The East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals approved the construction of a rock revetment on the Montauk bluffs Tuesday night, apparently setting a precedent on coastal erosion structures.

    Passed by four votes, with one member, Lee White of Montauk, having recused himself, the board gave John Ryan of Surfside Avenue an okay to build a 100-foot-long and 10-foot-wide stone structure to stem erosion from  stormwater and runoff. The work will involve regrading an eroding stream, or gully, that runs over the bluffs and putting in cedar terracing along its west side. There  are freshwater and tidal wetlands on the property.

  At a public hearing on the application on Aug. 16, members of the Surfrider Foundation, the Concerned Citizens of Montauk, and some Montauk residents had voiced opposition to the proposal, which has received approval from the State Department of Environmental Conservation. Because the property is slightly east of Shadmoor State Park, however, the record was held open so that the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation could comment.

    In a letter dated Sept. 11, M. Pamela Otis, director of environmental management for that office, discussed how the proposed rock revetment had the potential to contribute to erosion at Shadmoor.

 “When considering this application, the Town of East Hampton should adhere to the L.W.R.P. [Local Waterfront Revitalization Program] policy, minimizing flooding and erosion hazards through nonstructural means, carefully-selected, long-term structural measures, and appropriate siting of structures.”

    She also suggested that the environmental assessment form that had been prepared on the application be updated to include the recent discovery of two additional endangered plants. She wrote that while it appeared “there would be no direct impacts to known rare plant populations,” it was “possible that increased flow could lead to increased erosion of the bluffs on the east side of the project area.” She requested more information about stormwater control and clarification of the work zone.    

    Board members, however, agreed there was merit in the project, suggesting that it might help slow the speed of the erosion. Both the chairman and vice chairman of the panel spoke in favor of approval. Philip Gamble, the chairman, said the project would “have the least amount of damage to surrounding area and beaches and Shadmoor. Erosion is going to happen either way on this property. We’re trying to protect this person’s property,” he said.

    “It doesn’t seem fair to make the situation worse for the homeowner,” Don Cirillo, vice chairman, said. “If he wants this initiative, I see no reason to stop him. It won’t stop the water, but hopefully will stop the erosion.”

    “It’s a waterfall over there. Whatever is going up will come down,” Sharon McCobb, a member of the panel, said. Another board member, Alex Walter, noted that Larry Penny, the town’s director of natural resources, had approved the project and that the state had not put a “negative spin” on it.

    A majority of the town board voted last Thursday to sell East Hampton’s 50-percent share of the Poxabogue Golf Center to Southampton Town, the joint owner.

    According to the terms of the sale, East Hampton will sell its half-share of the site, for which it paid $3.25 million in 2004, to Southampton for $2.2 million.

    The vote came toward the end of a meeting during which two speakers asked the board not to proceed with the sale until it could be more fully discussed and public opinion weighed.

    Jordy Mark, a member and former co-chairwoman of the Wainscott Citizens Advisory Committee, which was involved in the initial discussions of and supported the golf center’s purchase, told the board that Poxabogue is “an incredible asset in our community, because it is used by every age group, every economic level. It is a real community facility.”

    “I think the community deserves to participate” in the decision as to its future, Ms. Mark, an employee of The Star, said.

    A proposal to develop the land housing the driving range and golf course into residential lots prompted a public outcry to save the facility, and the course was bought for $6.5 million, with each town paying half.

    Although the Sagaponack site is within Southampton Town, Poxabogue’s popularity with East Hampton residents and its proximity to the town border were the basis for East Hampton’s partnership with the neighboring town.

    Southampton used its community preservation fund, while East Hampton issued an 18-year bond to raise the money.

    “I am told it was one of the most enthusiastically supported purchases,” Ms. Mark said last Thursday. “The way it functions now serves the community.”

    “I’m not a golfer,” she said. “I really speak to this as a member of the community who sees a facility that is so loved and so well used.”

    “Southampton’s going to buy it with [the community preservation fund], and so it’s going to stay as it is,” Supervisor Bill Wilkinson told her.

    Zachary Cohen, a Democratic candidate for supervisor, questioned whether the sale had been adequately analyzed. “I don’t really feel the board is prepared tonight to vote on Poxabogue.” For instance, he said that the “quantifiable benefit” to the community, such as the value to East Hampton residents of a discounted rate for golf games, should be considered.

    In addition, he questioned the fiscal wisdom of the sale, pointing out that even after it no longer owns the facility, East Hampton will have to pay interest on money borrowed for the purchase for the next four years, until the debt can legally be retired.

    Before the vote last Thursday, Councilwoman Julia Prince recommended that the board table the matter and invite the public to weigh in. She reminded Mr. Wilkinson of comments he had made earlier in the meeting. “Everybody on the board is in favor of selling the asset,” she said. “However, as Bill said earlier, we do learn a lot from public hearings.” She abstained from the vote on the sale resolution, which passed with four yes votes.

    This week, Mr. Cohen and his running mates for town board issued a statement calling the sale a “tax trick” by the supervisor, allowing him to lower taxes next year by eliminating the payment of principal on the debt, although the interest payments must remain in the budget.

    “Once again, in his desire to keep our property tax rate low for the upcoming year, Supervisor Wilkinson is loading us taxpayers with higher and unavoidable taxes further down the road. Is this an election-year gimmick? At the very least, it is imprudent finance,” the release said.

     But according to Len Bernard, the town budget officer, “This is beyond a no-brainer. You don’t lose anything by selling it.”

    The town will save in the long run, he said, and according to his figures the $1.7 million remaining from the sale proceeds after making debt principal payments from it for the next four years will not only cover the payoff on the bond but also leave $38,000 to spare.

    “I find it odd that people would poke holes in something that will save the town about $2.5 to $2.6 million in taxes over the next 12 years,” Mr. Bernard said Tuesday.

    “There are a lot of unanswered questions,” Ms. Mark told the board last week. “I think that you’re selling us all short if you think that this is ready for a vote. All of the issues deserve a public hearing.” She submitted a letter with similar sentiments written by Sam Kramer, also a former Wainscott Citizens Advisory Committee co-chairman and currently a Democratic candidate for town trustee.

    Ms. Mark reminded Mr. Wilkinson of a conversation some time ago in which she had told him about her concern over rumors of a possible Poxabogue sale. He assured her, Ms. Mark said, that the rumors were untrue.

    “Even if the end result is to sell it, I still think the members of the community deserve to discuss, and deserve to be convinced,” she said.

    “We do public hearings when we’re obliged to do public hearings,” the supervisor said.

    According to Mr. Bernard, the remaining debt on the property would total approximately $2.4 million, in principal and interest, by the end of the bond period, in 2023.

    Proceeds of the sale to Southampton, plus some $200,000 that is expected — East Hampton’s half of a capital reserve fund into which the profits from Poxabogue have been placed — would be set aside in an interest-bearing reserve fund for paying off the bond debt.

    By selling its share right now, Mr. Bernard said, and paying off the entirety of the remaining debt in four years — the earliest, by law, that the bond can be paid off — the town will save some $288,000 in interest. In addition, after that the principal payments that would have been made until 2023 can be eliminated from annual budgets, he said. Principal payments of about $180,000 per year can be made from the sale proceeds for the next four years.

    But the town will still have to pay annual interest payments of about $82,500 for each of the next four years until then, money that will have to be included in annual budgets and raised through taxes. Federal and state law allows the town to use the sale proceeds that have been set aside only to pay off the bond principal, and not the interest, Mr. Bernard said Tuesday.

    Mr. Cohen said last week that it doesn’t make sense to have to continue making interest payments on a loan for a property the town doesn’t own.

    In the political press release, which was titled “Supervisor Wilkinson Shows Rash Judgment in Uninformed Decision to Sell ‘Poxy,’ ” he said that according to his calculations, the sale price “will not even be sufficient to pay off the debt that is still owed.”

    “By 2016, the town will have paid out $2.2 million in principal, interest, and fees, and will have no ownership of anything to show for all that taxpayer money. All the townspeople will have are memories of having once partnered with Southampton in ownership of this beloved local institution, known to locals as ‘Poxy,’ ” the release said.

     Items such as the number of rounds of golf played annually by East Hampton residents and the total savings on discounted greens fees, the value of income from the facility and capital improvements made, as well as projected income, should be considered, according to the candidates’ statement. The property, they asserted, could provide “substantial income” in the future, after it is paid off.

    “Why would we sell an income-producing asset that also provides benefits of use to the residents without having first looked at other less productive and less popular assets?” the candidates asked. In their view, according to the release, the decision on Poxabogue “demonstrates the same lack of research and insight” shown in other proposed property sales — of the commercial fishing docks in Montauk and that hamlet’s Fort Pond House.

    Mr. Wilkinson had publicly advocated selling the docks, but then backed off in the face of opposition by fishermen, saying the docks were merely one of a number of properties included in a list prepared by the Planning Department. The Fort Pond House was placed on the market, but the sale has been challenged in a lawsuit.

    The Democrats cited the original resolution approving the towns’ joint purchase of the golf center, which concluded that there was a need for public golf facilities. They said that that situation has not changed. They also said that with Southampton as sole owner, the style of the course could be drastically changed, or use of the site could be changed to a different type of park.

    Last week, both Ms. Mark and Mr. Cohen questioned whether the contract of sale included a provision ensuring a discount for East Hampton residents. Mr. Bernard said this week that the topic had been broached with Southampton officials and that they were amenable to such a codicil.

    East Hampton Town’s come-hither Web site, with information for media production companies that town officials hope will come here for movie, commercial, or still-photography shoots, is online at filmthehamptons.org.

    The site was developed by members of the town’s media advisory committee, which was convened by the town board in order to develop media business here. Councilwoman Theresa Quigley has been working closely with the group.

    The Web site was launched last Thursday to coincide with the Hamptons International Film Festival, and information about it was distributed at film festival events.

    The site provides information about services here, from production facilities such as East Hampton Studio to hotels, caterers, and other professionals, and includes a gallery of photographs of different locations throughout the town.

    A logo created by a graphic design volunteer depicts a tripod with a lighthouse on top emitting beams of light and says, “We are open for business.” The site calls East Hampton a “tax and permit-friendly destination.” There is a direct link to the town’s filming-permit application.

    Media advisory committee members have contacted East Hampton High School staff members about initiating a program for students who would take additional photographs of East Hampton to be put on the Web site. In the future, Cesar Vera, a media advisory committee member, said, they would like to have an internship program enabling students to work with production companies shooting here.

    The Film the Hamptons Web site can track the number of visitors and their whereabouts. During the film festival weekend, Mr. Vera said, there was an uptick of visitors to the site.

    He said the town had seen “a big increase since last year” in the number of media shoots here and that he expected the numbers to continue to increase.

    During a recent four-day shoot here, $266,000 was spent locally by people working on the television show “Royal Pains,” Ms. Quigley said.  

    The owners of the Surf Lodge in Montauk, who have accrued more than 640 alleged town code violations over the past four months, submitted site plans to the East Hampton Town Planning Board on Sept. 21. The board will discuss them at its meeting on Wednesday.

    The applicant, Edgemere Montauk L.L.C., with the principals Jayma Cardoso and Rob McKinley, wants to put a 5-by-8-foot hot dog “cart” in a parking area and a 7-by-12-foot seasonal covered wait service area on a pre-existing deck. The Surf Lodge has permitted commercial uses as a restaurant and motel dating from before town code restrictions on such uses.

    In a Planning Department memo dated Monday, an initial site plan evaluation reveals that at minimum, a natural resources special permit is required for the project, as both proposed structures are within 150 feet of Fort Pond, which is in a harbor protection district. While a diagram for the wait service area has not been submitted, it would need a variance because the rear deck is only 31 feet from the bulkhead.

    The site plan indicates that the hot dog cart would be in an area reserved for handicapped-accessible parking, the memo said. There is no approved site plan for parking on record, but because of the big crowds the Surf Lodge attracts, the number of parking spaces there is well below the requirements of the town code.

    The Planning Department suggested that eliminating a parking space to make room for the hot dog cart would not be ideal and that a parking variance could be necessary. It was recommended that the applicants put the cart somewhere else.

    According to the memo, aerial photographs show that there are structures at the Surf Lodge that have not received site plan approval. Some small accessory structures — patios and sheds, for instance — appear to have been moved, taken down, or built without site plan approval or variances, according to the Planning Department. In addition, since the most recent certificate of occupancy, which dates from 1998, a patio was added to the south of the deck, the memo says.

    The Planning Department advised the applicants to formally add those structures to the proposal.

        The political controversy about public access to oceanfront beaches on Napeague seems to have lost some of its heat in the last week.

    At a work session on Tuesday, the East Hampton Town Board, responding to unrelenting criticism from Citizens for Access Rights, passed a sense-of-the-board resolution supporting the town trustees’ defense of a lawsuit that claims oceanfront property owners rather than the trustees own a 4,000-foot stretch of Napeague beach. And, on a closely related lawsuit, a State Supreme Court judge denied a request for summary judgment last Thursday on a claim that another part of the beach on Napeague, about a half mile away, is owned by the White Sands Motel Holding Corporation.

    For over a year, members of CfAR had called on the town board to support the trustees. The board had demurred until Tuesday’s meeting, insisting that its intention to fight for public access to the beach was solid but expressing concern about the wording of a resolution CfAR had proposed.

    The East Hampton Town Trustees received notice yesterday that they had cleared a hurdle in the White Sands lawsuit when State Supreme Court Justice Melvyn Tanenbaum denied the request for summary judgment.

    Justice Tanenbaum wrote that the plainfiff failed to prove its allegation that the people of East Hampton lost their right to use the beach in front of the motel when the trustees sold sections of Napeague in the 1880s. A conference to determine the issues that will go to trial has been scheduled for Nov. 28 at the Supreme Court building in Central Islip.

    The question of ownership of the larger stretch of beach was brought before the State Supreme Court in 2009. Oceanfront residents sued the town trustees as well as the town board, arguing that the public had no right to drive along the beach there and calling the popular pursuit dangerous and disruptive.

    On Tuesday, Councilwoman Theresa Quigley, who had in the past urged fellow board members to think carefully about the possible precedent-setting implications of the resolution suggested by CfAR, said, “We have been firmly behind the defense of this. The issue has never been anything but language.”

    Ms. Quigley added that the town had been discussing the possibility of using eminent domain with a condemnation attorney for over a year. “If appropriate, we will indeed use any powers of eminent domain we need to,” she said.      

    In wording that had been vetted by John Jilnicki, the town attorney, the resolution approved on Tuesday states that the board “pledges its full support to aggressive defense of present pending lawsuits against the town and trustees; and of future claims . . . to wrest ownership, access, or control of the beaches from the public, including defense of the traditional rights of all user groups . . . including, without limitation, pedestrians, quadrupeds, vehicles, and fishermen.”

    The Civil Services Employees Association has announced its endorsement of several Democratic candidates including Zach Cohen for East Hampton Town supervisor and Sylvia Overby and Peter Van Scoyoc for town board, but also for the Republican candidate for highway superintendent, Stephen Lynch.

    Based on their interviews with the association’s political action committee, “these candidates showed the most accurate alignment to what C.S.E.A. membership is concerned with and how we can best work together to service the concerns of the community,” the union’s president, Heath Liebman, said.

    “There are plenty of issues that weighed on a large number of members,” Mr. Liebman said. “But what came up especially was about protecting the aesthetics of this town, the environment and our ability to work and live and survive here.”

    The C.S.E.A. in East Hampton, which represents more than 200 town employees, invited candidates to meet with its political action committee in June and July. Trustee candidates were not interviewed or endorsed.

    Mr. Liebman explained that while the goals for the trustees are of “critical importance,” those running for town board are dealing with the day-to-day issues that closely affect the members of the C.S.E.A., thus their position on certain issues were of vital importance.”

    Mr. Liebman noted that Bill Wilkinson, the incumbent town supervisor, chose not to fill out the C.S.E.A. questionnaire and instead provided his own informational packet.

    “We brought the findings of the PAC interviews of every candidate to our membership,” Mr. Liebman explained. “We allow our membership to be part of the process and weigh what we see as the pros and cons of each candidate. The C.S.E.A. members overwhelmingly supported these candidates.”  

    As the wife of former East Hampton Town Republican Committee chairman and former State Assemblyman John Behan, Marilyn Behan of Montauk has been in the political sphere for more than 20 years, at her husband’s side at countless fund-raisers, state dinners, and other events. Now, she is entering the political fray on her own as one of the Indepenence Party’s candidates for East Hampton Town Board.

    “I’ve been in the public arena for so long and now the questions are being asked of me and I’m enjoying it,” Ms. Behan said Monday. “I can voice my feelings and my opinions, knowing that somebody is listening to me.”

    Ms. Behan said she decided to run for office when she learned that Julia Prince of Montauk, a Democratic town councilwoman, was not running for reelection. She admires Ms. Prince’s compassion and listening skills, she said. “I thought, ‘I can’t let Montauk fall to the wayside.’ I think John was a little shocked when I told him that I was going to get involved. He said, ‘After all you’ve seen that I’ve had to do?’ ”

    Ever involved in local politics, Mr. Behan has at various times been the local G.O.P.’s biggest supporter and most outspoken critic.

    Ms. Behan remained undaunted, both in the face of potential public service and by the fair amount of early rejection she encountered in the screening process. A registered Democrat for 40 years, she pursued nomination with the Republican, Democratic, and Independence Parties.

    “I thought, ‘If I’m interested in this I can’t let all those faces intimidate me,’ ” she said. “I answered all the screening questions as well as I could. And then they asked me if would I change my politics. I said, ‘For a job? How could you or anyone trust me again?’ I have a little more integrity than that.”

    Ms. Behan said her initial rejection from both the Republican and Democratic parties was neither frustrating nor discouraging, rather it was a chance to flex her independent thinking.

    “You appeal to some people and that’s what politics are all about, whether you appeal to somebody or you don’t,” she said. “I presented myself to those three committees in the same way. The Independence Party saw some good in me and now I have to convince the rest of the public.”

    A resident of East Hampton Town for nearly 44 years, Ms. Behan works for Uihlein’s Marina and Hotel in Montauk, running everything from day-to-day office operations to staff training and billing. Her involvement in Montauk is as varied as it is dedicated. She has served as the executive director of Montauk Chamber of Commerce as well as in slew of volunteer roles, including acting as a den mother for the Boy and Girl Scouts and serving on the PTA and the Montauk Village Association.

    “Serving as the director of the Montauk Chamber of Commerce really taught me what it means to be in business during these times and the trials and the issues that face you,” she said. “I’m an advocate for all of the businesses of Montauk.

   Ms. Behan, who also has a background in advertising and marketing, including a three-year stint working under Gov. George Pataki, said that this experience allowed her to achieve a broader understanding of the entire state, noting that every “little tourist destination,” has its problems.

    “I don’t believe the current administration has taken one issue and brought it to fruition,” she said. “I think they’ve kind of given us a lot of lip service. They haven’t taken something to the end and solved it. And that’s what I would like to bring. I believe we can learn from other towns’ problems. If they’ve solved a problem that we have, we can use them as a model and see how they implemented that solution. It’s all about research.”

    Ms. Behan isn’t afraid of what she calls “black-and-white issues” either — she says she is still “young on the street” in terms of campaigning, but is looking forward to more defining moments where candidates reveal exactly where they stand on salient issues, like the future of East Hampton Airport.

    “We are a service industry out here, we sell a product,” she said. “Tourism puts bread and butter on the tables of a huge amount of the population out here. I’m in favor of the airport going to the Federal Aviation Administration. Not only will they pay about 90 percent of those expenses, but they can also point us in the avenues of getting grants from state officials. It takes a big burden off the taxpayer’s shoulders.”

    Ms. Behan believes she truly understands the “ins and outs of politics,” citing her lifelong political opposition to her husband as an asset — at dinners with their three children, the couple always brought their own set of opinions  to the table.

    “In the end, it’s not about a particular party though,” she said. “It’s about being a conservative and an independent thinker. And that’s what I am.

    Hoping to offer East Hampton voters the opportunity to get to know the candidates for town supervisor and town board in a non-partisan setting, the East Hampton Chamber of Commerce held a mixer at the Hedges Inn on Sept. 13, but despite an attempt to achieve neutral ground, the evening managed to highlight some of the polarization between Democratic and Republican candidates.

    That sharp contrast in perspective represents the overarching atmosphere of the entire election, Sylvia Overby, a Democratic candidate for town board, said at the mixer.

    Both Democrats and Republicans cite budgets, community programs, and the environment as key points where they differ with each other.

    Republican Supervisor Bill Wilkinson, who won by a landslide in the 2009 election, faced a $27 million deficit when he entered the office, and immediately set his sights on dramatically reducing town government’s spending.

    While the town’s financial situation was dire when Mr. Wilkinson came into office in the wake of former Supervisor Bill McGintee’s alleged misuse and misallocation of the community preservation fund among other things, there has been increasing concern surrounding Mr. Wilkinson’s budget balancing methods as well.

    Some of that anxiety stems from what he touted as a $10-million “under-spent” 2011 budget, which reduced town employees and services (including the Highway Department’s fall leaf- pickup program). There is also concern over recently-passed legislation allowing East Hampton to borrow money through long-term bonds for an employee separation program. To critics, this decision begs the question of whether borrowing from the state is a viable solution or simply another debt by a different name.

    Mr. Wilkinson staunchly stands by his methods of righting the “sinking ship” that was East Hampton’s financial situation. “When I began to attend board meetings in 2005 and challenge what the board was saying, they were reporting their expenditures to the state but not to the public,” he said. “Basically they were spending 10 percent more than they were making.” The deficit predicted at the time “was far too small,” he said; he and his running mates predicted correctly that it would be much higher.

    When asked about trimming the budget and eliminating approximately 50 positions throughout East Hampton, Mr. Wilkinson said these were hard decisions that required sacrifice, but that he believes in the possibility of “doing more with less.”

    Ms. Overby said that the current administration’s decision to do away with certain “cherished” programs like the leaf pickup or the East Hampton Homework Club are not necessary or responsible sacrifices. Rather, these cuts are harming some of the community’s most fragile constituents, namely senior citizens and children, she said.

    “The cut of the Homework Club hits low-income working families,” she said. “There is a lot of pride here and people don’t always ask for help. There are still kids in East Hampton who will be the first [in their families] to go to college. The community is generous and helpful, but there are still serious pockets of need.”

    There are also a host of environmental and development issues, such as the town’s decision to sell Fort Pond House in Montauk, that Democratic candidates are seriously questioning. Yes, these are decisions that ostensibly made/saved money, but perhaps have cost the town something far more dear, Democrats say.

    “There is a human element that is missing,” said Ms. Overby. “Bill’s background is in business and that is geared for profit — it targets a small audience. There is a Republican idea that less government is better, but it’s also necessary to help the broadest group of people that you can.”

    Mr. Wilkinson said his résumé, which includes a position as senior vice president of human resources at Disney as well as his own consulting and executive search firm, gives him the credentials that are hallmarks of reliability and promises kept.

    Peter Van Scoyoc, Ms. Overby’s running mate for town board, said that the most poignant element of the upcoming election is the difference of perspectives in making choices about what is the “wise use of money.”

    The supervisor “promised to put the financial house in order,” he said. “But what is the real cost of that process and truly, what is government’s role? There are necessary services that the government provides and it’s easy to lose sight of that. There are some issues that should simply never be put on the table. What makes us different from the rest of the world are the beaches — that’s sacred,” he said. “This election is about the quality of life.”

    Eileen Raffo’s cottage at 252 Shore Road in Amagansett’s Lazy Point community squats low in the dunes, a zig-zag array of sand-catching fences its only defense against eroding storm surge.

    Ms. Raffo wants to “levitate” her house, as Diane McNally, clerk of the East Hampton Town Trustees, quipped during the board’s regular September meeting last week. Although her request to raise her house on pilings may be okay with the trustees, the height of the levitation is the question.

    The land at Lazy Point is owned by the trustees on behalf of the East Hampton public. The houses are privately owned.

    Ms. Raffo’s application asks the trustees to allow her to raise her house so that the subfloor is 14 feet above sea level. Richard Whelan, her attorney from the Land Marks group, told the trustees that her engineer advised a seven-foot height, but “I’m not sure the D.E.C. [State Department of Environmental Conservation] will allow less than 14 feet. We would like to go to 14 feet.”

    Joe Bloecker, a trustee, said he had studied the application and determined that the rise should be more in the order of four feet, which would put the subfloor at six feet above sea level, according to the Town Building Department.

    Tom Preiato is East Hampton’s senior building inspector and also the town’s flood plain administrator. He said on Tuesday that if repairs or renovations are made to over 50 percent of a building located in the flood plain as it exists at Lazy Point, or if a building’s value is increased by over 50 percent, regulations and maps set forth by the Federal Emergency Management Agency require them to be elevated so that the subfloor is 10 feet above sea level. To that elevation New York State has added two more feet of “freeboard,” to make for a required elevation of 12 feet.

    Mr. Preiato said that Ms. Raffo’s plan would involve driving four pilings for a total cost of about $45,000, not enough to trigger state and federal elevation requirements.

    Nonetheless, during last week’s trustee meeting, Mr. Whelan seemed to be positioning his client so that she would not run afoul of federal or state regulations in the future. The trustees did not buy it. They voted unanimously to reject Ms. Raffo’s application.

    Reached after the meeting, Ms. McNally repeated what she told the applicant, that the board was not keen on approving any dramatic changes in the absence of a comprehensive policy regarding protection of shore-front houses and the trustee-owned land they are built on.

    Ms. McNally said the trustees had wanted to go slow to discuss the project with the homeowner before a formal application was filed.

    “Now that the application becomes formal, we are concerned that our decision might put homeowners in jeopardy if their projects are not approved according to FEMA regulations. Mr. Preiato says the Raffo project is not a 50-percent improvement, so don’t worry. But, if it’s not in writing, I have no faith in it,” Ms. McNally said.

    On the other hand, she said the board was concerned that the Lazy Point community — “originally little fishing shacks” — has evolved into “permanent homes.”

    “We don’t want to see McMansions. They are already selling for $1 million on a 50-by-100-foot lot [land the homeowner doesn’t own], prime real estate. Raising the Raffo house will not protect it from erosion. What does my successor do if the house becomes an island? We have to have the ability to think long-term. The more we allow improvements, the more responsibility we have to insure the safety. I’m afraid the scales have been tipped without forethought,” Ms. McNally said. “I don’t want to be pushed to make a quick decision. We’re not going to be pushed when we don’t know if it’s in the best interest of the homeowner or the whole area.”

    Mr. Whelan could not be reached for comment.

    The East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals heard an application on Tuesday evening that challenged a certificate of occupancy granted for the property at 148 North Main Street, East Hampton, adjacent to an Empire gas station, where a convenience store has been approved.

    Tom Preiato, senior building inspector, determined that the buildings on the property are pre-existing and nonconforming in August 2009, and issued the C of O this past March. The planning board approved the proposed convenience store in a unanimous vote in October 2010.

    But Jeffrey Slonim, who lives next door at 152 North Main Street, said in a letter to the Z.B.A. that “we were not notified when Empire first presented their plan to build a convenience store . . . though we have a North Main address. Nor was the Hoff family, who then lived beside Empire, on the other side of our small access road.”

    When Mr. Slonim discovered that a site plan had been filed, he had his attorney, Michael Walsh, take action. “We filed an appeal,” Mr. Walsh told the Z.B.A. “It went to the Supreme Court in Riverhead, and they granted an injunction and said, maintain status quo. They had us come to your board, you’re the proper appellate.”

    Mr. Walsh told the board the town code does not allow a supermarket, delicatessen, convenience establishment, or other retail store on the same lot as a filling station. The two buildings on the property now, a barbershop and an abandoned car rental agency, are “service businesses,” a different use, not retail stores. In its application to the planning board, Empire proposed to take [the two business uses] and convert them into a “mercantile” use. Empire would then be in compliance with the state building code, the lawyer noted, as mercantile use allows for the retail sale of goods. (Empire’s lawyer, however, said later that town law, not state, controls here.)

    In 2008, Mr. Walsh told the board, Don Sharkey, then chief building inspector, received complaints of a retail operation at the site, and that use, a convenience store, was removed. “There’s no way the building inspector could’ve taken the position that there was a retail position at the site” when Empire went before the planning board two years later, he said.

    Many nearby residents who have opposed the convenience store attended the hearing. Some said they had been unable to express themselves before, and they wanted their voices heard now. “I’m here to support the neighbors,” said Nancy LaGarenne. “A convenience store? We don’t need it. Damark’s is open late, I.G.A. is open late, that area is a problem. With the traffic into Nick and Toni’s, the cleaners, we really have to fight to keep a neighborhood. Otherwise it’s going to look like UpIsland, and I don’t think anybody wants that.”

    Another neighbor who lives close to Empire was concerned with the future. “We are talking about the traffic because we didn’t have the opportunity last time around when it was passed through. This is our chance, this gas station is part of our community, it’s our responsibility, mine and yours,” said Molly Clevenger.

    “If it happens here, why not another empty place, and then another?” Maybe they’ll want to put a Kmart there?” asked Jim Lagarenne.

    In response to the protests, Alex Walter, a board member, said, “It’s up to us as to whether that C of O issued in 2011 was right or not. I don’t want people in the audience to think that whatever decision we make about the C of O has anything to do with whether or not we want a convenience store. That’s our job.” Don Cirillo, vice-chairman of the board, who was chairing the meeting in Philip Gamble’s absence, concurred, adding, ‘It’s an emotional issue, there’s only certain things we can do.’ ”

    Mr. Walsh also reminded the board that Mr. Sharkey had found the barbershop and car rental agency in violation of the code in 2002, and had noted that retail uses could not be commenced on the site. “We submit to you that there is no fair reading of this code where you can conclude that a retail store or convenience store can be commenced at a filling station site,” he said.

    Mr. Walter asked what type of violations. Mr. Walsh said they were for having no site plan for those uses.

    Mr. Slonim stressed that “there are a number of businesses at this site. They park taxis there, it’s difficult for us to get out of our driveway, there’s a limousine parked there. Empire causes traffic already. This is a bottleneck. The traffic on North Main Street, all summer long, it can take 20 minutes to get out of our little access road. It’s like playing chicken to get out. I don’t know how another business could be there.”

    Mr. Cirillo told Mr. Slonim that this hearing was about the certificate of occupancy, and the Z.B.A. was not in a position to rule about traffic.

    According to Tiffany Scarlatto, counsel for Ali Yuzbasioglu and S&A Petroleum Group Inc., there is no mention of the property as a filling station in town records. In April 1957, the owner was issued a permit to construct a “service building,” which went up before the zoning code was enacted later that year.

    “The uses [over the years] were conforming uses, both in a central business district and a neighbor business district. The uses are conforming with zoning as it exists today,” said Ms. Scarlatto.

    “The nonconformities consist of the number of uses on the property. You’re limited to two; currently there are three. The proposal was to eliminate one of the uses and bring it down to two.” In 1987, she said, a C of O was issued for one service station and two businesses, adding that the definition of a filling station was changed in 1994 — apparently to language that would benefit the applicant.

    Mr. Cirillo said that the certificate of occupancy in 2003 does not say “filling station,” but “motor vehicle repair garage with accessory gasoline dispensing pump island.”

    A member of the audience, J.B. D’Santo, offered his take on the somewhat complex semantics involved. “You can dress a pig any way you want, but it’s still a pig,” he said.

    Mr. Preiato stood up toward the end of the hearing. “Unfortunately, a lot of inaccuracies were displayed here this evening,” he began. “As far as someone coming up and saying there was never a retail store, that’s absolutely false. In 1975 there was a retail store. It’s a neighborhood business. This is water under the bridge. It’s too late for an attack on neighborhood business.”

    Of the property, he said, “It has two uses. A neighborhood use doesn’t get abandoned. It does not. I stand with my C of O. It’s pretty straightforward. Mr. Walsh feels that some of the uses were abandoned. It’s not what I want, it’s what you’re gonna get, it’s what the code is gonna give. The facts are stated.”    

    Both the barbershop and car rental uses are permitted in the neighborhood business zone, he added. “That’s why I made the clarification on the C of O, for that reason. In 1987, for central business uses, that should’ve carried on through. I don’t know why Mr. Sharkey [put it differently]. The beauty of this property is that retail is allowed.”

    At the conclusion of the hearing, Mr. Walsh told the board that Empire is referred to as a filling station numerous times on town records, including a notice of violation that was filed by the building inspector in 2008. “You can’t have retail where there is a filling station,” he insisted. “Clearly, a retail store is prohibited.”

    The board must now determine if the certificate of occupancy was made in error, and whether Empire is a filling station or not.

    The record will be kept open for the next 30 days so that Ms. Scarlatto can submit a written response to Mr. Walsh’s argument. He will be allowed to submit a rebuttal in that same time frame.