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.”      

    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.

    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.

    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

Accabonac Excavation

    The East Hampton Town Trustees will hold a special meeting today starting at 10 a.m. in their Bluff Road, Amagansett, office. The subject will be the excavation of the entrance to Accabonac Harbor.

Draft New Lighting Law

    Councilwoman Theresa Quigley and members of a lighting code committee presented a new draft of outdoor lighting legislation on Tuesday. The draft will be reviewed by town board members and discussed at a future meeting.

    Key elements reviewed by Ms. Quigley include a provision that light sources not be visible beyond property lines and that light falling onto a neighboring property may not be in excess of a proscribed amount, “unless required for safety and security,” according to the draft. The proposal also calls for all exterior light sources to be energy efficient and to be positioned at an angle of 90 degrees or below, with several exceptions, including uplighting of trees and of historic buildings and museums that are not in a residential zone.

    The proposed law would allow any legally pre-existing outdoor lighting not meeting the new requirement to remain. Those building something new, or renovating more than 50 percent of a property, would be required to comply with the new rules. Others doing work that requires a building permit would be required to comply with the new law only on that portion of the premises that is being improved.

    In order to have time to discuss it and then have a hearing on the new law before adopting it, or a revised version, the majority of the town board agreed Tuesday to extend by 60 days a suspension of enforcement of the current lighting law for commercial properties. It was due to expire at the end of this month. Ms. Quigley and Supervisor Bill Wilkinson voted against the extension.   

    A push this week by Town Councilwoman Sylvia Overby to suspend or rescind a resolution to sell a piece of public land in Montauk and first obtain an appraisal on it was rejected and prompted angry outbursts by Supervisor Bill Wilkinson and Councilwoman Theresa Quigley.

    Ms. Overby and Councilman Peter Van Scoyoc had voted against the sale of a 3,700-square-foot piece of a town alleyway, which bisects the Ronjo motel, for $35,000 to the motel’s new owners, Chris Jones and Lawrence Siedlick, in the absence of an appraisal and an assessment of the purpose and need for the alleyway system.

    Supervisor Wilkinson defended the sale price, which, he said, he had pulled “out of the air.”

    Mr. Jones and Mr. Siedlick, who were at the meeting on Tuesday, had offered to pay for the appraisal, Ms. Overby said. Mr. Wilkinson at first agreed with the idea.

    But, he asked, “What does having an appraisal have anything to do with the board’s action [in approving the sale]?”

    “I’m saying they’re two independent actions,” he said. “If you wish to do an appraisal, we don’t have to suspend the original resolution.”

    New York State Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr. said in a telephone interview this week that, though there is no express provision in state law requiring an appraisal before selling town land, according to the New York State Constitution, “you cannot make a gift of public property.”

    He said that “you need an appraisal to be able to document” that officials, in approving a sale, have properly maintained their fiduciary duty to taxpayers and their property, and to defend the sale in case of questions by the state comptroller or a lawsuit by taxpayers.

    Ms. Quigley said Tuesday that she didn’t support getting an appraisal because she believed appraisers would set the price for the alley piece at $5,000. “I think the rest of the money is a gift to the town,” she said of the difference in the sum offered.

    She railed against Ms. Overby and Mr. Van Scoyoc, accusing them of following a policy of “delay, delay, delay, and stall, stall, stall.”

    “I don’t believe in your way of doing government,” she said. “I believe that government should be made by us. That’s what we’re here for.”

    Ms. Overby noted that the land is not owned by the board, but by the taxpayers. “We need to make sure we are doing our fiduciary responsibility — getting an appraisal,” she said. “It is not trying to stop government. It is trying to act responsibly.”

    “You’re going to have a permissive referendum on this property,” Ms. Overby warned. Taxpayers can challenge the sale through the permissive referendum process provided they collect a certain number of signatures on a petition within a limited time.

    “Go ahead, let’s have it,” Mr. Wilkinson said.

    Councilman Dominick Stanzione provided the third vote against Ms. Overby’s request. However, later in the meeting, Ms. Quigley announced that she had received a text — from whom she would not say — saying that an appraisal on the land had already been ordered. She questioned Ms. Overby about why an appraisal had been commissioned without board authorization.

    Ms. Overby said yesterday that it had not been requested by anyone representing the town.

    The East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals ruled on Tuesday in favor of two applicants who needed variances to install septic systems. In a unanimous decision, the board found that a variance for a third floor was appropriate because it provided a way to put in a multi-ringed septic system that would conform to the county health code and help protect Lake Montauk.

    At the same meeting, the board granted a 60-foot variance from the required setback from the oceanfront dune crest in Amagansett so that a septic system could meet county regulations.

    Seven condominium units in two buildings are planned for the Lake Montauk property, a 3.4-acre parcel at 374 West Lake Drive, which has resort zoning. Because the land contains wetlands and is very close to the water table, there appeared to be no site for a septic system. The applicants’ solution is to fill the area between the new buildings and West Lake Drive, and to place the septic system in the fill.

     Each unit would have two floors, totaling 500 square feet. The property around the building would be graded up to the seven to eight-foot level of the first floor. The third floor would, in effect, be the basement, hidden beneath the livable areas and used only for storage.

    The only problem with the plan, and the reason why the town planning board, which had the application before it for site plan review, sent it to the zoning board, is that the zoning code prohibits three stories.

      Brian Gosman, a board member from Montauk, began the deliberations Tuesday. “Most of the complaints that came from the March 6 hearing were the actual height and the looming effect it would have,” he said. “Even if they were to build a two-story structure they could still build a taller building than they are proposing,” he said. He added that the buildings could have been three feet higher than now proposed.

    “I feel like this area of Montauk could use some improvements, some new infrastructure. I feel that a condo use as opposed to a hotel use will be better suited for this property and have less environmental impact,” he said.

     Sharon McCobb, another member of the board, told the board that the third story made the proposal “environmentally more stable.” Lee White, a board member, was in support of the variance, as were Don Cirillo, the vice chairman of the panel, and Alex Walter, the chairman.

    The only problem board members saw was that a mound of fill had already been placed on the property.

    “We do need to talk about the fill, though. It’s a concern,” Mr. Walter said. He asked the board to require that the fill be tested and that, if it were found to be unacceptable, make sure it would be taken out.

    The matter of where the fill had come from seemed to be answered during the March 6 hearing. Steve Kalimnios, whose family’s corporation North Harbor Realty owns the property, also owns the Lake Club and Marina on the eastern side of Lake Montauk. Permission to dredge there recently received a time extension. It seemed that the fill had come from that project, but Mr. Walter said after the meeting that the origins were still uncertain.

    In the second decision Tuesday involving a septic system, the board ruled in favor of unnamed applicants who own Pandion L.L.C., and plan to build on the last undeveloped oceanfront lot on Marine Boulevard in Amagansett. Pandion won the right to place a one-story house with a deck only 40 feet from the dune crest where the zoning code requires 100 feet.

    A heated exchange had occurred between Mr. Cirillo, acting as chairman at the public hearing on the application on Feb. 28, and Brian Frank, the East Hampton Town Planning Department’s chief environmental analyst, when Mr. Frank, who strongly opposed the requested variances, asked for a two-week extension of time to allow the Planning Department to study the septic system. He argued, in part, that the variances would create a dangerous precedent.

    There is seemingly only one obstacle remaining between Michael Davis and his Wainscott Wombles development on the corner of Montauk Highway and Sayre’s Path, but that last obstacle may be impassable, at least according to David Eagan, an attorney for the Concerned Citizens of Wainscott and a neighbor, who is challenging the right of Mr. Davis to proceed with his plans to tear down the building there and construct a similarly-sized one with a garage, small house, and parking spaces behind it.

    Concerned Citizens of Wainscott are appealing a June 2, 2011, determination by the town’s senior building inspector, Tom Preiato, that allows Mr. Davis to build a 600-square-foot house and garage on a commercially used parcel. The East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a hearing on the matter on Tuesday at 7:30 p.m.

    Mr. Davis named it Wombles after a fictional character from his childhood.

    “Wombles were created by author Elisabeth Beresford, originally appearing in a series of children’s novels,” he said in an e-mail. The alliterative sound of Wainscott Wombles along with the image of these little gnome-like characters cleaning up Wainscott appealed to him, hence the name.

    The approximately 13,000-square-foot property is on the south side of Montauk Highway in Wainscott and is zoned for residential use, but because it had been used commercially before current zoning went into effect, it is exempt from some residential restrictions. It was on this basis that Mr. Davis applied for and was granted a “dual use” certificate of occupancy by Mr. Preiato.

    The 1,300-square-foot building on the property now was originally constructed in the 1960s as a diner. It sits toward the rear of the property with a white gravel parking area taking up much of the front of the parcel.

    The house Mr. Davis plans to build necessitates the dual use certificate, according to the presentation made by Mr. Davis’s attorney, Denise Schoen, of Tarbet, Lester and Jones, during a hearing for site plan approval in front of the East Hampton Town Planning Board on Dec. 7. Mrs. Schoen told the board, which later approved the site plan, that there were at least 17 other examples of dual usage certificates of occupancy in the Town of East Hampton. The Planning Department countered that these examples were not apropos.

    Mr. Eagan said this week that Mr. Davis’s arguments in favor of the dual use certificate are just so much fictional fluff.

    In 1975, he said, the then-owners of the property applied to the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals for a use variance to change the building from a diner to an antiques store and a real estate office and to expand the building by about 20 linear feet. The zoning board granted the request.

    “The legal effect of the use variance in 1975 was to terminate the pre-existing, nonconforming diner use,” Mr. Eagan said on Monday.

    “Under New York State law,” he said, “a use variance is not considered to be pre-existing or nonconforming. It is considered a permitted use.” Meaning, Mr. Eagan said, that a house can be built on the property using current zoning, or a business can be built applying the variance, but not both.

    Mr. Eagan explained that the zoning board, which has to be modeled on New York State law, can hear two types of appeals. One is the traditional request for variances from property line setbacks.

    “The second,” Mr. Eagan said, “is a use variance.” Such a use variance is extremely rare, Mr. Eagan said, requiring proof that without the variance the property is not economically viable. “This may be the only use variance that exists in East Hampton,” he claimed.

    If you depart from the strict rules of the variance, Mr. Eagan said, you have to revert to the current zoning code for the property.

    Ms. Schoen does not agree with Mr. Eagan’s interpretation. “Here’s the missing link,” she said about his argument, “there is no New York State case law that says that says once you get a use variance you’re stuck with it.”

    The hearing on Tuesday in front of the zoning board is to determine the merits of Mr. Eagan’s appeal and not the merits of the project itself.

    “We are not making any type of decision on the merits of the project, only on the determination of the building inspector,” Alex Walter, the board’s chairman, said.

    Whichever way the board rules, Mr. Eagan believes the matter will end up in court. For his part, Mr. Eagan said, referring to the certificate of occupancy issued by Mr. Preiato, “This is never going to survive judicial scrutiny.” Mr. Eagan then allowed that if he were Mr. Davis, he would probably take the matter to court if the board ruled against him.

    “There’s two sides to every argument. I genuinely believe this is the correct interpretation. In my mind the code interpretation is not a stretch at all,” Ms. Schoen said, adding that Mr. Eagan was arguing for a broad interpretation. “Ours is code-based.”

    Ms. Schoen’s partner, Jonathan Tarbet added, “If he wants that changed he should talk to the town board or run for office.”

East Hampton Town

Energy Forum at Town Hall

    Small-business owners have been invited to a forum at East Hampton Town Hall on Monday to learn about ways to reduce energy consumption and save money. Sponsored by the Long Island Power Authority, the town, the East Hampton Business Alliance, and other organizations, the forum will provide information about free energy assessments and LIPA programs that offer rebates on energy-efficient upgrades. Federal and state tax incentives available for businesses seeking to reduce their energy consumption will be discussed as well. The program will begin at 10 a.m. Those with questions have been asked to get in touch with Joel Halsey of the Planning Department.

On Disabilities Compliance

    At a meeting last week, members of the East Hampton Town and Village Disabilities Advisory Committee asked the East Hampton Town Board to support its efforts to increase compliance, at public places within the town, with the federal Americans With Disabilities Act guidelines on handicapped access. Although provisions of the act do not always apply — if buildings were constructed prior to its adoption, for instance — the law says that if removal of barriers to access is “readily achievable,” it must be done. The committee produced a referral form for people to report problematic locations but wants to implement a more proactive plan to increase compliance by contacting the owners of targeted sites and having village or town officials, such as the building inspector, make follow-up visits.

    While the village has begun to work with the group on its effort, Glen Hall, the committee chairman, said, the town board has not had a liaison at the disabilities group’s meetings for more than two years.

    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.”