquisition and management, said at the hearing. It is in a pine barrens area and a harbor protection overlay district. Wetlands had to be filled to construct the house, Mr. Wilson said this week.

Jeremy Samuelson, another speaker at the hearing and the director of Concerned Citizens of Montauk, disagreed with Mr. Buda. “We actually have a lot of wetlands in this town that are threatened,” he said. “The idea that we shouldn’t acquire wetlands for public interest, or drinking water quality, or surface water quality . . . it defies logic,” he said.

“I would like someone to tell me how a house remaining on this property threatens the wetlands,” Mr. Buda said. “There are better areas where the money should be spent. If you told me that this house was going to be donated through the town’s housing services department to some worthy person, I’d feel better about it.”

In a presentation the night before at Town Hall on an East Hampton water quality report, Christopher Gobler, a professor at the State University at Stony Brook, had called Northwest Creek a hot spot for water contamination, Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell said. The land purchase, Mr. Cantwell said, would eliminate “existing development,” and the septic system associated with the house.

In a unanimous vote later in the meeting, the town board authorized the purchase.

Along with the new hearing on the Neck Path land buy, a second hearing to take place next Thursday night is on a proposed new law that would restrict chain stores or restaurants, or “formula businesses,” in East Hampton Town.

The law would prohibit them in proximity to historic districts or designated historic landmarks and allow them in central business districts only after a prescribed review and the issuance of a special permit by the planning board. They would be limited in size, and prevented from looking like other related businesses elsewhere.

The hearings begin at 6:30 p.m. at Town Hall.

The owners of a more than five-acre parcel in the Georgica Association on the Wainscott side of Georgica Pond went before the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals on March 4, seeking variances that would allow them to subdivide it into two buildable lots. Whether the board will approve the  requests may hinge on two things: The property has been almost entirely cleared of natural vegetation and, in an unusual arrangement, the applicants, Florence and Ken Joseph, own the land but do not control three of the four residences on it.

“We have a unique 5.6 acres. It is one of the largest improved properties on the pond,” Christopher D. Kelley of Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelley, Dubin & Quartararo, said at  the beginning of the hearing. The property complies with the area’s five-acre zoning, measuring 244,841 square feet, but, if approved, the new lots would be of only 67,923 square feet and 137,374 square feet.

The lack of natural vegetation there stands out in stark contrast to neighboring properties, as seen in aerial photographs viewed by the board. The Joseph property, they noted, is almost totally cleared to the point of looking like a golf course.

According to Brian Frank, the chief environmentalist for the East Hampton Town Planning Board, the clearing exceeds the maximum allowed in the town code. The newly created smaller lot would be over-cleared by over 48,000 square feet, the larger lot by over 95,000 square feet, he wrote in a memo to the board.

Mr. Frank’s primary concern was the impact on Georgica Pond. “The importance of natural vegetation can’t be overstated as an environmental tool,” he said, noting that the pond is now an impaired water body. He cited a recent study by Christopher Gobler of Stony Brook University, undertaken for the East Hampton Town Trustees. “It does appear that despite the town’s efforts, the water quality of Georgica Pond is trending in the wrong direction.”

The four residences are two cottages of 600 and 625 square feet, a boat house with a kitchen at 2,200 square feet, and a two-story 10,000 square foot house. There is also a swimming pool. The applicants are proposing to remove the cottages and the boat house, while maintaining the larger house on the larger lot. The smaller lot would remain undeveloped at first but it would be legal to build a new house there.

The property lies in a harbor protection overlay district, and Mr. Kelley told the board the proposal would be of “a great value to the town” because of the proposed removal of the structures. He explained that the use of the cottages, boat house, and swimming pool is controlled by the property’s former owner, Clifford Klenk Jr. Mr. Klenk sold the property to the Josephs in the 1990s, but retained the right to live there for the rest of his life. He uses the boat house most of the year, moves to one of the cottages for the summer, and then rents the other cottage as well as the boat house.

Cate Rogers, a board member, was taken aback, asking Mr. Kelley if none of the proposed changes would occur until Mr. Klenk died. Mr. Kelley offered that the Josephs might be able to buy out Mr. Klenk’s right to use the buildings. This caused Alex Walter, the board’s chair, to inquire about Mr. Klenk’s health. Mr. Kelley said it was fine, as far as he knew.

Neighbors of the proposed subdivision saw little good about the proposal. They were represented by Theodore Sklar of Esseks, Hefter & Angel. He also drove home the extensive clearing, translating Mr. Frank’s numbers into percentages, and saying the new lots would exceed the legal maximum by 268 and 343 percent.

“There is no contest here,” the attorney said. “The detriment clearly outweighs any benefit to the applicant, which is purely pecuniary. Should you rezone the property?” he asked, and he called doing so “rezoning by variance.”

Don Cirillo, another member of the board, had earlier questioned Mr. Kelley as to whether he was asking the board to, in effect, rezone the property. He had also pressed Mr. Kelley on the exact reason the applicants were before the board at all. Mr. Kelley responded that the applicants were making an effort to reduce density, a point Mr. Sklar later challenged, questioning the definition of the word.

One of the four neighbors Mr. Sklar represented, Julia Murphy, also spoke, expressing concern about how development of the two new lots would impact the house she had stayed in since her mother bought it in 1965.