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.

    Marked by a humble demeanor, a passion for Montauk’s wild beauty, and a local lineage that dates back to the 1700s, Peter Van Scoyoc is making his first serious bid for elected office as a town board candidate on the Democratic ticket.

    Although Mr. Van Scoyoc ran for a trustee position in 1991 and has served a combined 11 years on the East Hampton Town Zoning and Planning Boards, he said, “I’ve always checked politics at the door. During all the time, I’ve never really been politically involved other than a political appointment so to speak. I’ve never run for office other than as a trustee.”

    He was asked to run again in 1993, but his second child, Thomas, had just been born, joining his daughter, Amy, who was 2 at the time. He had just built a new house and was still running his residential construction business. His plate was decidedly full.

    Eighteen years later, Mr. Van Scoyoc, who has now been on the planning board for six years, said that he felt compelled to run in this election because there were a number of choices and directions taken by the current Republican administration that he feels do not align with the public’s agenda. “My take on the pulse of the community is that things were getting done that people didn’t want, and they weren’t being listened to.”

    He has been surprised by the amount of positive support he has received. Campaigning, which he often does door to door on bicycle, has been “fun and stimulating,” he said.

    “I’m not a big self-promoter, but I just have stepped out of myself in terms of standing out in front of the post office and talking to people I don’t know at all,” he said. “It’s kind of exciting.”

    One of the most rewarding parts of these impromptu dialogues with strangers are the new perspectives he gains with each conversation, he said.

    “It may be something you never thought of before and that’s a real asset that gets overlooked by the group we have now,” he said, speaking of the town board’s Republican majority.

    Mr. Van Scoyoc’s family’s historic East Hampton connections were a catalyst in his interest in local affairs and politics. A Virginia native and one of four sons of an Episcopal minister, he had always been aware that he had family ties to East Hampton — his grandfather had published a three-volume genealogy — but it was a strange coincidence involving a certain house on Northwest Road that raised his family fascination to a fever pitch.

    He and his wife, Marilyn Van Scoyoc, who grew up in the Stony Brook area, had been living in Rhode Island, where Mr. Van Scoyoc ran a construction business and she was a music professor at the University of Rhode Island. When the market crashed in 1989, Ms. Van Scoyoc lost her job.

    “We stayed in Rhode Island for another year and struggled with the building business, but everything had shut down in terms of building. It was tough economic times.” His wife interviewed to be a band director at East Hampton High School during the regular director’s yearlong leave of absence.

    When the couple came to East Hampton for her interview, they decided to grab a few sandwiches from Bucket’s Deli and take a drive “to nowhere in particular,” he said. Their drive led them to Northwest Road, where they spotted a little ranch house, the only one on the road in the middle of the woods, he recalled.

    His wife got the job, and when the man she was replacing temporarily decided to retire, she stayed on, and still teaches music and manages the jazz, concert, and marching bands.

    “When we got back to town, I said, ‘That ranch would have been a cool place to rent,’ ” Mr. Van Scoyoc said. And when they actually rented it, “the people said, ‘Well, out of curiosity, are you related to the Van Scoyocs buried in the backyard?’ ”

    It turns out that Mr. Van Scoyoc’s ancestors had farmed more than 180 acres throughout the Northwest Woods area. The house he built in 1993 and still lives in today is on land that was part of the Van Scoyocs’ original homestead.    

    “There is so much early history and those traditions are still alive,” Mr. Van Scoyoc said this week. “The first European families to settle here are still well represented and that’s very special. The heart and soul of the area are still intact and it’s a big part of who we are as a community. I think people cherish that whether they have a direct connection to it or not.”

    Mr. Van Scoyoc said that East Hampton, where 13th-generation farming and fishing families live beside billionaires, artists, and writers, has some of the most socioeconomically diverse population he can imagine anywhere.

    A self-described lapsed fisherman, Mr. Van Scoyoc has had a captain’s license for 25 years and and takes charter clients out on two of his boats, a “traditional down-easter” he keeps in Montauk called Dreamcatcher, and an anonymous 25-footer in Sag Harbor “that caters to the sheltered waters” of that area.

    “For the faint of heart and for small children, Sag Harbor is better, but for the sea-hearty there is Montauk. I have to say, that’s where my heart is,” he said. “The first fish I ever caught was a bluegill in a farm pond when I was 3 years old. Fishing allows a connection to another universe underwater. Suddenly it becomes tangible, emerging from the unknown, and I think that intrigued me. You never know what you’ll find.”

    Back to talk of the campaign and the position he hopes to win in November, Mr. Van Scoyoc counted his time as an appointed member of the planning and zoning boards as an asset. “I have a lot of experience sitting and listening to people’s proposals and ideas and weighing them against the needs of the community,” he said.

    If the current administration “took the ideas and presented them in a way that people could explore them, they could find out exactly what the support is on any particular issue,” Mr. Van Scoyoc said, adding that the Democrats “have a very different approach. You either push down or you lift up. And we’re lifting.”

    In the wake of Tropical Storm Irene, more than 400,000 people were left without power, struggling with flickering candles, sputtering flashlights, and refrigerator contents in varying states of troubling thaw. Just how long will all your victuals last? The United States Department of Agriculture says be prepared: After eight hours above 50 degrees Fahrenheit, you can’t keep much, and for many of us on the East End, power went out four days ago.

    Most refrigerators, however, if kept closed (or opened only in necessity, and quickly) will keep food safely cold for four hours. A full freezer will maintain its temperature for approximately 48 hours.

    The U.S.D.A. recommends the use of a food thermometer to determine the temperature of potential meals once a food’s freshness has been called into question.

    Any of the following foods that rise above 40 degrees for more than two hours should be discarded: raw or leftover cooked meat, poultry, fish, or seafood, soy meat substitutes, chicken or egg salad, gravy, stuffing, broth, lunch meats, hot dogs, bacon, sausage, dried beef, pizza with any topping, and any soft cheeses.

    Hard cheeses, processed cheeses, grated Parmesan, butter and margarine, fruit juices, canned fruits, fresh fruits, coconut, raisins, dried fruits, candied fruits, and dates are all deemed safe.

    Foods that must be discarded after having been above 50 degrees for more than eight hours include: creamy dressings, refrigerated biscuit dough, rolls or cookie dough, fresh pasta, pasta salads with mayonnaise or vinaigrette, cheesecake, cream, custard or cheese-filled pastries or pies, packaged greens, cooked vegetables, opened vegetable juice, and baked potatoes.

    Happily, Worcestershire, soy, barbecue, and hoisin sauces are considered safe, as are vinegar-based dressings, bread, rolls, cakes, muffins, quick breads, tortillas, waffles, pancakes, bagels, fruit pies, and raw vegetables.

    As for once-frozen food, you can keep anything with ice crystals that feels “as cold as if refrigerated,” except ice cream. Any frozen foods that have been above 40 degrees for more than two hours should be discarded except hard cheese, fruit, or fruit juices (just watch out for mold), breads, rolls, muffins, pies and cakes (without custard or cream filling), flour, cornmeal, nuts, waffles, pancakes, and bagels.

    While many places on the East End were still without power on Tuesday night, the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals was able to hold one of three scheduled hearings under the bright fluorescent lights of Town Hall. Two hearings were postponed because applicants were unable to attend.

     The hearing was on a complex application to demolish a one-story house on a small lot on Gardiner’s Bay, build a 1,836-square-foot new one with 759 square feet of decking, and construct a roughly 160-foot-long stone revetment to armor the beach. The land contains tidal and freshwater wetlands, barrier dunes with surface waters, and beach vegetation.    

    Joshua Young and Christine Lemieux, the owners of the property, at 157 Mulford Lane, have asked for a natural resources permit and variances from wetland setbacks, coastal setbacks, and the regulations of the coastal erosion overlay district, which prohibit new erosion control structures.

    Before the hearing got under way, Philip Gamble, the Z.B.A. chairman, noted that this week’s storm had spared the property. Nevertheless, he noted, “From photos, it looks like the house is in the water.”

    There had been applications before the Z.B.A. previously about the parking area on Mulford Lane and about erosion, Mr. Gamble said. “One more storm event, and we wouldn’t have to worry about this house.” Aerial photos submitted to the Z.B.A. show how the area looked years ago.

    The applicants bought the 87-by-110-foot property in May of 2010. Subsequently, they submitted an application that “was held in abeyance until future work could be looked into. We agreed to do so, and the applicant knew about impending problems.” Now, he said, the application “was put in post-haste for public hearing. We don’t want to be accused of dragging our feet and have that house fall in the water because of a scheduling problem. But the applicant may have other issues that he may need to address before he makes his presentation.”

    “The applicant didn’t do his homework because otherwise he would’ve seen the regression of shoreline erosion. It naturally occurs. The house is now completely seaward of the shoreline, and there was a time when there was a lovely beach before the shoreline. The applicant has a severe erosion problem, and the property to the east has a severe erosion problem,” Mr. Gamble said.

    According to Mr. Gamble, “A house in this area is just a temporary situation. To take a house down, and put up a whole new house that is larger, and put this [revetment] up to protect it, is a tough sell to me. I’m worried about jeopardizing the house to the east. You can’t do a project by protecting one house and putting another one in danger.”  

         Christopher Kelley, attorney for the applicants, told the board that the owner of the house to the east, Kevin Klenke, has now said it makes sense to work together. In addition to Mr. Klenke’s house, another house sits on stilts and yet another is built on pilings in the area.

    “It’s a chicken and egg problem. If we aren’t going to be able to get a shoreline structure, then it’s going to change what we can do,” Mr. Kelley said. He wanted more time to submit a revised proposal along with an updated survey and an upgraded sanitation plan. He also presented a letter from Mr. Klenke requesting additional time for a joint application.

    According to Laurie Wiltshire of Land Planning Service, permits had been obtained in the past to renovate and raise the house. “Last summer, we didn’t have the urgency as there was a fair amount of beach in front of the house.” All that changed on Dec. 27, 2010, in a northeast storm. She added that Tom Talmage, the town engineer, had written in a memo that if a storm hits this area, knee-high water hits the house.

    “Hurricane Irene was a real potential threat to this house, it was spared now, but winter has the opposite effect,” Ms. Wiltshire said. She appealed for emergency assistance and expedited permits. “Otherwise, the house is not likely to survive the winter.”

    Drew Bennett, an engineer for the applicants, said, “Sixty years ago, we had 200 feet of beach in front of this residence, and it has disappeared. The rate of erosion from 1954 to 1980 was a foot a year, and since 2004, it has been 10 or 11 feet a year. In 2004, the west inlet [at Napeague Harbor] was open. The recession rate has picked up dramatically in the last 5 to 10 years. We’ve already lost two homes, and we’re about to lose more.”

    Maureen Veprek, president of a Mulford Lane homeowners group, known as the Napeague Beach Club, said no one in the association objected to the application. She also informed the board that the association wants to put rocks at the road-end. She was advised to submit an application.

     Mr. Kelley suggested that the association also join the Young-Lemieux application so that one shore-hardening structure could be put up “to protect us, the neighbor, and the road, if all sign on and acknowledge we need permits.”

    According to Brian Frank, the Planning Department’s chief environmental analyst, a shore structure may be necessary, but he advised the board to be sure the right specifications were mandated. “These coastal manipulations, dredging, or shore-hardening structures have lasting effects, a shadow that goes longer than these properties. That’s what makes managing these applications so frustrating. You don’t really solve the problem, you move it,” Mr. Frank said.

    “If the town doesn’t do a better job than it has over the past 20 years, we’re going to have less beaches, and more homeowners who have to retreat or revet. It’s a lose-lose,” he said.

    Mr. Frank said the applicant would have to revise the plans “to reduce the size of the footprint, and try to locate the sanitary system and residence side by side. Increasing a house by 50 percent on a lot with these conditions takes a difficult situation and makes it exponentially worse.”

     Ms. Wiltshire said the situation required an emergency permit,  but Mr. Frank disagreed. “It’s a finding of fact. You can’t approve a poor project to address an emergency issue,” he said.  “You’re being asked to hurry up when it doesn’t seem like the other involved agencies have been able to catch up to the information.”

    The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation has asked for additional time to comment on the application. In a letter dated Aug. 30, Carole Friedman, a land management assistant, said, “Due to the environmentally sensitive nature of this bluff and other factors, we would like our engineers to have time to review the plans.”    

    The record was left open for the next three weeks so the plans can be revised, and the state will have time to respond. The redesigned project will be also have to go to the Suffolk County Board of Health, regarding sanitation. Mr. Frank asked that questions be answered and updated concerning the survey, the location of the  sanitary system, and the rock revetment.

East Hampton Town

Wind Turbine a Go

    The Iacono family received East Hampton Town Board approval last week to put up a wind-energy system on 7.7 acres of farmland on Long Lane in East Hampton. The turbine, which is to be 131 feet high, will be the second to go up on Long Lane, following another that was put up on the Mahoney farm there.

Eyeing Phone System Savings

    A new digital phone system being considered by the town board, which heard a presentation about it at a work session on Tuesday, would not only save money but also modernize the system, providing the ability for town staffers to listen to voice-mail messages from elsewhere, for instance. It would also route all calls through a central number, linking various town offices.

    The cost of the proposed system would be $1,178 a month for the first year, during which maintenance would be free. Thereafter, the cost, including maintenance, would be $1,837 per month. At present, the town is paying $4,373 a month on average for its phone system, including maintenance service and repairs.

Monument for Grand Marshals

    A plan by the Friends of Erin to erect a monument on the Montauk green to honor the grand marshals of its St. Patrick’s Day parades over the last 50 years got an informal nod of approval from the East Hampton Town Board on Tuesday. The monument will be made of a 24-by-40-inch piece of Montauk fieldstone and list the names of the past grand marshals on a brass plaque.

The Code Chief, Officially

    With a resolution passed by the town board last Thursday, Betsy Bambrick was officially appointed the director of code enforcement with the Division of Public Safety. Ms. Bambrick has been acting as provisional head of the division since last September.

Hearing on Open-Space Buy

    The East Hampton Town Board will hold a hearing next Thursday on the purchase of four acres on Red Spring Path off Swamp Road in East Hampton, which has been the site of a dog kennel. The land would be bought for open space at a cost of $887,500 from the community preservation fund. It is owned by Charles Wade and Cynthia Loewen. The hearing will begin at 7 p.m. at Town Hall.

Meet the Candidates Night

On Tuesday, the East Hampton Chamber of Commerce will hold a mixer to meet the candidates running for town board. The event, from 5:30 to 6:30 p.m. at the Hedges Inn on James Lane, will also offer a means of making new business contacts. There will be a cash bar and complimentary hors d’oeuvres.

Admission is $15. Promotional tables for chamber members are available for $100. The chamber has asked that reservations be made by e-mailing [email protected] by the end of today

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency will make federal disaster assistance available to residents and small businesses in Suffolk County following Tropical Storm Irene, County Executive Steve Levy announced on Friday.

    The declaration will give homeowners and businesses access to individual assistance for documented non-insured losses up to $30,200. According to Representative Tim Bishop’s office, grants are available for home repairs and replacement of essential household items necessary to make a house safe, sanitary, and functional.

    Grant assistance is also provided to replace personal property and meet medical, dental, transportation, or other “serious disaster-related needs not covered by insurance or other federal, state, and charitable aid programs.” The declaration also allows businesses access to low-interest Small Business Administration loans of up to $2 million and gives residents access to low-interest loans to cover residential losses not fully compensated by insurance.

    Suffolk residents and business owners who believe they may be eligible for FEMA assistance have been asked to call the agency’s toll-free number, 800-621-3362, to register. Those with a speech disability or hearing loss can call 800-462-7585, and those who use Video Relay Service have been directed to call 800-621-3362. The numbers will operate from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. seven days a week.

    The county executive’s office plans to open disaster recovery centers to help expedite the FEMA individual assistance process. Additional information can be found at disasterassistance.gov,  or by calling 800-621-FEMA.

    After 10 years of reflective silence, Peter Buchman has come forward to claim responsibility for the commemorative Sept. 11 artwork along Route 114 in East Hampton. Two silhouettes — one a fireman’s helmet and the other a policeman’s hat — surround the words “God Bless,” making a totem that acts as a subtle yet poignant reminder of the tragedy of that day.

    Mr. Buchman, who has been coming to the South Fork for more than 26 years, dividing his time between New York City and his house on Swamp Road in East Hampton, said that as an artist, he was more than just shaken up by the violence and destruction of Sept. 11, he was frozen — unable to work and unable to move on.

    “I didn’t know how to help myself or others,” he said last week. “It was foreign, larger than life, and very traumatic. As an individual, as an artist, as a man, I thought, ‘How do I get going again?’ I just couldn’t go on being the same. I needed to get it out. Drawing on a piece of paper at home wasn’t enough. I wanted the art to be public, but not about me.”

    And then it dawned on him: An anonymous red, white, and blue sign hung on a simple corner seemed like an ideal means of both catharsis and aesthetics, a piece of art that also ventured into folk territory — by the people, for the people.

    Why Route 114? It’s well traveled, guaranteeing visibility and thought provocation.

    Was he worried about being seen as he put it up? Not really. “In New York City, you could pull your pants down and no one even looks at you,” he said, laughing. “Here, they think, ‘Oh, it’s another yard sale for this weekend.’ ”

    The three-piece sign is decidedly straightforward: fashioned from a 15-minute hand sketch, cut from plywood with a jigsaw, and covered in house paint.

    Mr. Buchman, who worked in advertising for 15 years after college, had closely studied the history and impact of signs. “There is a huge amount of art that isolates,” he said. “There is a validity and power in a statement that is readily understandable. I also felt like there wasn’t much room for public opinion; no one was touching it.”

    He said that while he told only two people in 10 years that he was behind the artwork, he was moved to confession partly because of the anniversary and partly because of a strange occurrence.

    “After nine years, it was so faded you could barely see what was there,” he said. “I was thinking of taking it all down. But one day I drove by in late April or May and I couldn’t believe it. Someone had repainted it. It was designed to be temporary, commemorative, but one person had enough desire to make it last for another 10 years.”

    Mr. Buchman said that kind of gratification in making art is rare. It’s very different from selling a piece to a stranger and having it hang out of sight in someone’s house, or in a gallery with only a few discerning eyes passing over it.

    He also said he doesn’t believe that the art is political, although he himself is.

    “I hate fearmongering. We attacked a country that wasn’t involved,” he said. “And people don’t have the time to read the news. I guess they’re busy working too hard. But art is an arbiter of nuance. You can investigate without being confrontational. Sometimes I wish I had done more. It’s not my last statement on 9/11, but it needed to be made then, in my corner of the world.”

    The East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals will hear an application on Tuesday night at 7 to challenge a decision that will allow a convenience store at 148 North Main Street, East Hampton, next door to an existing Empire gas station.

    Tom Preiato, senior building inspector, determined that the buildings there are pre-existing and nonconforming, and therefore granted a certificate of occupancy. Retail establishments have historically used the buildings.

    The owners of the property, Ali Yuzbasioglu and S&A Petroleum Group Inc., want to build and open a store on a plot where an automobile-rental  agency once stood. There is a small beauty shop there now.

    In a letter to the Z.B.A., Jeffrey Slonim, the applicant, who lives at 152 North Main Street with his family, said, “There is a code in East Hampton that expressly prohibits having a business that sells food and beverage next to a filing station.” Noting that the certificate of occupancy states the buildings predate the zoning code, Mr. Slonim said it was “the use of those buildings that must predate the code, not the buildings themselves. And neither food nor beverage has ever been sold at that site.”

    Mr. Slonim also expressed concern in his letter over the increase of traffic and parking difficulties that the proposed store could cause. He referenced the recent North Main Street traffic study that concluded that no businesses should be allowed to expand here. “Traffic is already terrible on North Main. Parking, nil,” he said.

    The East Hampton Zoning Board of Appeals reached a unanimous decision on Tuesday night to deny the construction of a large dock in Lake Montauk that the applicant had claimed  pre-existed. Kevin Fee of East Lake Drive requested a natural resources permit to build a 159-by-4-foot fixed dock, a 12-by-3-foot ramp, or catwalk, and a 20-by-6-foot float with pilings on a one-acre property with tidal and freshwater wetlands in a flood zone. The proposed dock would have extended into deeper waters, about 74 feet past the high-tide line.

    According to Phil Gamble, the  Z.B.A. chairman, there are very slight remnants of an original dock remaining. In 2003 the late Don Sharkey, then the chief building inspector, told the Fees in a letter they could apply for an emergency building permit, which was apparently never done. Until now, the applicants have not come forward to initiate a rebuild.

    To comply with town code, only a pre-existing dock can be rebuilt or replaced, and new docks have to be floating and fully removable. Also, they are limited to a width of five feet.

    Lee White, a board member, said the proposed structure “doesn’t fit neatly in either of the categories, replacement or reconstruction. It’s not a replacement, because it’s essentially larger. I don’t think every alternative was pursued. I’m going to vote to deny it.”

    Board members said there was photographic evidence of something, such as cement stock pilings; but nothing remotely close to the proposed configuration of the dock.

    “If you allow this particular dock to be installed and to go as far out as he wants, what’s to say anybody else may want to do the same thing. They may want to put a dock out,” said Mr. Gamble.

    Another member, Alex Walter, acknowledged that the Department of Environmental Conservation had okayed a neighbor’s dock, though “limited” it, and denied one for property to the north. “The D.E.C. permit situation seems to be hit and miss,” he said.

    “The property now isn’t improved with a lawfully pre-existing dock, there’s no dock there,” said Mr. Walter. “There are some remnants, pulled back off the beach.” Because no pre-existing dock exists, he said, “that would kick out his ability to reconstruct. . . . He could go then to a floating dock, and he would have a whole other host of issues.”

    The board’s final determination will include the decision that there is no lawfully pre-existing dock at this time.

    With the Federal Aviation Administration’s conditional approval last week of an airport layout plan for East Hampton Airport, the installation of an air traffic control tower there can proceed. A control tower has long been envisioned as a way to provide relief to residents affected by noise from aircraft, especially helicopters. Plans for the control tower have been on hold for over a year, pending F.A.A. action.

    The layout plan was submitted for the agency’s review last December. East Hampton Town Councilman Dominick Stanzione, the town board’s representative  on airport matters, said this week that he had been working diligently to partner with the F.A.A. and mend fences with representatives at the agency, with which the town has had a complicated history.

    The last time East Hampton Airport had an F.A.A.-approved airport layout plan was in 1989. Lawsuits over the operation of the airport, some of which named the F.A.A., and questions about previous airport master plans and layout plans kept the situation in limbo.

     “The F.A.A.’s historic acknowledgement of the town’s airport assets provides the town with the ability to proceed with a number of airport initiatives,” Mr. Stanzione said at a town board meeting on Tuesday.

    With a resolution to be voted on tonight, the board is expected to hire DY Consultants, a firm that has previously worked with town officials on airport projects, including the most recent update of the airport master plan, to submit an immediate request to the F.A.A. for approval of a control tower.  Air traffic controllers could then direct aircraft onto routes designed to minimize noise disturbances.

    Besides issuing approval of the proposed location of the airport control “tower” — really a small structure that will house equipment and traffic controllers, who will be hired by the town — the F.A.A. must approve the reclassification of the skies around the airport as “controlled airspace.” The controlled area would include a five-mile radius from the center of the airport.

    Also this week, the F.A.A. took a step toward another initiative that could ease the helicopter noise burden, not only on local residents but those of other towns between the two points from which most flights begin and end: Manhattan and East Hampton.

    On Tuesday, agency representatives flew along a potential designated flight path traversing Long Island’s South Shore — an alternative to the northern route chosen by most pilots, which takes them over more residences than would the southern route.

    The F.A.A.’s willingness to consider a southern route also results from discussions and negotiations with the town, and from the work of a multi-town aircraft-noise advisory group, Mr. Stanzione said this week.

    The councilman plans to advance a discussion of other East Hampton Airport projects, such as the erection of deer fencing, and to recommend that he town seek F.A.A. grants to pay for them.

    The town’s acceptance of additional F.A.A. money is controversial. A number of those who have been pressing for a solution to aircraft noise disturbances, including members of the town’s disbanded airport noise advisory committee, have asserted that the town could enact tighter airport-use regulations when its agreements with the F.A.A., tied to grants that have been accepted, expire, some within a couple of years.

    Mr. Stanzione said that the increase in town authority would not be significant, as the F.A.A. maintains certain controls over general-aviation airports, and noted that it could be achieved, if at all, only after costly legal proceedings. The issues, he said, should be carefully outlined for public discussion, with advice from expert aviation attorneys.

    The F.A.A.-approved East Hampton Airport layout plan shows existing conditions at the airport. The agency excluded several potential improvements contemplated by the town, such as the closure of runway 16-34; changes to runway 4-22 that would require rerouting Daniel’s Hole Road, and a new fuel farm. Such changes will require separate federal environmental and final review.

    According to the town’s updated airport master plan, any future projects would be designed to maintain the airport as is, rather than to expand or diminish it. (The new master plan has been challenged in court by a group claiming that noise and other environmental issues were not adequately considered.)

    The town may only apply for federal money for F.A.A.-approved projects, which can cover up to 90 percent of the cost. Each future project, whether money is sought or not, would, in addition to F.A.A. review, be subject to a hearing before the town board, at which the public can weigh in, according to the town code.

    The airport control tower is not eligible for F.A.A. funding. As a small facility with just under 30,000 operations (takeoffs and landings) a year, East Hampton Airport does not meet the threshold at which the agency will pay for control towers — those with at least 60,000 operations a year.

    In December 2009, the town board accepted a proposal from Robinson Aviation to supply and staff a seasonal air traffic control center, at an average annual cost of $164,580 a year, based on projected staffing requirements at that time.

    According to Jim Brundige, the airport manager, the previous administration had envisioned having an air traffic controller on duty during only the busiest periods, such as weekends, while the current board may want “more aggressive coverage,” of up to 16 hours a day, five days a week.

    Fees paid by airport users raise enough money to cover annual operating costs, Mr. Brundige said, even generating an annual surplus, but not enough to pay for large capital projects.

    “In terms of pavement management, that’s the big nut, because it’s millions,” he said. For instance, he said, repairs needed on a runway ramp could cost $4 million, and the repaving of runway 4-22, which is closed but slated for reopening pursuant to the airport master plan, could be upward of that amount.

    “These are all safety things, to maintain the airport as is,” Mr. Brundige said. Routine maintenance has fallen behind, he said, in the years since there has been an approved layout plan.

    Mr. Stanzione said he had hoped to submit an application for federal money for deer fencing at the airport before the federal fiscal year closes at the end of this month, but had run up against time limitations.

    That project would include some sections of fence “to tighten up the airport for security purposes,” Mr. Brundige said. The Transportation Security Administration has recently become “very concerned about small airports,” he noted.

    “This is a historical moment in modern town history,” Supervisor Bill Wilkinson said last week in a release. “While the F.A.A. approval of our A.L.P. is a milestone achievement, it is part of a more comprehensive approach to managing the airport as a business and community asset, and to creatively and practically mitigating impacts of aviation activity, efforts Councilman Stanzione has diligently pursued.”

    “This fulfills a campaign promise,” he wrote, “to get our airport into a more safe and secure position within professional aviation and, just as important, to be a better neighbor.”

    “I’m happy it’s been done, because you can’t do anything here without having a valid A.L.P.,” Mr. Brundige said on Tuesday. Even minor projects, such as upgrading the airport’s automated weather observation system, cannot proceed without F.A.A. approval, and the agency will not entertain any projects without a valid layout plan in place.

    “It’s vital, and it’s also mandated by law,” said Mr. Brundige.