An attempt by the Committee to Stop Airport Expansion to obtain a temporary restraining order stopping East Hampton Town from accepting a Federal Aviation Administration grant for an airport fence project failed in New York State Supreme Court earlier this month. An appeal will be heard by a four-judge panel today.

    The temporary restraining order would have stalled action until the court could rule on a motion for a preliminary injunction, which could also prevent the grant application from going forward. That decision, as well as a review of briefs in the Committee to Stop Airport Expansion’s underlying lawsuit, an Article 78 challenging the town’s adoption of its airport master plan, is scheduled for next week.

    Justice John J.J. Jones Jr. denied an emergency request for a restraining order in December, but Jeffrey Bragman, an East Hampton attorney for the Committee to Stop Airport Expansion, and other counsel pursued an appeal, resulting in last week’s decision.

    The issue of whether East Hampton Town should accept new federal grants from the F.A.A., thus binding the town to contractual obligations, or “grant assurances,” for a new 20-year period, has been central to discussions about the airport.

    Based on an agreement between the committee and the F.A.A. settling an earlier lawsuit, several of the grant assurances now in effect will no longer be enforced after 2014. Those seeking greater local authority over the airport as a key to addressing noise disturbances to residents caused by aircraft argue that it will then be easier for the town to enact restrictions such as a night curfew.

    Others, such as Save East Hampton Airport, an airport users group that has aligned with the town to fight the Article 78 lawsuit, note that underlying federal requirements, like a need to prove to the F.A.A. that any proposed airport restriction is “reasonable, nonarbitrary, and nondiscriminatory,” will remain in effect.

    After consulting with Peter Kirsch, an aviation attorney hired by the town, the town board voted unanimously on Dec. 6 to proceed with a grant application to the F.A.A. for “funding the design of updated perimeter deer fencing at the town airport,” according to a legal notice.

    This week, Councilwoman Theresa Quigley said that if steering clear of F.A.A. grants would give the town more leeway in enacting airport regulations that could help mitigate noise, she would reconsider accepting those grants.

    “To me, the question comes down to, is there a difference — does the accepting of F.A.A. money impact our ability to control the airport? It was my understanding that it didn’t. If indeed it makes no difference, then why would I not take the money?”

    In answers to questions submitted to the agency by Representative Tim Bishop, the Federal Aviation Administration recently stated that after 2014 it would not only cease enforcement of several of the grant assurances but would no longer hold the town to the federal Airport Noise and Capacity Act requiring airport operators seeking approval of local regulations to follow a particular procedure. Though any proposed regulations would still be measured against the “reasonable and nondiscriminatory” standard, airport noise control advocates hailed that information as supporting their stance that freedom from the ties that come with F.A.A. grants would put the town in a position to enact effective rules.

    In her response to an e-mail from Antonia Pisciotta, a constituent who asked that the board rescind its vote to accept F.A.A. funding, Councilwoman Quigley said that in light of the agency’s responses, she would ask for further research into the issue.

    However, she said Tuesday, “If it says that not taking F.A.A. money frees us to control our airspace, there’s a different question to be asked” — the cost to taxpayers of paying for upkeep of the airport without federal support.

    The need for the fencing that is currently proposed and the town’s description of its project in the grant application has been questioned in two recent letters to the F.A.A.

    In a Dec. 19 letter to Otto Suriani, the acting manager of the F.A.A.’s New York Airport District Office, and copied to Mr. Bishop, Daniel G. Voorhees, an attorney from Wainscott, pointed out that the town had not mentioned that there is an existing perimeter fence, between 9 and 10 feet tall, around the airport, which, he said, is in “excellent shape” except for several small holes. Where Industrial Road and Daniel’s Hole Road border the airport, Mr. Voorhees wrote, the perimeter fence is discontinued.

    “A simple solution to control deer, which, after all, is the purpose of the fence, would be to install five cattle grates,” he wrote.

    “The failure of the F.A.A. grant application to take into consideration the existing perimeter fence is, at best, disingenuous,” Mr. Voorhees wrote to the F.A.A. official. In addition, he said, “in my opinion, the town’s proposed fence consisting of seven feet in height with one additional foot of barbed wire would not accomplish deer control. Moreover, costs will probably approach over one million dollars!” His suggestions, he said, “would cost, I would guess, one-tenth of [the cost of] the town’s proposed fence.”

    Another letter on the issue was sent to the agency in early February by Sheila D. Jones, a Washington, D.C., attorney assisting the Committee to Stop Airport Expansion on its case. She asserts that the town has submitted contradictory information to the F.A.A. and to the court in its descriptions of the fence project.

    In its application to the agency, the town asks for an $80,499 “development grant,” she writes, which, according to federal law, Ms. Jones said in the letter, “will be funded only if they result in the complete preparation of plans and specifications for airport development work that has every expectation of beginning within two years.”

    But in memos to the court, Ms. Jones told the F.A.A.’s New York deputy regional counsel, the town describes its intentions as solely “a planning effort to design a fence,” with a decision to be made later as to whether it would be built.

    The procedural differences could affect whether the fence project is subject to immediate review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, or whether it can proceed under the F.A.A.’s conditional approval of the town’s airport layout plan.

    “Simply put, once again the town is mischaracterizing what is transpiring in order to support its legal position in state court,” Ms. Jones wrote to the F.A.A.

    East Hampton Town Board members continued to argue this week over a decision by the Republican majority to sell a portion of a town-owned strip of land in Montauk to the owners of the Ronjo Motel.

    At a work session on Tuesday, Democratic Councilwoman Sylvia Overby asked the majority to rescind its vote last week to sell what is called an alleyway to the new owners of the motel for $35,000. The majority refused to do so. She said the town should have had the strip, which bisects the Ronjo property, appraised.

    The councilwoman, and her Democratic counterpart on the board, Peter Van Scoyoc, had voiced similar objections last week before Supervisor Bill Wilkinson moved for a vote, and the sale was passed, 3 to 2.

    “What is your ultimate goal, not to sell the alleyway?” Town Supervisor Bill Wilkinson asked Ms. Overby. “No,” she replied, “but I think the amount of money we asked for it was too little.” 

    An appraisal of vacant property in Montauk’s central business district, which was commissioned by the town in 2006, set the value of land at $23 to $43 per square foot, Ms. Overby said. Applying that figure to the 3,700 square feet of alley to be sold, she claimed the town should get $88,320 at the low end or $158,240 at the high end.

    “The U.S. government sold the Lighthouse to the Montauk Historical Society for a dollar,” Mr. Wilkinson retorted. He had defended the sale price last week by citing transfers in the ’70s and ’80s, for which, according to the town attorney, the town was paid less than $1,000.

    “I personally think the price is more than fair,” Councilwoman Theresa Quigley said. The value of an unencumbered vacant parcel in downtown Montauk that could be developed is very different, she said, “than an already encumbered sliver where there is potential for an adverse possession claim.” She noted that the town had sold a 7,000-square-foot “sliver” of residential land to someone for $7,000, and, using that comparison, she was comfortable with the sale price.

    The problem, Councilman Van Scoyoc said, is that there “wasn’t any verifiable means to know if the price was fair. I think you said at the meeting, Bill, that you pulled the number out of your hat.”

    “I think I had to say that five times for you to get the concept. I think number six is good,” Mr. Wilkinson replied.    The Ronjo was purchased for $4.2 million on Feb. 23, by Montauk Beach House, a limited liability corporation whose owners include Chris Jones, the owner of the Solé East motel in Montauk and one of the promoters behind the aborted MTK concert, which had been planned for last summer.    

    Also named as an owner is Lawrence Siedlick, whose Rockville Centre address is the L.L.C.’s address. According to the Huffington Post’s Fundrace site, Mr. Siedlick, the chief executive officer of Sunrise Medical Laboratories, contributed $30,400 to the Republican National Committee this year as well as last, plus $25,000 in both 2005 and 2006.

He has also made smaller contributions to Republican candidates, including $1,000 this year to Randy Altschuler, who hopes to unseat Representative Tim Bishop and is supported by local Republicans.

    In attempting to convince the Republican majority to rescind its vote, Ms. Overby noted that the system of public alleyways in downtown Montauk was designed for municipal needs, suggesting the board should have checked with the Planning Department before resolving to allow its sale. She said retaining an easement might have been advisable for the future installation of utilities such as sewer pipes.

    She told board members that when the town transferred a piece of the alley at the other end, which runs behind a row of stores on South Etna Avenue and is used for access and parking, to the owners of the former Caswell’s restaurant there, a condition of the sale included an access easement. She also argued that the board should have declared the land to be purchased “surplus.”

    John Jilnicki, the town attorney, said such a declaration was not necessary and noted that the resolution to buy the land states the alleyway “is not useful or suitable for access, utilities, or services except for such services related to the Ronjo premises.”

    Ms. Overby and Mr. Van Scoyoc also questioned the wording of the resolution with regard to a tax map number and metes and bounds. The resolution authorizes the supervisor to enter into a contract of sale “to convey the town’s interests in the alleyway,” and does not make clear that it is a particular section that is to be conveyed, they said.

    The sale is subject to a permissive referendum, through which voters may challenge it. Those seeking to do so must collect a number of voters’ signatures based on a percentage of voters in the last gubernatorial election and submit a petition within a limited time.

    The Babinski farmland on Beach Lane in Wainscott has been worked by members of the same family since colonial times, and the development rights to the 20-acre parcel were sold to the Town of East Hampton and the Peconic Land Trust, but a proposal now before the East Hampton Town Planning Board to build a second barn there has met with opposition.

    In a meeting on March 7, the board considered Bill Babinski’s site plan application. The law allows another barn on the property. But to Tom and Shelly Gilbert, the neighbors, the location chosen for the barn is a burden.

    “We bought the property because we like the concept of overlooking fields," Mr. Gilbert said. He told the board the existing barn partially blocks their view and said the view would be obliterated if a second barn were built where proposed. The damage would be not only visual, he said, but financial since it would decrease the value of his property. He noted that he had been among those who contributed to the Peconic Land Trust for the purchase of the land’s development rights.

    “I’ve thought about this for years,” Mr. Babinski said. “My goal all along was to preserve the greatest amount of agricultural soil.” As for the location of the  new barn, he said it was in a pre-existing “envelope,” agreed to years ago by his father, the land trust, and the planning board. He further said that the required turning radius of his farm stand’s trailers, which are brought in every night, made the chosen location essential.

    “This is not a spiteful building. From a farming standpoint, this is where the building should be,” he said.

    The hearing was kept open for two weeks to allow exploration of an alternate site by a narrow 4-to-3 vote, with Robert Schaeffer, Diana Weir, and Ian Calder-Piedmonte dissenting. Mr. Calder-Piedmonte. a farmer himself, was of the opinion that Mr. Babinski was within his rights to build the barn where proposed and that the additional time was an unnecessary delay.

    It was reported at the meeting that the board was expected to grant final approval at a meeting last night to a site plan for a new bar off West Lake Drive in Montauk.

    The bar and a sand patio are to be operated by Lynn Calvo as the Hula Hut on part of Carl Darenberg’s Montauk Marine Basin property. But opposition to the plan was heard at the board’s meeting on Feb. 15. William Fleming, an attorney representing Robert and Marie Rando, owners of the Montauk Sportsman’s Dock, which is between the Marine Basin and Liars Saloon, a late-night party destination, told the board that the Hula Hut would add to the area’s excessive noise. Ms. Calvo and Mr. Darenberg promised that the Hula Hut would not become the site of late night revelry. 

    In other action on March 7, the board gave final approval for the expansion and renovation of Damark’s Deli on Three Mile Harbor Road and heard details on a preliminary application for a sweeping renovation of Gardiner’s Marina, near the head of the harbor.

    The plans call for enlarging the clubhouse, modifying the bulkhead, and dredging toxic creosote-laden mud there, keeping it on site.

    Another application in the preliminary stage was presented by East by Northeast, a restaurant on Fort Pond in Montauk, where an outdoor patio is planned. The board cited grading and traffic issues that needed to be resolved before the application could move toward approval.

    When is a story not a story? That was the knotted yarn the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals tried  untangling on Tuesday night.

    North Harbor Realty, a limited liability corporation held in part by the Kalimnios family, longtime Montauk resort and hotel owners, was before the board requesting relief from the town prohibition against third floors for seven condominium units it plans at 374 West Lake Drive in Montauk.

    As is frequently the case on the East End, with its many low-lying areas, septic systems, which must comply with strict county regulations, dictate the placement of proposed structures. In this case, the 3.4-acre property, on Lake Montauk, contains wetlands, which limit the building area.

    The condos were planned as two-story units, with 500 square feet on each floor, in two buildings. The catch is, according to the applicants, that in order to comply with the septic system requirements, the structures would have to be hoisted seven to eight feet above street level. That would create a ground level, or third floor.

    But John M. Wagner, the applicant’s attorney, argued that the ground level should not be considered a story. “Is it really a story?” Mr. Wagner asked. “Well, you wouldn’t see it from the street. We call it a crawl space for good reason. There will be no interior access to the space.” The only way to gain access, Mr. Wagner said later, would be through a single outside door.

     “It will look to an onlooker like a one-story building or, at most, a two-story building,” Mr. Wagner said, explaining that a street-side retaining wall is to be built and the land behind it gently graded up to at least seven feet, hiding the ground floor. He added that the town’s height limit of 35 feet would not be exceeded.

     “It’s a variance without a difference,” Mr. Wagner concluded.

    The difference, however, was of note to Jeremy Samuelson, an environmental advocate with the Group for the East End and Concerned Citizens of Montauk, who spoke on behalf of the organizations.

    “If you decide you’re going to ignore zoning standards, you are effectively lowering the bar on standards that everyone is held to,” he said. “Live up to standards that were put in place . . . designed to ensure minimum resource protection.”

    Another issue, according to Mr. Samuelson, is that a mound of brown dirt appeared on the site. About 10 feet tall and 30 feet wide, it seemed to have debris in it, including pieces of PBX pipe, which is supposed to be contained in bales of hay according to the code.

    Mr. Wagner said the dirt had been brought in because the property required fill. An opportunity arose to obtain the dirt, he said, and the required bales had been put in place after the applicants were notified of the requirement. Mr. Wagner told the board the applicants would be happy to test the dirt and haul it away if necessary.

    Mr. Wagner, asked about the implications of a precedent being set by approval of the three-story buildings, said variances should be issued on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Samuelson scoffed at that idea.

    “No lawyer will ever tell you they’re setting a precedent until the next time they show up, when they’ll say, ‘But you gave this neighbor this or that’. ” He noted the recent purchases of Lenny’s and Salivar’s restaurants as potential sites for redevelopment. They are also on the water. No decisions were made.

    Before the hearing ended, Irene D’Agostino, who owns an adjacent parcel and is a Montauk real estate broker, spoke of the Kalimnios family. “They have always done well by the Montauk community.”      

    Springs residents hoping that town officials will heed their call for increased efforts to eradicate illegal housing in their hamlet appeared once again before the town board last Thursday, reiterating a call for a summit on the issue and pleading for stepped-up enforcement efforts.

    “We’ve had plenty of fact-finding,” Joan Baum said. “I’d like to add my voice to a call for your focused attention to these suggestions, and appeal to you for a timely and specific response, now,” she told the board.

    Kathy McCormack, a member of the Springs Concerned Citizens group, said she was submitting a letter to the board once again calling for action “because we feel that not enough is being done, and you feel it’s sufficient.” If necessary, she said, the town should hire more code enforcement officers.

    “The quality of life is really changing,” said Irena Grant, a 12-year resident of Springs who said she is concerned about her children’s safety. Initially, she said, her area was “a really neighborly community” where she felt comfortable allowing her children to play outdoors. Now, she said, with houses nearby used as rentals for multiple people, and the conversion of basements to dormitories, “that all has changed, rapidly. They’re like shadowy persons who come in, and leave,” she said.

    Incidents of crime, from drunken driving by unlicensed drivers to petty thefts from driveways, have increased, she said, mentioning the case of a brothel in Springs and an incident last year in which a husband attacked his wife.

    “I’m now living on a street where we have a rapist down the street,” Ms. Grant said. “It’s really upsetting, and it’s really getting out of control. Please, do whatever you can to enforce the law,” she said.

    “This is just really a crisis. This type of illegal housing encourages transients, and that’s a threat to the community,” said Carol Buda.

    David Buda, Ms. Buda’s husband and an organizer of Springs Concerned Citizens, laid out several objectives he said he’d like to see the board pursue. He said the town should enact legislation establishing a set of objective criteria presumed to indicate an illegally overcrowded residence, enabling enforcement and court actions to proceed based on that evidence. In addition, he said, the town should devote more resources to the Code Enforcement Department, increasing the staff there, should increase fines and strive to get judges to impose the maximum penalties, and should make it the highest priority to enforce conditional discharge orders when a court case is resolved, provided no further violations occur.

    “The community has questions; we want answers,” Ms. Buda said to the town board members. “We do not want to be on the back burner. The longer this goes on, the stronger we get,” she told them. “Over the last year and a half, we have come to the board with realistic, sensible proposals, and nothing, nothing has been done. We really, really need to see change,” she said.

    Another speaker presented the board with a map showing suspected illegally used houses. She said she had come to the meeting with five neighbors, and promised each would bring five more neighbors next time.

    One speaker, Tina Piette, expressed concern about the growing involvement of residents in tracking housing problems. “I am truly uncomfortable with this . . . spying on your neighbor, taking pictures of your neighbor,” she said. “I am astounded that this is happening in my community.”

    A member of a committee formed last year by the town board to gather data on housing, and of the Town Republican Committee, Ms. Piette said, “I really take offense” at accusations that “this board has done nothing to solve the problem. It’s a very complicated problem,” she said.

    Councilwoman Sylvia Overby and her Democratic counterpart on the board, Councilman Peter Van Scoyoc, have expressed a willingness to hold a public forum on the issue. At last Thursday’s meeting, Supervisor Bill Wilkinson commented only on the number of housing cases in Springs that the Ordinance Enforcement Department had opened — 111, he said, resulting in 94 going to court, and 974 violations being issued.

    East Hampton Town Board members disagreed sharply along party lines on Tuesday over whether to proceed with the sale of a slice of town-owned land to the new owners of the Ronjo motel in Montauk. The land, once designated an alleyway, apparently runs through the motel site.

    At a meeting last week, Town Supervisor Bill Wilkinson had brought up the sale, saying that Chris Jones, the new owner, was willing to pay the town $35,000 to transfer the land.

    Mr. Jones is also the owner of Solé East motel in Montauk, and was a principal behind the Music to Know concert, which was issued a permit for an August event by the board last year after a cursory review, causing townspeople to protest and ultimately sue. The board also issued its approval for the concert to be held on a piece of East Hampton Airport in Wainscott, instead of a private site in Amagansett, but it was never held due to low ticket sales.

    When Mr. Wilkinson called for a vote approving the sale at the board’s work session this week, the two Democratic board members renewed questions about the deal.

    “How did we arrive at the number?” Councilman Peter Van Scoyoc asked.

    “I picked it out of the air,” Mr. Wilkinson said. He noted that he had asked John Jilnicki, the town attorney, to research similar land transfers and that Mr. Jilnicki had found records of several in the 1980s, for which the town received only a few hundred dollars.

    “Do we know the fair market value? Or the square footage?” Mr. Van Scoyoc asked.

    “No,” Mr. Wilkinson said.

    “I had asked for an appraisal,” said Councilwoman Sylvia Overby, who was Mr. Van Scoyoc’s running mate.

    “Am I talking to twins?” Mr. Wilkinson asked, as Mr. Van Scoyoc began to chime in again.

    “No, you’re talking to various elected officials,” Mr. Van Scoyoc told the supervisor.

    “Basically, this was town-owned land that was encroached upon, built upon,” he said. “The new owner wants to rectify the situation. I have no problem with that, but I’m a little concerned about how the fair market value was arrived upon.”

    “And I had asked John [Jilnicki] to get a title search to see what happened,” Ms. Overby said. She said the board should consider what effect owning the additional square footage might have on Mr. Jones’s use of the property. “I’d like to get the title search, to get an appraisal, and I’d like to get the Planning Department involved before we start selling off town assets,” she said. Downtown Montauk was designed with public alleyways for a specific reason, she said. “All of these things need to be researched.”

    “This hotel was built circa 1960, I believe,” Mr. Wilkinson said. “As this individual was closing, this came to his attention.”

    As far as the price, he said, “I came up with it. I’ll say it for the fourth time. I plucked it out of the air. The new owners are okay with the number, and I would like to approve the resolution.”

    “Citing the value of a town property shouldn’t be the sole purview of the supervisor or any one person on the town board,” Mr. Van Scoyoc said. “It should be done in a very objective way.”

    “The town didn’t even know of the existence of this alleyway,” said Mr. Wilkinson, before moving for a vote on the resolution. It was approved, 3-2, by him and his fellow Republicans on the board.

    “No,” Mr. Van Scoyoc said loudly.

    “Absolutely not,” was Ms. Overby’s vote.

    A provision in the East Hampton Town code barring bedrooms in basements of single-family residences may be dropped, as it is more restrictive than the New York State building code.

    East Hampton’s town attorney, John Jilnicki, told the town board on Tuesday that the town may not, without specific state approval, enforce laws more restrictive than those in the state building code. Though the town could seek the state’s okay, he said it is unlikely a variance would be granted.

    The state code requires certain types of exits from basement bedrooms, directly to the outdoors, for safety. However, Dave Browne, the town fire marshal, said that he is concerned that, should homeowners begin to install bedrooms in basements, they are done safely and according to the code.

    Town Councilman Peter Van Scoyoc said that allowing bedrooms in basements “is a zoning issue” that could raise questions about the adequacy of septic systems, and about houses with too many occupants. He noted that residents of Springs have been coming to the board continually with their concerns about overcrowding of houses in that hamlet. “Without dealing with the zoning impacts, and the density impacts in a neighborhood,” he said, “then you could possibly double the legal density of an area.”

    “There are a number of areas where our code differs from the state’s,” Mr. Van Scoyoc said, “and it has to do with density, it has to do with the particulars of what we want in this town.”

    But Councilwoman Theresa Quigley insisted that the question has only to do with safety. “I think that we have focused only on density, to the detriment of the safety of our citizens. So I think it’s high time we focused on the other aspects of zoning, and not just density.”

    Mr. Van Scoyoc suggested the board seek information from the Planning Department about the possible effects of legalizing basement bedrooms.

    Other provisions in the town zoning code are more restrictive than those of the state building code, Tom Preiato, the town’s chief building inspector, told the board. In that case, Ms. Quigley said, a full review of the town code might be in order.  

East Hampton Town

Town Hall Renovation

    The Town of East Hampton will accept proposals from architects through April 19 for the renovation of the old Town Hall. The board voted last Thursday to solicit proposals over the objections of Councilwoman Sylvia Overby and Councilman Peter Van Scoyoc, who wanted a list of guidelines developed first.

Police Promotions

    Two East Hampton Town Police officers were promoted with a vote of the town board last week. John Claflin and Daniel Roman were appointed to full-time positions as police sergeants at annual salaries of $112,948.

Amend Contractors Law

    Also last week, the town board approved an amendment to the home improvement contractors licensing law.  The law will now require licensed contractors to exhibit stickers on their vehicles. It eliminates a requirement for a certain number of hours of continuing education each year, although first-time license applicants will have to provide proof of five classroom hours.

    In addition, exemptions for some workers, such as lawn mowers or gardeners, have been eliminated, while exemptions have been adopted for those whose gross or related personal income from a home maintenance business does not exceed $10,000 a year. Those who are otherwise required to obtain state, county, or town licenses of a different kind will also be exempt from obtaining a home improvement license.

Hearing Error

    An East Hampton Town Board hearing next Thursday on the creation of a road improvement district to raise, through taxes, the money to bring urban-renewal roads up to town highway standards, will have to be rescheduled due to an error.

    The neighborhood affected includes properties along Mulford Avenue, Barnes Avenue, Harbor Street, Sylvie Drive, and others in Northwest. Some properties that did not have access over the roads in question were to be excluded from the taxation district. Too many properties,  however, were deleted.

    Because the hearing has been noticed, the town board will open it next week, at 7 p.m., but a new hearing, on a redrawn district, will be scheduled for a later date.

    The future of the final parcel of undeveloped beachfront property on the dunes that run along Marine Boulevard in Beach Hampton in Amagansett was debated Tuesday night at an East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.

    The applicants, a local family who own the half-acre property as Pandion L.L.C., had originally started an application process in 2008, but pulled their application in order to assess the impact of new Federal Emergency Management Agency regulations, according to Stephen Latham, their attorney.

    They want to build a one-story 2,173-square-foot house with a 1,400-square-foot deck, each about 40 feet from the crest of the dune, where 100 feet are required.

    Robert Grover, an environmental scientist hired by the applicants, told the board that the clearance is not needed in this case because the Amagansett dune is one of the most stable on the entire East Coast. “We’re in a big, massive surplus of sand that makes for a very stable shoreline,” he said.

    Speaking for the East Hampton Town Planning Department, Brian Frank, a chief environmental analyst, strongly opposed the variances requested, arguing, in part, that if granted, they would create a dangerous precedent for future variance appeals in the same area.

    Mr. Frank also disputed the testimony of Mr. Grover, pointing out that the patterns of sand movement from beach to beach are cyclical, and that it is impossible to say whether the dune could be breached in a massive storm.

    “Most coastlines are very dynamic. . . . You can walk here in the winter and see a very narrow beach,” Mr. Frank said later.

    Reading from a letter from the East Hampton Town Trustees, Deborah Klughers, a trustee, called the applicants’ requests “excessive and unnecessary.”

    One thing both sides seemed to agree on is the eclectic nature of the houses along Marine Boulevard. Some are relatively small and close to the street. Others are quite large, with green lawns and pebbled drives.

    Laurie Wiltshire of Land Planning Services, a firm hired by the applicants, argued that the size, relative location, and scope of the proposed building fell within the averages of the 25 surrounding houses in terms of proximity to dune crest, distance to the road, and overall size of the houses.

    Mr. Frank called the houses along the beach a stylistic hodgepodge built during different eras. He urged the board not to use the most egregious examples in an average when planning future building. “You can’t compare structures built in the 1990s or earlier to structures we are building now,” he said.

    The debate grew a bit heated when Mr. Frank requested that the hearing be left open for an additional week in order to respond to what he characterized as new information brought forward by the applicants.

    Don Cirillo, acting as chairman in Alex Walters’s absence, initially declined the request. Mr. Frank responded that such a request had never before been denied and that, in particular, the unusual plan for the septic system did require review. Sharon McCobb, a board member, then made a motion to leave the hearing open for one week, but only for the septic system aspects, and suggested giving the applicants an additional week to respond. The motion carried three to one, with Mr. Cirillo the lone dissenter.

    On Tuesday morning it appeared that a compromise allowing both the Montauk Artists Association and the Montauk Veterans Association to proceed with their Memorial Day weekend plans, both of which involve using the Montauk green, would be struck by the time a town board work session concluded. But whether the veterans would sign on to an idea developed by Councilman Dominick Stanzione in concert with Ken Walles, a member of the group, remained up in the air.

    At a meeting tonight, however, the town board is planning to approve the Montauk Artists Association’s mass-gathering permit request, giving them use of the green on the Friday, Saturday, and Sunday of Memorial Day weekend, with the exception, on Sunday, of the area around the veterans memorial.

    Mr. Stanzione outlined the potential scenario on Tuesday: While the artists would proceed with their show and sale on the green, the veterans association would begin its Sunday parade at the western edge of town, at Second House, and conclude the march at the memorial on the green.

    The councilman said he had worked with East Hampton Town Police Chief Edward Ecker on plans to close an adjacent section of the traffic circle to cars, in order to provide more space for the veterans activities.

    On Monday, Memorial Day, the artists are to have vacated the green, which would be dedicated to the veterans use.

    Although Mr. Stanzione and Mr. Walles had gone through details of the plan, Tom Bogdan, another member of the veterans group, told the town board on Tuesday that, if the artists are to be allowed to use the green on Memorial Day weekend, his group would withdraw its request and base its activities solely at Second House instead. In return, however, he requested the board members’ “personal commitment” that the green would be reserved for the veterans exclusive use next year. “What you recommend is chaos,” he told Mr. Stanzione. “We’ll move.”

    But Mr. Stanzione pointed out that it is unlikely that the board would agree to a promise regarding next year.

    Supervisor Bill Wilkinson, who said he would recuse himself from a vote on the issue, as he is a veteran, called for a comprehensive discussion, in the fall, of how the green should be used. “There is a pretty good split” of opinions on the matter, he said, with some in Montauk of the belief that the central downtown open area should not be used for moneymaking enterprises.

    Councilwoman Theresa Quigley, while acknowledging the contributions of veterans, said to Mr. Bogdan that “artists are also a member of the community.” She agreed with comments made by Hy Brodsky, a Montauk resident who stressed the meaning of Memorial Day and its history as a one-day remembrance.

    “From day one, Decoration Day — now called Memorial Day — has been a one-day event,” Mr. Brodsky said. “It was compacted, and therefore it wasn’t diluted,” he said. “The meaning and significance was clear.” He said the holiday is a “passive day . . . to think about the lives of people who died. You don’t stretch that out,” he said. “You bring it all together in one day.”

    Ms. Quigley said she was unwilling to make a promise to allow only the veterans to use the green next year.

    Mr. Walles told the board that he would have to confer with other members of the veterans group as to whether Mr. Stanzione’s solution is acceptable.

    But, he said of the proposed compromise, “This is basically the leftovers. And I think it’s time we recognize the veterans. Let’s not give them the leftovers. Let’s not treat them as secondary citizens.”