The East Hampton Town Board will ask the Army Corps of Engineers to proceed with its “enhanced navigation” plan for the dredging and maintenance of the Montauk Harbor inlet. The plan will increase the depth of the inlet to 17 feet and will dig a “deposition basin,” essentially a trench, on the channel’s east side to collect sand that would otherwise allow dangerous shoaling to form. The $26 million fix will cost the town $801,000.

    The board chose the plan over a controversial and more expensive alternative that would have stabilized the Soundview community’s chronically eroding beaches just west of the inlet’s stone jetties, using a series of short groins. That plan would have combined the enhanced navigation scenario with the beach stabilization work.

    The alternative would seem to have had the added advantage of making Soundview beach an “engineered beach,” in Army Corps parlance, meaning it would be eligible for federal funding should it be damaged by storms. The work would have cost a total of $41 million, the town responsible for $1.5 million, the state, $3.6 million.

    The board decided against the more expensive plan in large part because it would require public access to the engineered beach, a requirement Soundview residents have vehemently opposed. As owner of the harbor jetties, the town is already facing a multimillion-dollar lawsuit filed by Soundview residents who claim the jetties are the cause of the chronic erosion.

    Town Supervisor Bill Wilkinson has suggested modifying the recommended plan to include a project the town would carry out, in which sand from the eastern, Gin Beach side of the inlet would be added to material dredged from the inlet in order to provide more sand to rebuild Soundview’s eroded beach. 

    Councilman Dominick Stanzione has cautioned that by not choosing the plan to stabilize the beach in front of the Soundview community and the homeowners on Captain Kidd’s Path farther west, “we lose our insurance.” Mr. Stanzione said that without the promise of federal funds to rebuild eroded beaches, “we’re back to square one.” 

    In that regard, Brian Frank of the Town Planning Department said he would ask the Army Corps to determine if Soundview beach, as the recipient of sand dredged from the inlet, could be considered an “engineered beach,” and thus eligible for federal emergency funding in the event of serious storm damage.

    In an effort to address concerns about density, lot coverage, and “excessive use of land,” the Sagaponack Village Board is considering a number of changes to its village code to deal with maximum building coverage, seasonal rentals, and coverage as it relates to accessory structures like swimming pools, playing courts, fences, walls, decks, and patios. A hearing on the changes will be held on Monday at 4 p.m. at Village Hall.

    Among other things, the changes on the table would define “building coverage” as the percentage of a lot covered by the ground floor area of all buildings, as measured from their exterior walls. “Lot coverage” would be defined as the portion of the property covered by buildings as well as parking areas, driveways, and other impermeable surfaces. The flagpole portion of a flag lot would not be included in lot coverage.

    Maximum building coverage and maximum lot coverage are both pinned to lot size.

    The changes also define a playing court as the court area as well as all “associated netting, fencing, backstops, decks, slabs, patios, pavilions, pergolas, open-walled roofed structures, and other improvements.” Included in the definition are tennis, handball, racquetball, and volleyball courts, as well as ice rinks and similar “facilities.” Bocce courts would not be included.

    If the proposed changes are passed, village code would allow seasonal rentals of less than 30 days only two times per year, requiring that those short-term rentals be for no less than two weeks.

    A full copy of the proposed legislation can be found on the village’s Web site at sagaponackvillage.org.

     East Hampton Town Justice Lisa Rana dismissed four charges against Thomas Ferreira, a Montauk mechanic, on Sept. 24 on the advice of John Jilincki, the town attorney, and Robert Connelly, an attorney in Mr. Jilincki’s department. In doing so, she cited their brief of July 30, which cited a “legal impediment to the conviction of the defendant for the offenses charged.”

    Three of the four were for alleged violations of state fire and property maintenance codes dealing with the storage of unregistered vehicles and maintenance of a wooden carport. The fourth was an alleged violation of a town code requiring a building permit for a radio antenna.

    The town attorneys’ advice came after Lawrence Kelly, a former federal prosecutor, and Thomas Horn, an East Hampton attorney, filed a $55 million civil rights action against the town on Mr. Ferreira’s behalf, which is pending. It also followed revision of numerous town ordinances, whose details and terminology were questioned by the lawyers.

    Mr. Connelly advised Justice Rana: “It appears from researching the East Hampton Town Code that the town did not affirmatively adopt, by resolution, the New York State Fire Prevention and Building Code, commonly referred to as the Uniform Code, until June 3, 2011, sometime after the defendant was served with charges for same.” Mr. Connelly said that while the town was permitted to administer the code at the time, it did not have the authority to enforce it.

    With regard to the antenna, Mr. Connelly referred to a ruling from the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court in the People v. Rian White case. The ruling stated that the town code did not prohibit a property owner from maintaining or keeping a structure on his property without a building permit, but only its erection, construction, enlargement, removal, improvement, transportation, or demolition.

    The federal action against the town stems from alleged wrongdoing by the town when it hired contractors to remove vehicles and equipment from Mr. Ferreira’s property on Fort Pond Bay.

    “The whole thrust in civil rights litigation is to hold government accountable for its actions. People were able to use government for their personal reasons in Tom’s case,” Mr. Kelly said.

    He said the charges dismissed on Sept. 24 were only a part of the federal lawsuit. “We look at all the things that went into it, the lack of free information flow to the town board, the suppression of findings that his property was free of public safety threats. Mr. Horn and I look at everything the town has done, we find they were not wrong out of chance, but by incompetence, laziness, or malice.”

    The legal impediments Mr. Connelly referred to in his brief to Justice Rana were corrected two weeks ago by the town board, but they had existed from 2005 until then. Mr. Kelly said that, just as fire marshals were technically not permitted to issue state code violations during that time, code enforcement officials, who had been given the title of inspector without the proper investigative experience or training during the administration of former Supervisor William McGintee, “were not authorized to write town code violations.”

    “They issued thousands of summonses without authority, including in Tom Ferreira’s case,” Mr. Kelly said.

East Hampton Town

Disciplinary Matters

    The East Hampton Town Board turned its attention this week to several disciplinary matters involving employees.

    Two employees of the East Hampton Town Human Services Department were suspended from their jobs for 30 days on Tuesday following disciplinary charges brought against them by Diane Patrizio, the human services director. 

    The town board voted unanimously to suspend Sheila Carter, a senior bus service supervisor, and Linda Norris, the adult day care supervisor, as of yesterday. An attorney, Eileen Powers, was appointed as a hearing officer should the employees seek a hearing on the charges, pursuant to state Civil Service law. Board members would not comment on what led to the suspensions.

    At a meeting last Thursday, the board also designated Ms. Powers as the hearing officer for an issue involving Joseph Reid, a Sanitation Department crew leader. Patrick Keller, the sanitation supervisor, brought disciplinary charges against Mr. Reid on Sept. 21, and he has requested a hearing.

    Another case involving disciplinary charges instituted by a supervisor against an employee has apparently been resolved. In another vote on Tuesday, the town board approved a stipulation of settlement between Patrick J. Gunn, an assistant town attorney and head of the Public Safety Division, and Fritz Riege, an ordinance inspector, along with his union-appointed lawyer. Mr. Riege had been written up in June by Betsy Bambrick, the director of code enforcement. Details about the settlement were not available by press time.

Taxi Licenses

    An overabundance of taxis this summer has led to a discussion of how to revise a recently enacted law requiring taxi companies to obtain East Hampton Town licenses.

    To cut down on the number of out-of-town operators, Councilwoman Theresa Quigley has suggested issuing operating licenses only to taxi companies with a home base in East Hampton. In addition, she has suggested that the board address how complaints against individual cab companies will be reviewed.

Hoop House Redux

    A law designed to ease the way for farmers seeking to extend the growing season by erecting hoop houses on their acreage is under discussion by the board again, after a public hearing on changes to the zoning code was held last year.

    Councilwoman Quigley has reintroduced the issue and suggested that a new hearing be held on a revised proposal that switches the responsibility for reviewing hoop house proposals from the architectural review board — a new element in the originally proposed revisions to the law — back to the town planning board.

    A majority of the board voted on Tuesday to proceed with another hearing, although Councilwoman Sylvia Overby raised some questions about other details. As proposed, she said, the new law would allow a hoop house to be constructed 20 feet away from a front-yard property line. Although farmers would likely prefer to put such buildings at the edges of fields, Ms. Overby said that preservation of scenic views across farmland is one of the goals of a farmland preservation program through which development rights are purchased with public funds. Perhaps, she suggested, setbacks should be increased on land for which the public has made such an investment.

Lighting Law Redo Lingers On

    East Hampton Town’s lighting law remains on the table, it appears, after members of a committee that has been reviewing potential changes to it requested more time.

    Committee members told the town board on Tuesday that a newly enacted state building code provision on lighting must be considered, as well as updated information on insurance requirements and energy-efficient lighting. “I don’t think it’s too much to ask, because it’s too important,” Tom Milne, a committee member said, asking the board to extend a grace period sunset on compliance with the existing law for three years.

    Public controversy had erupted over previously proposed revisions to the lighting law, with comments addressing the impact of the law on businesses as well as the degree to which it adhered to “smart lighting” and “dark sky” principles. The conversation led to formation of the citizens’ committee.

    The lighting committee members agreed to add two new participants who expressed concern about outdoor lighting and the proposed law’s provisions, Debra Foster, a former councilwoman, and Jeremy Samuelson, the executive director of Concerned Citizens of Montauk.

    In the meantime, Supervisor Bill Wilkinson announced that, after a meeting on a foggy night in downtown Montauk with East Hampton Town Police Chief Ed Ecker, town grounds maintenance staff, and John Keeshan, a Montauk resident, a decision had been made to replace the 75-watt bulbs in eight fixtures at four corners of the streets surrounding the Montauk green with 150-watt bulbs. The switch is needed for safety, to increase visibility of pedestrians in crosswalks, Mr. Wilkinson said, and “has nothing to do with brightening up Montauk.”

Brakes on Truck Ban

     More discussion is warranted before making a decision on a proposal to ban large trucks and through traffic on streets in the Miller Lane East and West area in East Hampton, the town board decided Tuesday.

    After hearing from residents of the area — some 80 or so who signed a petition asking the board to do something about drivers using the neighborhood as a cut-through and creating safety hazards — the board held a hearing last month on the restrictions. Councilwoman Overby suggested further discussion should include Chief Ecker, Highway Superintendent Steven Lynch, Tom Talmage, the town engineer, and town planners.

Preservation Decisions

    After hearings last Thursday on two properties targeted for preservation with the community preservation fund, the board voted to move forward on both.

    Members voted to buy a one-acre lot at 8 Deer Path in Springs for $385,000 from Barry McCallion and JoAnne Canary, and to add an almost five-acre property at 889 Fireplace Road in Springs, owned by Charles Miller, Valerie Meyer, Denis Gates, and Debra Gates, to the preservation fund list, a requisite step in the purchase process.    J.P.

Southampton Town

Herr Back at the Helm

    The Southampton Town Democratic Committee unanimously re-elected Gordon Herr as its chairman at a meeting on Oct. 2. Mr. Herr praised the committee for its organizational efforts, which have led to steady growth in the number of Democrats registered in the town.

    Also elected at the meeting were Mackie Finnerty as first vice chairwoman, Joy Flynn as second vice chairwoman, George Lynch as treasurer, and Hank Beck as secretary.

New York State

LaValle and Fleming Debates

    The first of two debates between State Senator Kenneth P. LaValle, a 35-year incumbent, and his challenger, Southampton Town Councilwoman Bridget Fleming, a Democrat and a former prosecutor for the Manhattan district attorney’s office, will take place on Monday at 7 p.m. at the Hampton Bays Senior Center at 25 Ponquogue Avenue. Questions will be taken from the audience at the event, which has been organized by the League of Women Voters of the Hamptons.

    The second debate will be in East Hampton on Oct. 22 at 7 p.m. at the Emergency Services Building on Cedar Street.

Military Flags Go Tax-Free

    Military service flags, prisoner of war flags, and blue star banners, which denote that a son or daughter is serving in the military, will be exempt from New York State sales tax under legislation sponsored by State Senator Kenneth P. LaValle and signed into law by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo on Oct. 3. Currently, the flags of the United States and the State of New York are exempt from sales tax. Mr. LaValle said the law would take effect on Dec. 1.

    How could an effort begun by East Hampton Town in 2010 to construct a drainage system on Route 114 farmland that would resolve flooding in a nearby neighborhood, wind up in a gaping hole in the ground without anyone making sure that Suffolk County, which owns development rights to the protected land, had okayed the excavation? The East Hampton Town Board searched for answers at a meeting on Tuesday.

    The county warned late last month that, should the matter not be satisfactorily resolved, it might sue the town for violating its farmland preservation program. Its farmland committee had not been consulted, the county said, citing particular concern about the removal of prime agricultural soils from the site.

    The town did submit a permit application after the county issued a stop-work order in July, but county officials recently rejected it. Meetings continue in an effort to resolve the situation.

    Town Councilwoman Theresa Quigley discussed the episode in a Sept. 20 piece published on an online news site. Ms. Quigley, who until this year was the point person on the project, wrote that “Not only is the lawsuit startling, but the town’s failure in obtaining their approval to begin with is problematic. From my perspective, this failure is symptomatic of many issues in town government. These failures are constant and continual and they point out a system which cries out for reform, but which reform seems almost unattainable without laying down the political rhetoric and defensive postures and simply demanding accountability at all levels. It is time the system was turned on its head.”

    On Tuesday, Ms. Quigley released a 34-page record, dating to June 2010, that she had compiled, detailing the dates and times of e-mails between various parties involved in the drainage project. It included a summary, by the councilwoman, of the messages, and reflected, she said, an attempt to retrace just what went wrong.

    The record indicates that the question of the county’s involvement was raised in an April 20, 2011, communique to Ms. Quigley from John Jilnicki, the town attorney. “One question I want to ask is whether the county is on board with what we are doing, as a title review indicates they have an interest in the development rights on this parcel and I am hoping they will not be an impediment,” Mr. Jilnicki wrote.

    “The farm bureau is on board. Haven’t asked the county,” Ms. Quigley wrote, in part, in her reply. “What could possibly be taking so long? It has been many many months [sic] they gave their estimate for the cost,” she concluded.

    The question of county-owned development rights was apparently brought up again in September 2011 by Marguerite Wolfssohn, the town planning director, according to Ms. Quigley’s summary. It does not surface again in the comments included in her summary until July, after the county discovered the excavation, when Mr. Jilnicki expressed his belief that Ms. Quigley had spoken with the county. “Never spoke to them; had no idea they needed to be involved,” she wrote to Mr. Jilnicki on July 17. Shortly after sending that e-mail, the record indicates, she forwarded the correspondence to Town Supervisor Bill Wilkinson with the comment “Now why would I know this?”

    On Tuesday, Mr. Wilkinson expressed his “disappointment at the appropriate vetting — or lack thereof — that was done, internal to the town.”

    “The board, in my opinion, should not be involved” in the process of submitting applications and securing required permits, he said. “That is for the board to direct and approve.”

    Board members’ responsibility, he said, is to assure that the taxpayers get “value for money . . . that, in this case, is performance of the staff. And I’m a little disappointed. And by the way, there isn’t, as far as I’m concerned, a non-guilty person.”

    And, he added, “I don’t have any problem saying that there is a political motivation behind this.”

    “We all bear some responsibility,” agreed Councilman Peter Van Scoyoc, who inherited responsibility for the project when he took office in January.  He said that despite his own questions about whether the town should be doing the work at all — sumps along state roads are usually constructed by the state — “I was compelled, by a lot of the work that had been done . . . to move forward” with the project. Looking back, he said, for example if he had made inquiries about county funding, “the development rights issue may have come out.”

    But, Mr. Van Scoyoc said, “I would like not to see this devolve into trying to point fingers. If we go down a situation of trying to place blame on individuals, we really don’t move forward.” The councilman, who met with county representatives last week, said there was an “openness and willingness on the part of the farm committee to entertain alternatives” to the sump design, and that the town should work with the county to come to an acceptable resolution.

    Mr. Wilkinson continued to press his point. “Unless we start to understand performance and accountability, we’re going to spin this way all the time. Performance has to be measured, and there are responsibilities,” he said.

    Ms. Quigley, too, addressed the question of responsibility, saying that people have been trying to lay it at her feet.

    “Even if I was responsible for getting county approval, who is responsible for ensuring that all the details are completed?” she asked. “There doesn’t seem to be anybody responsible for anything.”

    “We need to step up and start demanding accountability. We cannot allow this . . . to continue,” she said later in the meeting.

    “I’m not blaming anybody; I’m just saying, what the hell is wrong with the structure when this happens?” Board members set policy, she said, and should not have to oversee details.

    “We shouldn’t be involved in the managing, from day to day,” Mr. Van Scoyoc agreed. “But we do,” he told Ms. Quigley.

    “People say that I get involved in managing; I don’t get involved in any of the details,” she replied. “I was not involved in details, for the hundredth time,” she said later. “I sent e-mails saying, what is the status. I didn’t even know who was working on it. I’m only supposed to be kept abreast of what the process is.”

    Ms. Quigley said she believed that had she done more than that, it would, “quite frankly, be illegal. I don’t believe I’m allowed to step into those roles and start demanding what is done.”

    “Whose responsibility was it to find that the county had jurisdiction?” Mr. Wilkinson asked. “That’s a pretty interesting question,” Mr. Van Scoyoc replied. “It kind of goes back to, what is the role of the [town board member] liaison?”

    Various people involved in the project, Mr. Van Scoyoc noted, included the town attorneys, the Planning Department, the town engineer, and the Highway Department. But “Doesn’t it go back to the liaison?” he asked Ms. Quigley. “Because of your coordinating five departments, who’s the lead in those departments?”

    “Certainly not me,” Ms. Quigley replied. “I don’t understand, frankly, why we’re paying $3 million to our attorney and our Planning Department [and other departments] . . . if I’m doing the work.”

    “If they brought it back to Theresa, I’m sure Theresa would have said, go get county approval,” Mr. Wilkinson said.

    “Actually, I did get an e-mail that said, ‘Theresa, did you talk to the county,’ and I said no. Period. Period,” Ms. Quigley said.

    In her own online piece, published on Sept. 21, Sarah Lansdale, the county’s Director of Planning, made her own points.

    “What is beyond dispute is that the Town of East Hampton blatantly caused extensive damage to farmland, that was preserved by Suffolk County taxpayers, by removing large quantities of valuable topsoil,” she wrote. “This is the first time in memory that a municipality has unlawfully violated a piece of preserved property. To make matters worse, not only did the Town of East Hampton allow a contractor to excavate the soil, but further permitted him to sell the soil, considered the finest agricultural soil in New York — the ‘Cadillac’ of soil.  Rather than enriching the farm with the soil, the town chose to enrich someone’s pockets.”

    “This is the only instance anyone at the county can remember in the entire history of the 37-year Purchase of Development Rights program where a municipality blatantly violated the program and then asked the county to turn a blind eye to the law and retroactively approve an illegal action,” she continued. “Such approval will not be forthcoming.”

    “Ironically, the fact that the Town of East Hampton has responded to our notice of claim in such a hostile manner, rather than viewing it as an opportunity to find a compromise, demonstrates the very behavior that necessitated the notice in the first place.” Nonetheless, she concluded: “The county stands ready to work with the Town to find a legal solution that maintains the integrity of the program and relieves flooding faced by homeowners of Hansom Hills. I look forward [to] the Supervisor’s return call.”

    A new state-of-the-art hospital is in the works for the Stony Brook Southampton campus through a partnership between the State University at Stony Brook and Southampton Hospital, according to a nonbinding letter of intent signed by both parties and announced in a release dated Oct. 1. The 125-bed facility would join the university’s health care system, with a goal of the two hospitals’ working together to “improve health care quality and access, coordination of care, and efficiency for their patients.”

    With the same number of beds, the hospital would replace the current Southampton Village facility, which opened in 1909. (The fate of that building hasn’t been determined yet.) Money will be raised through a Southampton Hospital-led philanthropic campaign, and increased health care services, jobs, and economic development are expected on the East End as a result of the project, as are expanded educational opportunities for future health care professionals. With more than 1,000 employees, Southampton Hospital is the largest employer on the South Fork.

    The hospital will provide care under Stony Brook University Medical Center’s state operating license, and a joint advisory committee, with members appointed by both hospitals, will serve as advisers. Southampton Hospital employees would maintain their status as private-sector employees, according to the letter of intent.

    The two hospitals, formally affiliated since 2008, will soon exchange financial, business, and legal information, with a final agreement requiring approval from New York State regulatory authorities and the State Legislature, as well as Southampton Hospital’s board of trustees.

    Southampton Hospital is a not-for-profit organization with a medical staff of more than 240 physicians, dentists, and allied health professionals. It has 16 satellite locations across the East End. A 2011 audit reported “excess revenues over expenses of $2.2 million.”

    Stony Brook University Medical Center is a state educational corporation and Suffolk County’s largest hospital, with 597 beds. It has the county’s busiest emergency department, with nearly 100,000 visits annually. The hospital also offers the only Level 1 trauma center, burn center, and comprehensive psychiatric emergency program in the county, and its only bone marrow transplant program. It employs more than 1,000 full-time medical school faculty members and affiliated physicians, and has more than 5,500 staff members.

    Kenneth Kaushansky, M.D., senior vice president of health sciences and the dean of the Stony Brook University School of Medicine, said in the release that patients would benefit from the two hospitals joining forces. He added, “It also helps both facilities prepare for health care reform by cultivating a broader, stronger network of hospitals and health care providers to improve efficiency, control costs, and better coordinate care across Suffolk County.”

    When it comes to education, “Construction of a new state-of-the-art health care facility on the Southampton campus would be another building block in the revitalization of the campus,” said Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr. “Together with a growing arts program, the new $10 million marine sciences facility, and the establishment of the Peconic Institute,” a kind of policy think tank for the East End, “a new hospital would be a major step toward having the Southampton campus reach its educational potential.”

    “Most important,” Mr. Thiele said, “the proposed affiliation between Stony Brook and Southampton represents an opportunity to provide expanded services and the best possible health care for the residents of the South Fork and eastern Long Island, an area that has historically been described as medically underserved.”

    Jorge Kusanovic, an East Hampton Town Parks and Recreation Department employee, filed a lawsuit in late August against the town alleging that he was discriminated against because of his race, age, and national origin.    

    An American citizen raised in Chile, he had filed a complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2007. The lawsuit claims that “Jorge Kusanovic was subject to a continuous pattern of harassment as a Latino pioneer in the overwhelmingly white employment of East Hampton Town.”

    Following an investigation, the E.E.O.C. issued a letter on May 25 telling Mr. Kusanovic that the Department of Justice would not file suit on his discrimination charge; however, it said, no judgment had been made as to whether the claim was “meritorious.”

    The letter informed the worker that he had the right to file a civil lawsuit against the town within 90 days. As of Tuesday, Brian Sokoloff, the attorney who would represent the town in this matter, said the town had not yet been served with the suit.

    Mr. Kusanovic is asking for an award of $3 million for each of six causes of action and for back pay, with interest. His lawyer, Lawrence Kelly of Bayport, has recently commenced lawsuits against the town on behalf of several other clients.

     The alleged acts of discrimination date back to 2007, when Mr. Kusanovic had also filed an E.E.O.C. employment discrimination complaint. New incidents since then, his complaint says, occurred in retaliation for that filing.

    Mr. Kusanovic alleges that he was passed over for promotion “in favor of younger, white hires,” and complains that he was assigned to work at the Montauk Skate Park in an unheated building with no restroom.

    At the Amagansett Youth Park, where he was formerly stationed, the complaint says, he was prohibited from walking around the track, and from taking his shirt off during his lunch break, but that “young white employees” were allowed to do so and that, while other employees were issued a town car to do work-related errands, he was expected to use his own vehicle, without compensation.

    The complaint also refers to alleged occurrences prior to 2006, when a time clock was installed at the youth park. Before that, according to the complaint, Mr. Kusanovic was “harassed continually for baseless allegations of lateness or early departure.” The time clock indicated that he was arriving before his scheduled start of work, and leaving after scheduled hours, according to the complaint.

    Among other charges, Mr. Kusanovic also claims that “in order to harass and inflict harm” on him, he was assigned to clean the bathrooms at the youth park, relieving a cleaning crew of that duty; that he was locked out of his office at the park while it remained unused; that he was denied sick leave to accompany his wife to visit her sick mother in Chile; that supervisors “fabricated rationales” to take away his compensatory time, and that white supervisors prohibited him from having his wife deliver his lunch, “while white employees were allowed to have boyfriends and girlfriends visit them at the park at any time.”

    From 1999 to 2012 he was not paid at a rate in accordance with his job duties, as defined under Civil Service laws, the complaint states. In addition, it says, he was not offered the same scheduling flexibility as other workers.

    Mr. Kusanovic also claims that, at work, he was given a pamphlet with a photo of John Wayne in front of an American flag, and the words, “Now just why in the hell do I have to press 1 for English?”    

    The complaint calls the 2007 transfer of Mr. Kusanovic to the Montauk Skate Park an “exile” and a discriminatory action in retaliation for his support of a younger Latino female worker who, it says, was being sexually harassed by an older, white supervisor.

    When Representative Tim Bishop, the incumbent Democrat, and Randy Altschuler, his Republican challenger, sat down at Hampton Bays High School on Monday night for a second face-to-face, microphone problems and a high school senior almost stole the show. The event was a meet-the-candidates session rather than a debate, with rebuttals not encouraged.

    As the session began, Mr. Altschuler’s microphone was the first to hum. When that was corrected, the humming migrated to Mr. Bishop’s microphone, and he wound up going through five of them, including two handed to him by the moderator, Bruce King, president of the host Hampton Bays Civic Association, before the program could proceed.

     Jennifer Linares, a senior whose entire civics class was in the audience, tried to steer things in a positive direction. “We are taught not to bully as students, she said. “Why are you, as adults, running negative campaigns instead of concentrating on your own achievements and accomplishments?”

    There was no disagreement here. Mr. Bishop called her question “excellent,” and the crowd cheered as both candidates nodded in agreement.

    “The state of election politics has deteriorated in my 10 years in office,” Mr. Bishop said, citing political action committees and super PACs for contributing to the negativity. “You find yourself dragged into it.”

    “I would like to have a discussion on the merits and our strengths,” Mr. Bishop said, “and I think my opponent would agree with me.” Mr. Altschuler did. The executive chairman of an electronics recycling company who came close to defeating Mr. Bishop two years ago, Mr. Altschuler admitted dismay at recent campaign practices, but he pointed a finger at Mr. Bishop.

    “In business, you’re taught to praise your competition. Unlike my opponent, I ran a positive ad . . . about my family life,” he said. “Every time I turn on the television, I see a negative ad charging me with being an outsourcer,” Mr. Altschuler said, referring to a company, OfficeTiger, he sold in 2006. He then segued into the economy and his 10-point jobs plan, which calls on the private sector to create jobs, not government.

    Mr. Bishop never mentioned OfficeTiger by name, but said of his own record, “My time in Congress has been led by a fact-driven, pragmatic approach.” He said that he is working on a bipartisan bill to render companies that outsource jobs ineligible for federal grants and loans. “Ideological posturing doesn’t solve any problems; I have solved problems for 15,000 constituents, and I am proud of that.”

    Mr. Altschuler had a different take on  bipartisanship. “The problem with Washington is that the same people keep getting elected, the people who are responsible for the 40,000 more unemployment cases on Long Island.” He  said he would have a self-imposed three-term limit were he to be elected to Congress, said. “That’s not bipartisan; there are only 435 congressmen, and each one needs to count.”

Health, Immigration

    Mr. Bishop focused his remarks on Medicaid, noting that he supported its structure, and the Affordable Care Act, which includes discounted name-brand drugs for Medicare recipients, expanded coverage for young adults, small business tax credits, and pre-existing condition insurance plans.

    In this regard, Mr. Altschuler turned negative. While saying it was “absolutely critical that something be done or Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security will be bankrupt in the next 10 years,” he said, “At least I support a plan that will keep the system solvent; I’m not a part of the problem. Mr. Bishop is.”

    The candidates also addressed immigration.    “I am for deferred action for childhood arrivals,” said Mr. Bishop, who has hosted forums to help young adults apply to the program recently advanced by President Obama. “What’s fair about deporting young people with clean records? Give those 12 to 15 million people work visas and a path to citizenship.”

    Mr. Altschuler agreed with the incumbent that the visa process needed reform, but only for undocumented workers on farms and in the hospitality industry. “Those workers [60 percent of agriculture laborers are undocumented on Long Island] should get a three-year renewable visa,” he said. “But what’s not fair is that illegals are using our hospitals and other services and not paying into the system.”

    Mr. Bishop, a five-term congressman, was better equipped to answer remaining questions from the audience, such as, “Name an instance you have deviated from your party’s stance on an issue.” 

    “I did not support an initiative to move funding to charter schools because the jury is still out on whether they work,” Mr. Bishop said. “I also voted to not reduce the federal student loan interest rate below 3.4 percent.”

    Mr. Altschuler, who has no governmental experience, said he would promote investment in Suffolk County infrastructure, singling out sewers and waterway dredging.

    Concerning military spending, Mr. Bishop said, “We need to reduce overhead in the largest business in world, the Pentagon, which spends $240 billion,” while Mr. Altschuler stated that the country should be armed with the right weapons to remain “the strongest military in the world.”

    The candidates had different responses to another question, about what they would do to fix “the $7 million” flooding problem on Dune Road in Southampton. Mr. Altschuler said he would appropriate the federal funding necessary to fix the beachfront road if he could. Mr. Bishop countered that “since there is a ban on earmarks, the federal funds can’t be used for such a project since it is not a federal-aid highway.”

    The candidates are expected to meet at least 15 more times before Election Day, including a debate on health care at 7 p.m. tonight at the Vail-Leavitt Music Hall in Riverhead.

    Adelaide de Menil, who donated the historic buildings that now form the new Town Hall complex to East Hampton Town, received approval from the town’s zoning board of appeals Tuesday to build a new house for herself on Mile Hill Road in East Hampton overlooking Northwest Harbor.

    According to Laurie Wiltshire of Land Planning Services, the 8,400-square-foot, four-bedroom house will sit on a parcel of land slightly larger than nine acres. The plans include a 1,112-square-foot attached garage and gardener’s shed with a bath, a 600-square-foot barn, a 600-square-foot pool, a generator, and a new septic system on the site. The two residences that formerly stood there have been removed.

    Ms. Wiltshire appeared before the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals on Sept. 18 on behalf of Ms. De Menil. “We did a lot of research,” Ms. Wiltshire said Monday. Two years into the project, Ms. Wiltshire’s team has achieved the goals laid out for them by Ms. de Menil: “It is designed to be as conforming as possible to all elements of the code,” Ms. Wiltshire said, while having minimal impact on the environment.

    It will be a “green” house, with solar panels on the roof, and will not be visible from any neighboring properties. The project includes a revegetation plan to cover nearly an acre of previously cleared land with native growth.

    The only variance the project needed from the zoning board was for the septic system, because it is in a Harbor Protection Overlay district, and the proposed septic system would be 153 feet from the surrounding wetlands when 200 feet is normally required.

    “There is no location where the septic system could be placed without needing a variance,” Ms. Wiltshire told the board on Sept. 18.

    The board received one letter from a neighbor on Powder Hill Lane asking the builders to consider a different septic system. However, Alex Walter, the board’s chairman, noted that the system suggested by the neighbor would actually be bigger than what Ms. Wiltshire proposed.

    There was little debate about the proposal, and much praise from board members.

    “It’s a huge piece of property and they’re only developing a small piece,” said Sharon McCobb, before the board voted unanimously Tuesday night to approve the project, which needs additional permits from the State Department of Environmental Conservation and the County Health Department.

    Ms. Wiltshire will appear before the board again on Tuesday on behalf of Jerry Seinfeld, who is installing state-of-the art solar panels, making his Further Lane estate energy self-sufficient.

    There were two other variance requests voted on by the board Tuesday, both of which drew members’ criticism earlier. In both cases, work was done without receiving prior approval, putting the board in a position where it was being asked to approve a project retroactively. As with the de Menil application, both of the original public hearings were held on Sept. 18.

    Mary Schoenlein, owner of Mary’s Marvelous on Main Street in Amagansett, had already appeared before the town’s planning board earlier this year in her efforts to get approval for a new walk-in refrigerator behind her restaurant. The planning board, in its preliminary discussions, was very supportive, but told Ms. Schoenlein she would have to get approval from the zoning board for a 20-by-20-foot concrete slab for the refrigeration unit to sit on.

    “Months are going by and my season was approaching and I began to get worried,” Ms. Schoenlein said at the Sept. 18 hearing, explaining why she built the walk-in without receiving final approval. “A series of things happened and I made a mistake. I misjudged the situation,” she said.

    “What we have again is another retroactive request although this may have been an honest mistake,” said Don Cirillo, a board member, before the board voted unanimously to approve the application.

    A second project that went ahead without the needed variances was that of Stanley and Marie Einzig of 38 Shipwreck Lane in Amagansett, who built a 1,400-square-foot brick patio as well as a 180-square-foot pergola without getting the needed variances from the board.

    “When you come out of the sliding doors you are 8 to 10 feet from the pool. The pergola provides the only shade,” said Martha Reichert of LandMarks, in explaining to the board on Sept. 18 why the work was done without the proper approval. She added that a prime factor motivating the Einzigs was the safety of their grandchildren, noting that a grandchild had fallen into the pool before the work was done, and that the patio made the yard safer.

    “It’s always frustrating when people do these projects without [first getting approval]. It seems to be happening a lot lately,” Ms. McCobb said.

    “It looks like a deliberate request to abuse the system,” said Mr. Cirillo.

    In the end, the board approved an amended variance request, 4-1, that permitted the Einzigs to keep their patio and pergola, but requires them to remove a 10-foot wide strip of brick patio from the eastern side of the property. Lee White, voting in dissent, thought the board should also have required a scenic easement.

    At the Sept. 11 meeting of the East Hampton Town Board it was announced that Montauk’s Viking Fleet wants to berth its Viking Stariper, the fleet’s smallest party boat, at a town-owned bulkhead at the end of Gann Road on Three Mile Harbor.

    The 65-foot boat, built in 1957 and formerly known as the Jigger, would operate from Commercial Dock during April, May, and June in and around Gardiner’s Bay. With the approval of the town board, the Stariper would begin fishing from Three Mile Harbor in the spring.

    “There’s the early fluke run off Greenport, and porgy season opens in May,” Paul Forsberg, the fleet’s owner, said on Monday. He said the Stariper would carry no more than 20 anglers at a time.

    Mr. Forsberg said customers would board the boat by reservation only, “so there will be no crowds gathering.”

    However, the idea was not immediately embraced by the town board. Councilman Peter Van Scoyoc said that Gann Road had always been a dock for commercial fisherman. He said allowing the Stariper to tie up there would make it a “retail” dock.

    “You’re not selling fish, you’re selling the chance to catch fish,” Mr. Van Scoyoc said.

    Town Clerk Fred Overton told the board there was only one slip available. The owners of commercial fishing vessels pay the town $20 per foot of boat length for a season’s docking.

    Much of the space at Commercial Dock is taken up by a steel barge that was bought by East Hampton Town several years ago to help with mooring placement and dock repairs. Mr. Overton said that the only way more room could be found there for commercial fishing vessels would be to move it elsewhere.

    Supervisor Bill Wilkinson said it was possible that the barge could be sold.

    Mr. Overton also voiced concern about the number of parking spaces available at the Gann Road dock.

    “Then I say we kick the can until we study this,” Mr. Wilkinson suggested to his fellow board members.

    In other Three Mile Harbor news, a small bloom of one type of “red tide” algae showed up in its southern reaches last week. East Hampton Town officials are keeping a close watch on patches of Cochlodinium polykrikoides near the Head of the Harbor.

    “This is not the one that causes paralytic shellfish poisoning, but it is toxic to shellfish and finfish, but only in high densities,” Stephanie Forsberg, an East Hampton Town trustee and marine scientist, said yesterday.

    “It looks like streaks in the water. You could have a bloom three feet wide, and next to it, nothing. Fish can swim out of it, but shellfish can’t. We hope it won’t affect the scallop season,” Ms. Forsberg said.

    She said that the fall’s dropping water temperatures would likely keep colonies from expanding. So far, blooms have been seen at the south end of Three Mile Harbor and outside Hand’s Creek.

    Ms. Forsberg said this was not the first time Cochlodinium has been seen in the harbor.

    Bill Fonda, a spokesman for the State Department of Environmental Conservation, said his agency would be monitoring the bloom, which can thrive in nitrogen-rich waters.

    Larry Penny, former director of the town’s Natural Resources Department, went to look at the bloom and said he thought the county’s failure to dredge the channel to the south end of the harbor last year was at least partly to blame for it.

    “As a town, we are going to have to look into septic systems and all nitrogen sources,” Ms. Forsberg said.