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.

    A fence war broke out during the East Hampton Town Planning Board’s May 9 meeting, pitting the owner of the Amagansett I.G.A., also called Cirillo’s Market,  against a long-vacant building and parking lot next door.

    Fran Cirillo, the market’s owner, is expanding it, on both the east and west sides of the building, by about 5,000 square feet, to over 20,000 square feet. She received site-plan approval from the board last August.

    The expansion triggered the need for more parking, from 118 required spaces to 147. The planning department told the board that Ms. Cirillo had enlarged the lot, as well as redirected the traffic pattern, by adding stop signs and sending traffic in a one-way circular direction

    The issue before the board that night was Ms. Cirillo’s request to amend the approved plan to include a fence, dividing her property from a neighboring one containing a storefront that has been vacant for many years. It is her fear that if a 24-hour-a-day convenience store moved in next door, her parking lot would be used during hours that the I.G.A. was closed, increasing expense, raising security issues, and making it harder for her own customers to park when the market is open.

    Maureen Ryan of the planning department told the board that the problem with the request is that the town code, as well as planning policy, requires that contiguous parking lots be designed so that vehicles do not enter and exit the highway repeatedly as shoppers go store to store.

    Ms. Cirillo addressed the board from the podium, saying that she had consulted with the state Department of Transportation on the parking plan; then sat down in the front row. The session morphed at that point into an informal negotiation between her and members of the board.

    Diana Weir said the board’s concern was not the next tenant but the future of the entire area. Reed Jones, the chairman, said that in general, the applicant usually knows what is best for a property. Robert Schaffer suggested that there be an access easement between the two parcels.

     “I understand your wanting to separate the properties,” said Patrick Schutte. And in the process, he said, a chain-link fence now in place needs to be screened.

    J. P. Foster argued that reducing traffic in and out of Montauk Highway was a major consideration.

    In the end, five members of the board voted to allow a modified fence with passageways that will let people walk between the two properties. Mr. Foster voted against and Ian Calder-Piedmonte abstained, saying more research into the traffic flow was needed.

    The board also announced that night that it will hold a public hearing for Montauk Beach House, formerly known as the Ronjo, on June 6 to consider an application for a 947-square-foot basement in a new building on the grounds. Mr. Reed made it clear that the hearing would address the basement and only the basement.

    Finally, the board signed off on the site plan for Wainscott Retail, a “superstore” to be located at the former Plitt Ford auto dealership on Montauk Highway, home this summer of Whole Foods Farmers Market.

    Demolition of the old building will begin this fall.

    Whole Foods is being run on a trial basis this summer to test viability for the food market giant at that location on a year-round basis. If the test does not go well, the likely occupant could well be a drugstore chain. CVS has been mentioned as having an interest in the site.

    “It is a well-thought-out plan,” said Mr. Foster, a sentiment shared by the entire board.

    On Monday afternoon in East Hampton, Daniel G. Rogers, an attorney for Paul and Kelly Lester, announced that he had asked Gov. Andrew Cuomo to instruct the state’s inspector general to investigate the actions of the State Department of Environmental Conservation before and after its raid on the Lester property on Abraham’s Path in July.

    Mr. Rogers met with the press at the scene of the raid on Abraham’s Path. He was joined there by Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr., who shared Mr. Rogers’s concern that fishermen charged with violations of fishery law were not being afforded due process, nor were they being compensated for fish seized, even when charges against them are dismissed, as in the Lesters’ case.

    Mr. Thiele has introduced legislation aimed at preventing conservation officers from conducting warrantless searches, and State Senator Kenneth P. LaValle has agreed to sponsor a companion bill in the Senate, according to Mr. Thiele.

    “The questions being raised need to be answered,” Mr. Thiele said. “I’m going to make sure we get an answer. The Lesters are not the first to come to me about fisheries enforcement.”

    Stuart Vorpahl of East Hampton, as well as Sidney Smith, owner of the fishing vessel Merritt out of Greenport, and Sue and John Berglin, owner-operators of the Mary Elizabeth from Hampton Bays, were on hand to share stories of alleged abuse by D.E.C. enforcement protocols.

    Mr. Rogers told reporters that other fishermen from UpIsland who had offered to join the gathering had backed out following a raid on a fisherman’s house in Freeport a week and a half ago. “I don’t know if it was a coincidence,” Mr. Rogers said.

    A bench trial conducted by East Hampton Town Justice Lisa R. Rana last summer resulted in the dismissal of charges against Paul Lester for possession of untagged fluke and porgies and possession of fluke over the daily catch limit. The charge against Paul Lester’s sister, Kelly Lester, for not having the proper permit to sell shellfish from a roadside stand, was dropped.

    During the trial, Mr. Rogers claimed that D.E.C. officers entered the Lester property without a warrant, seized fish, and sold the fish (including some that Kelly Lester had set aside for dinner) at nearby Stuart’s Seafood Market over the objections of Paul Lester.

    “Not only does the D.E.C. feel justified in taking a fisherman’s property without warning or notice, or due process, but also without any measure of just compensation,” Mr. Rogers wrote in a release handed out on Monday. He added that a forensic investigation into “where the money went” might find that the proceeds from the sale of the seized fish were used to pay the salaries of enforcement officers, an obvious conflict.

    A federal investigation of National Marine Fisheries Service enforcement two years ago found that federal officers had overstepped their authority in seizing fish, had imposed excessive fines, and had misspent the proceeds from its sale.

    Mr. Rogers said the Lesters had requested restitution, $202.25, on several occasions. The requests have gone unanswered. Lisa King, a D.E.C. spokeswoman, said yesterday that money received by the agency was deposited “into the specific account required by law. In cases where seized funds or assets are requested to be returned, we review each case on an individual basis, as we are with the Lester case. That review is ongoing.”

    The Lesters’ attorney said his clients had considered a lawsuit, but “that’s not something we’d like to do right now. It shouldn’t have to come to that. They just want to be paid.”

    Once the small group at the Amagansett Citizens Advisory Committee’s meeting on Monday evening had dispensed with minutes and reports from the committee’s zoning and planning board liaisons, summer 2012 seemed uppermost in everyone’s minds.

    The chairman, Kent Miller, recalled walking on Indian Wells Beach last summer with his wife, Elaine, and being taken aback by the throngs of 20-somethings, some 200-plus people, milling about, drinking beer, playing loud music, and taking up a lot of space. So as to be able to drink and not have to worry about beach stickers, many of those in the crowd had taken taxis to get there.

    That picture resonated with several others at the meeting, who described watching garbage being left on the sand, the dunes being used inappropriately, and generally noisy behavior that disrupted the quiet relaxation of the beach experience for families and other regulars.

    There are more and more improperly extinguished  beach fires every summer as well, a phenomenon that has been in the news for two or three years at least. Wondering how the town might help to reduce the numbers of tipsy beachgoers and dangerous fires, Mr. Miller asked members whether inviting the town police liaison as well as the fire marshal to next month’s meeting might be a good idea. Everyone agreed.

    Mr. Miller also reported hand-delivering two letters to Supervisor Bill Wilkinson and other town board members. One, written with Jeanne Frankl, responded to an e-mail sent by Mr. Wilkinson last Thursday to all the citizens advisory committees. The other was about the possible lease of the Abraham’s Path public tennis and basketball courts to a private entity.

    As of Monday, neither letter had been answered.

    Peter Kirsch, an attorney serving as East Hampton Town’s consultant on airport matters, will speak to the town board at a 10 a.m. work session on Tuesday at Town Hall.

    Mr. Kirsch has been asked to discuss information provided by the Federal Aviation Administration in response to questions that Representative Tim Bishop submitted to the agency.

    In its memo, the F.A.A. for the first time directly addressed the agency’s stance and likely response should the town decide to reject further federal grants in order to obtain more local control over the airport, such as the ability to limit its use in order to reduce noise.

    At a board work session on Tuesday, Kathy Cunningham, who was chairwoman of the town’s airport noise abatement advisory committee before it was disbanded last year and is now the head of the Quiet Skies Coalition, asked the board to consider several things before committing to a course of action.

    Ms. Cunningham said that should the board accept federal airport grants but choose to pursue the F.A.A.’s permission to enact noise-related airport restrictions through a process laid out by the agency, several elements should be considered.

    The F.A.A. has granted a municipality the authority to enact its own restrictions at only one airport in the country, she said — in Naples, Fla., and only after being ordered to do so by the court.

    In order to make a case to the F.A.A. for localized restrictions, the town must first prove to the agency that there is a noise problem. But, Ms. Cunningham said, the F.A.A. uses a “flawed measuring tool” to determine whether there is enough noise to warrant restrictions. Instead of tallying individual events in which noise exceeds a particular standard, the F.A.A. averages noise events that occur day or night over a year. Only if they exceed an average of 65 decibels would the F.A.A. agree that there is a noise problem; however, that level is greater than the maximum noise level allowed in East Hampton Town Code, Ms. Cunningham pointed out.

    By that standard, and with seasonal differences in use of the airport, the only place the F.A.A. would acknowledge a noise problem “would be on the airport footprint,” she said.

    “This is one of the reasons that I would strongly recommend you not go in that direction,” she said of seeking F.A.A. approval for local airport use restrictions.

    Another, she said, is that the F.A.A.-required noise study and standards is not applicable to all the types of aircraft, such as seaplanes, that cause noise problems here.

    Bill Babinski, a farmer who owns 20 acres of land on Beach Lane in Wainscott, will be able to build the second barn he needs after the East Hampton Town Planning Board okayed his application at an April 4 meeting. The 1,380-square-foot barn, to be erected next to one already standing, is a little less than half its size.

    A neighboring couple, Tom and Shelly Gilbert, expressed strong opposition to the application at a hearing on March 7, saying that the new barn would obliterate their ocean view if it were sited as proposed.

    The development rights to Mr. Babinski’s land are jointly held by the Town of East Hampton and the Peconic Land Trust, meaning it will be a farm in perpetuity. The Gilberts had contributed to the fund that purchased the rights, and felt that as such, they should be given some voice in the placement of the barn.

    Ian Calder-Piedmonte, a board member who is himself a farmer, spoke first.      “There is no question that this would be obtrusive to their view,” he said, adding, however, that “a lot of this issue is, we’re late in the game. This should have been settled when the development rights were [acquired].”

    The Gilberts had proposed alternative locations for the new barn, but Mr. Calder-Piedmonte, drawing on his experience as a farmer, found them wanting. “I wish there was a solution that would please everybody,” he said. “I don’t think there is one here. We have to allow the structure to be placed where the applicant wants.”

    The board members J.P. Foster, Patrick Schutte, and Nancy Keeshan agreed, as did Diana Weir, the vice chairwoman. “We’re within our legal boundaries that we have to comply with,” she noted. “We can’t leave the town open to any kind of litigation if we violate the town code.”

    The board’s chairman, Reed Jones, speaking last, found himself alone in seeking a different solution.

    “It’s remarkable that a barn would create so much excitement,” he began, adding that a compromise between the neighbors should have been sought. “It shouldn’t be 100 percent one person and zero percent for someone else. I think there should be a tradeoff.”

    The board then voted to approve Mr. Babinski’s site plan, 5-1, with Mr. Jones the sole dissenter.

    Shelly Gilbert, sitting in the audience with her attorney, left the hall  dejected. “I don’t understand. Community should be about compromise,” she said, stepping out into the early spring night.

    At the same meeting, the board held two public hearings on site plan applications. The first was from East Hampton Indoor Tennis, which wants to replace its inflatable bubble with a metal one and add two adjacent small utility buildings. The second was from Riverhead Building Supply for its outlet on Industrial Road in Montauk, to install a 4-by-8-foot propane tank. Neither application met with opposition.

    The board will hold a public hearing on Wednesday to consider a proposal from Verizon Wireless to upgrade its facility in Montauk, near the town recycling center. Verizon wants to remove the three antennas currently on the tower and replace them with nine, in order to improve service in the area.

    The planning board’s March 21 meeting ended in a closed executive session with a town attorney, Kathryn Santiago, to discuss two lawsuits brought against the board earlier that week by David Eagan, attorney for the Concerned Citizens of Wainscott. One of the suits involves a property at 411 Montauk Highway in Wainscott, at the corner of Montauk Highway and Sayre’s Path. Concerned Citizens is challenging the board’s action of Jan. 25 granting approval for the construction of housing there.

    The second lawsuit involves a site permit granted to the owner of 55 Wainscott Hollow, Jeffrey Colle. This suit contests a point seemingly settled in State Supreme Court, in which the court ordered the board to reverse an earlier finding against Mr. Colle.

    The East Hampton Town Board split along party lines last Thursday in a vote on reorganizing the Human Resources Department. As reported last week, the measure, approved by the Republican majority, 3 to 2, abolishes the position of Pat Breen, the town personnel officer, who served as the department head. The board also moved two other staffers to different departments, one to the town clerk’s office and the other to the tax receiver’s office, leaving just one in human resources.

    The change assigns the former personnel assistant in the department to a payroll unit under Len Bernard, the town budget officer. Any other functions formerly performed by the Human Resources Department will now be handled by the budget office or supervisor’s office.

    The resolution offered by Mr. Wilkinson notes that the town’s full-time work force has decreased from more than 400 positions in the 2008 budget to 311 as of the beginning of last month. Savings from the reorganization of the Human Resources function, it says, are projected to be approximately $170,000 a year.

    The measure was also described as “an effort to create operating and financial efficiencies.” Mr. Wilkinson noted that the town’s financial operations are being monitored by the state comptroller “because of past administration misdeeds.” He was referring to the prior, Democratic administration. Under the terms of a state law allowing East Hampton to issue bonds to cover an accumulated budget deficit, the comptroller is to review all budgets during the life of the bonds. “We lost a lot of our ability to have the looseness you’re requesting,” he told Democratic Councilwoman Sylvia Overby, who voted against the changes.

    In explaining her no vote, Ms. Overby noted that the budget officer is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the supervisor. “There are just no checks,” she said. “From purchasing to auditing to [information technology] and grants — [all] are reporting directly to the budget officer, who is reporting directly to you,” she told Mr. Wilkinson. Town  Councilman Peter Van Scoyoc, the other Democrat on the board, also voted no.    

    “Employees need to have a place where they feel safe,” Ms. Overby said. Under the reorganization, they would have to bring their issues or complaints to Mr. Bernard, she said. “They deserve to have someone in their court, that watches their back.”

    The reorganization also creates a new audit and accounting unit, to be headed by Charlene Kagel, the chief auditor, and assigns a grants analyst under her supervision.

    “This was just woods,” Maureen Murphy, the executive director of the East Hampton Housing Authority, said. She was referring to the Accabonac Apartments, a 50-unit project that opened in 1999, a year after Ms. Murphy joined the agency. Now, Ms. Murphy is retiring from the post. “It’s enough,” she said. “It’s time.”

    When Ms. Murphy left her teaching position at Brooklyn College’s School of Education and headed east to Montauk, she was appointed to the authority. “There was just Avallone then,” she said, of the Avallone Apartments in Montauk, a 17-unit complex that was opened by the town in 1993.

    Ms. Murphy served as the chairwoman of the housing board from 1998 to 2000, and then became the executive director. In that time, available subsidized housing has grown from the original 17 units to include the 50 units at Accabonac and an additional 24 at the most recently opened Springs Fireplace Apartments. For the most part, the apartments are intended for older citizens and some families in the middle income range.

    The East Hampton Housing Authority works with East Hampton Town, but is a separate entity. The group receives federal subsidies, but Ms. Murphy said, “It’s very difficult to buy land. We don’t have that much money.”

    Ms. Murphy expressed her gratitude to others on the housing board, mentioning Helen Fitzgerald, who died last month. “I’ll miss Helen,” she said. She also reminisced about some tenants “who have been with us from the beginning,” recalling one woman — who recently left the complex to live with her daughter — “driving around here and looking when this was nothing but dirt.”

    “We work hard,” she said with a bit of pride in her voice. “This could easily turn into a slum, but we do whatever it takes to keep the property looking clean and landscaped.”

    When asked about her retirement, Ms. Murphy smiled. “I’m of a certain age,” she said. If she could wave a magic wand, Ms. Murphy would love to see some land donated to the authority so it could increase available housing.

    “There are still people here who need housing,” she said. “It would be so nice if someone donated a sizable piece of property that we could develop.”

    Denise Schoen of Tarbet, Lester, and Schoen, the attorney for Michael Davis, who owns the Wainscott Wombles property at 411 Montauk Highway in Wainscott, received a two-week extension of time on Tuesday to respond to the Concerned Citizens of Wainscott, as represented by David Eagan, who is challenging a ruling by the town building inspector that a residence on the lot, which has a commercial use, would be legal.

Alex Walter, the Z.B.A. chairman, reported that the two sides were in negotiation toward a possible settlement, and the extension was approved unanimously.

“We’re trying to settle the matter between my client and Mr. Eagan’s multiple clients. I’m hopeful that we’ll be able to reach an amicable settlement,” Ms. Schoen said yesterday.

“We stand by our legal analysis as correct,” Mr. Eagan said at the meeting. “We have been approached by counsel of Wainscott Wombles if they could come up with a different plan. Our goal all along is for that property to be redeveloped in accordance with law,” Mr. Eagan said