For many years a little known fact in Montauk was that parking in the Kirk Park lot was free to residents with an East Hampton Town parking permit and $10 for the day for visitors. When town officials noticed that the large numbers now visiting the hamlet were parking on Main Street and blocking access to some stores, they eliminated the parking fee.

    But the beachside lot, which can accommodate up to 60 vehicles, if not more, remains partially empty most days. Last week, East Hampton Town Councilman Peter Van Scoyoc sent out an e-mail to all members of the Montauk Citizens Advisory Committee asking their opinions of a sign that would bring attention to the lot. A storm of e-mails followed, specifically in response to the plan to include the names of the East Hampton Town supervisor and town board members on the sign.

    Mr. Van Scoyoc asked for objections only since the town would like to move quickly and get the sign put up before the season takes off, with the goals of increasing awareness of the underused ocean beach and a more even distribution of bathers, he wrote.

    The sign would be installed at the northwest corner of the parking lot on South Eagle Street, where a scruff of beach roses is now. Although the forwarded image was a Photoshopped reproduction, Mr. Van Scoyoc said, the sign is black with gold lettering and says “Welcome to Montauk, Kirk Park Beach, Free Parking and Restrooms” and includes space at the top for the town seal, where the names of the supervisor and board members would be included. Many people thought that was fiscally irresponsible, however, since the names would have to be changed often.

    Mr. Van Scoyoc wrote in the e-mail that Supervisor Bill Wilkinson, a Montauk resident, wants his name on the new sign. And where the supervisor’s name is, often the other board members’ names follow, he said.

    Those who replied to the e-mail mostly agreed that the town officials’ names should not be put on the sign. “It makes it egotistically official looking,” said one citizens advisory committee member.

    “If we put names on the sign then we have to put up a new sign every year that there is a new administration. I say no names,” wrote Arlene Brodsky, a committee member.

    “I do not believe any board or supervisor’s name should be added,” wrote John Chimples.

    Councilman Dominick Stanzione, the committee’s town board liaison, wrote, “I want the supervisor’s name on it. It’s tradition! And it’s a good tradition!”

    Lisa Grenci, who until March was the committee’s chairwoman, wrote that she is totally opposed to the supervisor’s name being included and supports a bidding process to make the sign, which brought up another issue: What should the sign look like and should the project go out to bid?

    Harry Ellis, a sign maker in Montauk for more than 20 years and a committee member, said he wanted a chance to bid on it. He said he was the one who made the existing “Welcome to Montauk” sign on the north side of the parking lot on Montauk Highway, the blue one with white lettering that has the Montauk Lighthouse on it.

    Members wrote back and forth about the uniformity of the hamlet’s signs, a point that was commented on by Councilwoman Theresa Quigley: “Whatever that look is, it should be the same for all the signs on town property.” She went on to say that the proposed sign seems fine but is markedly different from other signs, but then those signs, she said, also don’t follow a set pattern.

    Mr. Van Scoyoc could not be reached by phone or e-mail by press time. But Councilwoman Sylvia Overby sent a reply to questions yesterday, saying that town officials’ names are listed on all park properties. The names, she said, are on a nameplate that is easily removed and replaced. The sign, she said, would be made in-house by the Buildings and Grounds Department, which eliminates the need for a bid process.

    In the second of two challenges the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals heard Tuesday to recent rulings by the town’s senior building inspector, Tom Preiato, a group of Amagansett neighbors took on his decision to reinstate a building permit that he himself had rescinded for construction of a woodworking shop on Abraham’s Path.

    A 2008 certificate of occupancy issued by the former chief building inspector, the late Don Sharkey, determined that a barn on the site had been used continuously since 1957 as a business. Even though such a use would not be allowed under current residential zoning, he decided it pre-existed those regulations and could continue in its nonconforming status.

    In November 2010, Mr. Preiato issued a building permit to construct a woodworking shop on the property in place of the barn, but last August, he rescinded that permit after John L. Ciarelli, a lawyer for several neighbors, argued that the building was not entitled to pre-existing nonconforming status, as there was no evidence that it had actually been used continuously as a business.

    In his letter rescinding the permit, however, Mr. Preiato did not refer to continuous usage. Instead, he said that the site is not entitled to dual usage, answering an argument that no one had made. Then on Nov. 3, Mr. Preiato reversed that decision after an attorney for Ronald Webb, who has an option to buy the property, argued that dual usage should be allowed.

    “We feel very clearly that this is a mistake in fact, or misrepresentation,” Mr. Ciarelli of Ciarelli and Dempsey said, telling the board that there was no history of continuous use of the barn for business purposes. He pointed out to the board that it had referred to the building in a 1972 decision as a barn. He argued that the town code required the head building inspector to revoke a certificate of occupancy when it is issued in error, no matter when the error is discovered. The 2008 certificate of occupancy was the basis for allowing the 2010 building permit.

    “I don’t know why they got this building permit. I don’t know why they got this certificate of occupancy. The building inspector needs to correct it,” Mr. Ciarelli said.

    Several of the neighbors spoke as well.

    Marion Suter, a neighbor seeking to overturn the building permit, told the board she had purchased her adjacent property on Schellinger Road 19 years ago and had known the previous owner. “Mrs. Ryan was always very friendly to me,” she said, adding that she had been on the property many times, and that the barn had always been dilapidated and unused, except for occasional storage.

    Randy Hudson, another neighbor, said that there was no electricity in the barn.

    When Don Cirillo, a board member, asked him, “To the best of your knowledge, was there ever a woodworking shop there?” Mr. Hudson answered, “Well, if you want to work with hand tools, but I never saw any activity of any type.”

    Ms. Schoen’s partner Jonathan Tarbet, also of Tarbet, Lester, and Schoen, represented Mr. Webb and presented the board with 13 affidavits from various individuals, including two who, according to Mr. Tarbet, lived next door to the property, stating that the barn had been in continuous use since 1957 as a work space.

    He told the board that it must abide by the 60-day rule, that is, an appeal must be filed within 60 days of a determination, and that the 2010 building permit had not been challenged. The appeal of the certificate of occupancy didn’t occur for 37 months, he said, meaning that the neighbors had lost their right to appeal.

    The board questioned Mr. Tarbet, seeking examples showing the barn being used as a business. Mr. Tarbet told the board that Mark Ryan, the owner, had repaired engines, including cars and lawn mowers.

    “Is there any evidence that they transacted business there?” Mr. Cirillo asked him. “Is there an actual exchange of payments? We don’t have evidence of that. A tax ID? Anything?”

    Mr. Tarbet referred the board to several of the affidavits.

    Mr. Ciarelli then returned to the podium and said, “There is no business ID. There is no commercial transaction taking place on a regular basis. If I fix lawn mowers in my backyard, that doesn’t convert my property to commercial use. The standard you’re being asked to adopt is an unworkable standard and is not supported in the law. What we’re hearing here is an angle to get around what the zoning board said in 1972 when they looked at this parcel.”

    The board voted to keep the hearing open for two weeks to allow both sides to respond to written documents introduced Tuesday.

    The board ended the session by voting on and approving three requests for variances it had heard in public hearings the previous week, all by 5-to-0 votes.

    Amedeo and Antonella Gabrielli were granted a variance to build a 280-square-foot swimming pool at a new house on Montauk Highway in Montauk. Vincent and Christine Sama will be able to tear down an old house on Runnymeade Drive in Springs and build a new 1,169-square-foot one, and Northwest Bungalow L.L.C. got permission to replace a one-story, 986-square-foot house on Northwest Landing Road with a two-story, 1,470-square-foot house.

    East Hampton’s scavenger waste treatment plant, which is next to the former landfill, now a recycling center, on Springs-Fireplace Road, is in a “unique location” above a groundwater divide, Kevin Phillips said on Saturday at a Town Hall forum held to discuss the plant and the handling of septic waste. “Theoretically, the water that leaches through the landfill goes straight down into the aquifer,” he said.

    According to a model of groundwater flow created in 2003, underground flow on the north side of the divide heads toward and empties into Three Mile Harbor, and on the south side, to the ocean.

    Mr. Phillips, a principal with the FPM Group, an engineering and environmental science group that has monitored groundwater for the town, and other speakers at the forum said the town should review potential environmental impacts before deciding how to proceed with the aging plant. Now being used as a transfer station only, with waste shipped elsewhere for treatment, the plant is in need of repair, and the town board must make some decisions after having split 3-2 on a proposal, advanced by Supervisor Bill Wilkinson and Councilwoman Theresa Quigley, to accept a $300,000 offer from a private company and sell it.

    Councilwoman Sylvia Overby and Councilman Dominick Stanzione agreed to arrange Saturday’s forum in order to gather more facts. Mr. Wilkinson and Ms. Quigley have maintained that no further research is needed, and continue to recommend privatization.

    The forum was the second roundtable discussion of the issue in recent weeks; the Group for Good Government held one last month.

    The existing monitoring wells around the landfill and waste plant are inadequate to determine what environmental impacts there might be, speakers said.

    “You should have a live, comprehensive groundwater-monitoring system,” said Pio Lombardo of Lombardo Associates in Boston, a wastewater and water management engineering company. “These things should be ongoing all the time — that’s what’s missing.”

    Water samples from wells around the site have been tested only for nitrogen and total dissolved solids, Mr. Phillips said. “That’s probably inadequate for this plant. The State Department of Environmental Conservation has cited the town for emissions from the plant,” which, he said, have included mercury, “which is a very significant concern.”

    “You can’t tell whether this plant has had an impact unless you put in a number of additional wells,” he said. “There may be other things besides mercury that have kind of slipped through, and that really should be investigated, as far as the impact of the scavenger waste treatment plant on the aquifer. And that’s our recommendation,” Mr. Phillips said.

    He also had some good news about an underground plume of volatile organic chemicals that emanated from the former landfill, which is now capped. His company has been monitoring the plume for a number of years. Tests last year, he said, show that it is shrinking. “Something happened to the mass. And that’s a very good thing,” Mr. Phillips said. The leading edge of the plume, which extended north of the landfill under an adjacent golf course but did not go beyond Abraham’s Path, has not advanced, he said.

    However, liquid discharge into the ground from the scavenger waste plant, Mr. Phillips said, has created an underground plume of total dissolved solids, which are salts. That in itself is not a major concern, though “you do have groundwater standards being violated,” he said, but whether there are other elements or plumes cannot be determined from the existing test wells.

    Arthur Malman, who helped prepare a report on the waste plant as a member of the town’s budget and finance advisory committee, said that the county health department, after looking at existing test well data, had also recommended testing for other pollutants.

    Long-range planning and a comprehensive strategy for handling the community’s septic waste was also discussed at the forum. Mr. Lombardo, whose company has produced handbooks for municipalities on the subject, said issues such as emergency-versus-maintenance  septic system pumping, and whether or not to commingle wastewater and “septage” (the solid sludge that is removed from septic systems) should be discussed.

    Septic system upkeep, including regular maintenance pumpouts, is key to avoiding nitrate pollution in ground and surface waters, and to efficient operation of a treatment plant, Mr. Lombardo said, adding that “the privatization option needs detailed measures to protect the town.”

    Kevin McAllister, the Peconic Baykeeper, who was in the audience, warned that sea-level rise should also be considered. As coastal waters rise, septic systems in low-lying areas are impacted, he said, resulting in pollutants entering the water.

    Mark Wagner of Cameron Engineering, a consultant to the town on the operation of the scavenger waste plant, said that “if the town is not going to operate the plant, then you have to consider what options there are.” Other Long Island treatment plants, such as Bergen Point in Babylon, and Riverhead’s, do not have a “tremendous amount of excess capacity for scavenger waste,” he said.

    The immediate plan, he said, is for East Hampton to spend about $200,000 for improvements at its plant, and then obtain permission from the D.E.C. to resume treating waste there, at up to 45,000 gallons a day.

East Hampton Town

Assessors Rolls Available

    The latest property tax assessments for the Town of East Hampton are available for review at the assessors office at 300 Pantigo Place weekdays from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and Saturdays from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. On Mondays there will be evening hours from 6 to 8. The board of assessment review will meet in Town Hall on May 15 from 10 a.m. to noon, from 2 to 4 p.m., and from 6 to 8 p.m. to hear grievances and requests for changes.

    The 2012 tentative tax assessment roll has been posted on the town’s Web site, town.east-hampton.ny.us, and can be found by navigating to the Assessors page. Forms for exemption requests and grievances can be downloaded there. Electronic submissions will not be accepted.

New York State

Enviro Awards 2012

    Nominations are being accepted through May 18 for the Department of Environmental Conservation 2012 Environmental Awareness Awards. Individuals, businesses, community projects, schools, and organizations that have promoted energy efficiency, waste reduction and recycling, habitat protection, or alternative power production are eligible. Information about how to apply and details about past winners can be reviewed at dec.ny.gov.

    A hearing will be held tonight before the East Hampton Town Board on a proposed law requiring bars and restaurants that offer live music or other entertainment to obtain permits. The permits would be subject to certain provisions, such as a limit on the number of people allowed to gather for outdoor entertainment. They would be issued by the town clerk without review, carry no fee, and be valid for a calendar year. One-year renewals would be automatic.

    The legislation, promoted by Town Councilwoman Theresa Quigley, is an effort to address problems caused by a growing number of night spots where music and other events, particularly those held outdoors, draw crowds.

    If the law is adopted, outdoor entertainment will be allowed to take place between noon and 10 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and from noon till 11 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. An outdoor occupancy limit will be determined for each venue by the town police chief, with maximum outdoor occupancy set at one person per seven square feet. The law will also require that an outdoor area used for entertainment be immediately adjacent to the business providing it, and that patrons may not encroach on public land, except for parking. 

     According to the draft, applicants for the permit would have to reveal whether any owners of the establishment had been convicted of any building, noise, or zoning-code violations within the previous 36 months. Should a town department head believe the permit “should be examined,” or if the town clerk determines that the business has been convicted of three code violations within three years, a hearing would be scheduled before the town board to determine if the permit should be modified, revoked, or suspended.

    The law allows the town board to require the installation of soundproofing or to set other conditions. It also allows the town to bring an injunction proceeding if necessary to enforce it.

    According to the draft, the law’s objectives are “to protect the established character of neighborhoods, especially residential neighborhoods, the social and economic well-being of residents, and the value of private and public property.” Another goal is “to avoid the creation of nuisances and other conditions impinging upon the quiet enjoyment and use of property and to prevent environmental pollution and degradation of whatever kind.”

    The two Democratic members of the board, Sylvia Overby and Peter Van Scoyoc, have not endorsed the permit approach, suggesting that in certain cases, such as for clubs in residential neighborhoods, the law would legalize an expanded use that should instead be subject to individual permit under the town’s mass gathering law.

    The East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals debated two controversial applications Tuesday night, making a decision on one and tabling the other for a week.

    The first involved three and a third acres on Napeague, between Montauk Highway and the beach, where the owners, Mindy Nam and Mark Dehnert, have asked for a natural resources permit for a 2,000-square-foot lawn, a 6,050-square-foot tennis court, a 640-square-foot pavilion, a 100-square-foot shed, along with 831 square feet of deck and parking. The sticking point was the lawn.

    A hearing had been held on the proposal on April 17, during which a neighbor, George Stankevich, and a member of the Planning Department staff, objected to a lawn on duneland and the owners offered to restrict themselves to approved fertilizers.

    Don Cirillo, a member of the panel, spoke first. Noting that lawn was “the largest stumbling block,” he said, “I don’t like to micro-manage. I’d hate to turn down the entire application.”

    Each of the members who spoke expressed reservations about the lawn but support for the plan otherwise. One Z.B.A. member, Sharon McCobb, agreed that the ecology was sensitive, but nevertheless approved the plan, reminding the others that the applicants planned to merge two lots, which meant one less septic system.

    As the members appeared prepared to vote for approval, the chairman, Alex Walter argued that the covenant the applicant was willing to put in place regarding fertilizer would be unenforceable. “I just don’t think the lawn is something I’d want to trade off here,” Mr. Walter said.

    After consulting with Robert Connelly, a town attorney, the board agreed unanimously to approve the plan, provided the lawn was deleted from it.

    The second application under discussion Tuesday came from the owners of the Surf Lodge, a popular Montauk night spot. They seek to overturn a ruling by the town’s chief building inspector, Tom Preiato, that a portable dry bar or waiters station on the club’s deck was an expansion of the club’s pre-existing, nonconforming use of residential property. A hearing had been held on April 24, and one member of the board, Brian Gosman, had recused himself, meaning that it would take at least three of the four remaining members of the board to overturn the ruling.

    The board decided to put off a decision until next week after one member, Lee White, said, “I think Tom acted appropriately,” while Mr. Walter said the use of the bar on the deck actually reduced the square footage and, therefore, that Mr. Preiato had made an error.

    The board also held public hearings on Tuesday on two applications from oceanfront property owners. An application from a property owner identified only by a corporate name, Marine Boulevard L.L.C., was for a natural resources permit and a variance to allow construction within 35 feet of the dune crest where 100 feet is required. The application involves replacing a 3,129-square-foot deck with one of 2,994 square feet, slightly enlarging a driveway, and replacing a stone walkway with a wooden one at 98 Marine Boulevard in Beach Hampton.

     William J. Fleming, representing the applicant, said, “They want to pull the deck back and away from the dune.” He noted that a hot tub was to be removed. Joel Halsey, who reviewed the proposal for the Planning Department, said a trade-off was involved and that the plan was  environmentally positive.

    The second hearing was about a house at 33 Whalers Lane. Whose owner is seeking a second-floor deck of 87 square feet as well as a variance for three walkways.

    David Kirst, an attorney with McLaughlin and Eagan, told the panel that the walkways had existed when the owner bought the property and that a certificate of occupancy was in place at the time despite the fact that they did not have a variance. “It’s amazing that a C of O is issued with these walkways where a variance is required. Amazing,” Mr. Walter said.

    No one spoke in opposition to either proposal. The board has 62 days to make decisions.

East Hampton Town

Issue $1.7 Million in Bonds

    With a unanimous vote last Thursday, the East Hampton Town Board authorized the issuance of almost $1.7 million in bonds to cover the costs of a variety of capital projects. After postponing the adoption of a capital budget until prior financial accounting problems were ironed out, the board drafted a three-year capital plan this year.

    Among the projects for which bonds can now be issued are the construction of a sump to prevent flooding on Sulky Circle in East Hampton, for $150,000; a first phase of improvements to pilings at the town dock at Star Island in Montauk, for $190,000; $320,000 worth of repairs to the town’s sanitation building, and the purchase of several pieces of equipment for the Highway Department. Councilman Peter Van Scoyoc, the liaison to that department, said that Stephen Lynch, the highway superintendent, had helped the town save a substantial amount of money by finding pieces of surplus equipment to buy.

Southampton Town

Water Quality Forum

    The Southampton Town Sustainability Advisory Committee will host a forum on water quality on Tuesday, from 7 to 9 p.m., at the Hampton Bays High School auditorium. Titled “Septic Triple Play: Save Money, Save Our Bays, and Protect Your Health,” the event will be moderated by Scott Carlin, the committee’s education chairman. Supervisor Anna Throne-Holst has urged the public to attend the meeting, at which she will give an update on local efforts. Also taking part are representatives of the Long Island Liquid Waste Association, Bill Chaleff, who is an East Hampton architect interested in sustainable design, and Walter Hilbert of the Suffolk Department of Health. There will be opportunities for public discussion. For more information, the Southampton Office of Energy and Sustainability can be e-mailed at [email protected].

New York State

Library Grants to Jermain, Rogers

    The John Jermain Memorial Library in Sag Harbor and the Rogers Memorial Library in Southampton have received New York State public library construction grants, according to Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr.

    John Jermain has been awarded $157,023 to help restore the 101-year old library and double its square footage. Rogers Memorial has been awarded $45,713 to construct a utility building to store library supplies and provide additional workshop space. The money is part of $14 million budgeted by the state for public library construction.

    According to a release from Mr. Thiele, a recent survey showed a need for public library construction and renovation projects totaling more than $2.53 billion nationwide. Many of New York’s public libraries are unable to accommodate users with disabilities, are not energy efficient, and cannot provide public access computers, Internet service, and other electronic technologies because of outdated electrical wiring. Many also do not have sufficient space to house collections or hold meetings.

    East Hampton Town Trustee Debbie Klughers has secured a federal grant that will not only make it possible for fishermen to dispose of used fishing gear but also allow them to turn the gear, including line, lobster pots, nets, dredges, and buoys, into energy.

    The Fishing for Energy program is a partnership of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Covanta Energy Corporation, and Schnitzer Steel Industries. All four organizations are working together to reduce mountains of derelict fishing gear nationwide.

    Simply put, derelict fishing gear has not been easy to dispose of. Landfills often reject some types of gear, and gear left in the water poses a danger to marine life. Since 2008, 22 ports participating in the program have collected 450 tons of gear.

    During the East Hampton Town Board’s May 1 work session, Ms. Klughers explained how the program works. Bins are put in locations convenient to fishermen, in this case the Montauk Recycling Center, where the Gershow Carting Company will place a 30-yard Dumpster.

    When it is full, the material will be taken to Hempstead, where Schnitzer Steel’s recycling facility removes metals. The remainder goes to Covanta Energy, which has a plant that “turns the derelict fishing gear into energy,” Ms. Klughers told the board. There is no cost to either the town or fishermen, she said.

    The program will be coordinated in East Hampton by Supervisor Bill Wilkinson and Pat Keller, director of the town sanitation department.

    With only 17 days remaining to Memorial Day weekend, East Hampton Town’s Ordinance Enforcement and Animal Control Departments are both short-staffed, Patrick Gunn, the town’s public safety division administrator and an assistant town attorney, told the town board on Tuesday.

    Four full-time officers and one part-timer are assigned to code enforcement.  A senior ordinance enforcement officer — “probably the most productive one,” Mr. Gunn told the board — was injured while fighting last month’s wildfire, and could be out of work indefinitely.

    And, he said, an animal control officer will begin a maternity leave soon, leaving just one officer remaining in that department. With a smaller staff, said Mr. Gunn, “The same level of service isn’t possible.”

    “We’re working at full capacity all the time,” he said.” I’m telling you, last summer’s numbers are not sustainable.” Summers bring more code violations and a heavier workload.

    The division’s budget does not contain extra money for new hires, Mr. Gunn said. “I’m not asking you for anything specific,” he told the board. “I’m just telling you what the facts are. I’m just asking you to evaluate the situation and decide what you want to do.” To replace the two employees who will be out over the summer would cost about $22,000, he said, or possibly less.

    His presentation sparked a contentious discussion among board members.

    “I’m not convinced of the shortcomings,” said Supervisor Bill Wilkinson. “You don’t issue 680 code enforcement violations through stealth code enforcement officers,” he added, referring to the number of summonses racked up against the Surf Lodge in Montauk last year. “There’s real stuff going on.”

     “I’ve heard repeatedly from the business community, from the residents, that they need more code enforcement,” said Councilman Peter Van Scoyoc. Councilwoman Sylvia Overby agreed, saying she would vote to provide enough resources to code enforcement so that all the bases could be covered and nothing “overlooked.”

    Councilwoman Theresa Quigley took umbrage at that comment. Ms. Overby said she had not meant to imply any complaint about the Code  Enforcement Department. Code enforcement is key to the “quality of life” issues residents are most concerned about, she said.

    But, Ms. Quigley said, “I’m entitled to hear and to understand implications.”    “We’re not overlooking anything. . . .” Mr. Gunn said. “Can we cover everything in the entire code? No.”

     “Yes, I’m sure that we can do better, but certainly we’ve taken it and moved it from a completely chaotic, unfocused department to something I’m proud of,” said Ms. Quigley. “There are a million laws that can be violated. The question comes down to, what is the priority? Do we want to have 100 code enforcement officers? I don’t think so.”

     “I have no problem finding another code enforcement officer,” Ms. Overby told Mr. Gunn. “Whether it’s part-time or not.”

    Ms. Quigley continued, warning that her comments were “going to be inflammatory.  But I don’t care,” she said. “What the heck, and I say what the heck because everything I say is inflammatory.”

    The Code Enforcement Department, Ms. Quigley said, is “overburdened by obstructionist activity that doesn’t allow them to focus on their job, and if they could focus on their job without being constantly harassed, then they could get a lot more done.”

    “I will manage whatever resources you give me to the best of my ability,” Mr. Gunn said. Councilman Dominick Stanzione and Mr. Van Scoyoc both praised his department’s achievements. “I want to continue to give you the resources to continually improve the scope of what you’re able to do,” said Mr. Van Scoyoc.

     “Pat is one of the individuals that is managing performance, which has not been done in this town,” Mr. Wilkinson said.

    Mr. Gunn’s report also raised the question of just what the board had meant to authorize regarding the hiring of a new part-time fire marshal. Dave Browne, the chief fire marshal, and Mr. Gunn had requested the addition to the department staff, which had been cut back, at a previous board meeting. Ms. Overby and Mr. Van Scoyoc said they believed the board had agreed to hire a year-round part-timer, which Mr. Gunn said was the request, but Ms. Quigley and Mr. Wilkinson said their intent was to hire someone for the summer season only.

    Following a heated exchange at an East Hampton Town Board work session Tuesday over a controversial proposal to deal with large crowds gathering outside at restaurants or bars, Councilwoman Theresa Quigley, who offered the legislation, challenged the two Democrats on the board to produce a proposal of their own to address the problem.

    Ms. Quigley’s law, developed with Supervisor Bill Wilkinson, would have required businesses that have outdoor music or other entertainment to obtain permits to do so, with the number of people allowed pinned to the size of the property — one person per seven square feet.

    The question they had been faced with, Mr. Wilkinson said, was “How do we control crowds outside?” Enforcement agencies, he said, had complained of a lack of ability to get injunctive relief. “This proposal we made based on incidents that occurred the last summer and the summer before and the summer before.”

    The proposal Ms. Quigley offered was intended to give the town enforcement ability for large crowds outside of establishments.

    But an overflow crowd at Town Hall voiced objections to the legislation at a hearing on May 10. “As one reporter told me, ‘Did you know you brought the whole town together?’ ” Mr. Wilkinson said, joking.

    The opposition, he said, seemed to be from both businesses and environmentalists.

    “As Bill pointed out, it got a universal response, no!” Ms. Quigley said, laughing as she spoke about the proposal.

    Arguing that the number of seven square feet per person was not the real key to the law, she said, “We’re right on the brink of the season for 2012.”

     “What I heard at the meeting was that no one thought this law should go forward,” said Councilman Peter Van Scoyoc, a Democrat, stressing that there were only a handful of businesses involved, and that what was really needed was more enforcement officers to enforce laws already on the books.

    “It’s really important to be factually correct. I said four times so far, there are no laws to enforce,” Ms. Quigley said.

    “We’re down to two and a half enforcement people.” Mr. Van Soyoc said.

    Ms. Quigley got up at that moment to get a document to support her point.

    Mr. Van Scoyoc continued, exploring different possible approaches to address the problem, including enforcement of parking laws.

    “I’d like to see your numbers,” Mr. Wilkinson said.

    “There is an issue of planning that needs to be brought into this,” said Sylvia Overby, the other Democratic Board member, pointing out that the site plans of many of the problem establishments are antiquated.

    “This is a way for a dialogue to get started,” Ms. Overby said. She mentioned Suffolk County septic codes.

    “They are pre-existing, nonconforming. There are no site plans,” Ms. Quigley said. “Let’s talk in facts.”

    “I’ll withdraw my proposal,” Ms. Quigley said. “Let’s get a proposal from you guys for once. I haven’t heard anything from either of you other than objections. I’d like to see one proposal either of you have put upon the calendar.”

    “It’s good to be in the majority,” Mr. Van Soyoc said, adding that he had gotten a copy of the agenda for Tuesday’s meeting at 4:51 on Monday afternoon.

    Mr. Van Soyoc and Mr. Wilkinson then engaged in a fiery exchange over what Mr. Van Soyoc’s duties and job were according to town charter, ending with both men falling into a silence.

    “I’ll wait for a proposal,” Ms. Quigley said to the two Democrats.

    “Thank you,” Ms. Overby said.

    “I appreciate the opportunity,” Mr. Van Soyoc added.

    “What a joke,” Mr. Wilkinson said, pushing his chair back away from the table.

    Dominic Stanzione, the third Republican on the board, stayed out of the fray, sitting quietly during this section of the session.