According to the 1967 film “The Graduate,” plastics were poised to be the next big thing. 

    They sure were.

    Now, due to the prevalence of discarded plastic bags in the local landscape, the East Hampton Village Board has proposed banning their use for goods purchased at retail. The ban would not affect bags larger than 28-by-36 inches, however.    

“Discarded disposable bags pollute our open spaces and our beaches, harm and kill wildlife and aquatic species, clog storm drains resulting in localized flooding, and end up as debris in our ocean and ponds,” according to a statement by the village.

If the village enacts the law, it would be following in the footsteps of Southampton Village, which made plastic retail bags illegal in April.

The board will hold a hearing to assess public reaction to the ban at 11 a.m. tomorrow in the Emergency Services Building at 1 Cedar Street

East Hampton Town

License Hearing Rescheduled

    A hearing on proposed amendments to East Hampton Town’s home improvement contractors licensing requirements that had been scheduled for tonight has been canceled. It will be rescheduled for another date.

    A public notice for the hearing was faulty, Town Councilwoman Theresa Quigley said, and in addition, East Hampton Village, which had adopted a contractor licensing law that mirrored the town’s, had asked for time to review the proposal.

    The amendment under discussion would extend a requirement to obtain a $100 license to do business in the town to anyone doing paid work at a residence, eliminating exemptions for those doing “grounds maintenance” or gardening, simple repair or maintenance jobs, and those earning less that $500 for a job. Proof of liability insurance and other business requirements would be needed to obtain a license.

    The proposed change would also eliminate a requirement for licensees to attend at least five hours of continuing education classes yearly, limiting that provision only to first-time license applicants.

Lighting Code Changes

    Councilwoman Theresa Quigley said Tuesday that she would be distributing some proposed changes to the town outdoor lighting code to her colleagues, after working for some months now with members of the Planning Department and a lighting expert as a consultant.

    In 2010, the town board hashed over the 2006 smart lighting or “dark skies” law that is on the books, after hearing from business owners that complying with it, as would have been required by October of last year, would be onerous.

    After much discussion and several contentious hearings at which advocates and detractors made their arguments, the board decided to extend the compliance deadline through the end of this year, in order to have more time to consider revisions.

    On Monday morning, the day after New York State’s Marriage Equality Act goes into effect, the East Hampton town clerk’s office will be ready to accept license applications for same-sex marriages.

There will be a 24-hour waiting period after a license is issued before a ceremony can take place, except for couples seeking second ceremonies — a marriage in New York after having been legally married in another state.

East Hampton Town Clerk Fred Overton told the town board on Tuesday that he was still waiting to receive revised marriage license application forms from the state, which will give applicants the option of designating themselves as “bride,” “groom,” “spouse,” or none of the above.

The new gender-neutral form also makes answering the question of gender optional. Mr. Overton said he expects delivery of the new forms by the end of the week.

Marriage license applicants, he said, must provide a photo ID — driver’s license or passport — and an original or certified copy of a birth certificate. If previously married, divorce papers are required as well. Documents issued in another language must be translated into English by a state-certified translator. The license fee is $40.

    John Jilnicki, the East Hampton Town attorney, has assigned his deputy, Carl Irace, to research the town’s code of ethics as well as legal decisions and opinions regarding conflicts of interest or the appearance of impropriety.

    The action came in response to a letter Mr. Jilnicki received regarding an apparent relationship between Mr. Irace, who is the attorney for the town zoning board, and an attorney who represented a client before that board.

    Yesterday, Mr. Jilnicki said the matter would also be referred to the town ethics board “so they can remove any doubts or questions,” and address “how we can handle it in the future.”

    When he received the letter, which also was sent to The Star, Mr. Jilnicki said he had asked Mr. Irace to provide an explanation. Now, he said, there would be a determination as to whether Mr. Irace should formally disclose his relationship with the other attorney, Alice Cooley, and recuse himself from matters in which she is involved. He said guidelines would be developed and implemented.

    The letter was signed by Ted Wistral. It provided no contact information and a local phone book listing could not be found. In the letter, Mr. Wistral called himself a taxpayer and said he was “appalled” that there had been no disclosure of the attorneys’ relationship. Earlier this year, an anonymous letter writer had said that Mr. Irace was late in renewing his legal license.

    The town ethics code deals largely with conflicts created by financial relationships, Mr. Jilnicki said, adding that it was unclear where the line of potential impropriety is drawn when there is no spousal or familial relationship.

    Asked to comment on the letter, Mr. Irace declined, referring the matter to Mr. Jilnicki. But David Eagan, an attorney with an East Hampton practice in which Ms. Cooley is an associate, spoke on behalf of the firm and his associate in a phone conversation on Tuesday.

    “We looked at the issue months ago when Alice brought it to our attention, and we came to the professional conclusion that this represented no professional concern to us whatsoever,” he said. The New York Lawyer’s Code of Professional Responsibility addresses ethical considerations, he said, as do opinions from judges and lawyers advising the bar. “We do not know of any decisions which call this situation into any question whatsoever,” he said.

    “We acted professionally and will continue to act professionally,” he said.

“We’re speaking about a very young, talented lawyer that we’re very proud of,” he said. She had received extensive training since joining his firm, he said, “especially about these kinds of situations.”

    Both Mr. Eagan and Mr. Irace questioned the motivation of the letter writer. “I don’t think it’s fair for people to sit and opine,” Mr. Eagan said. Professional judgment, he said, “is not a matter of anyone’s personal opinion; there should be an awareness. We have written tests, and we have opinions that are issued by governing bodies and judges and lawyers.”

    The matter before the Z.B.A. at the July 12 work session, to which the letter referred, regarded a request on behalf of one of Ms. Cooley’s clients for the board to modify a determination, specifically a requirement that $30,000 worth of plants be installed as a condition of receiving certain variances. Before Ms. Cooley even spoke, Mr. Eagan said, the zoning board had agreed to revise its ruling based on a letter submitted by the law firm.

    With regard to Mr. Irace’s representing the zoning board at its July 12 meeting, Mr. Jilnicki said Tuesday that “it would have been appropriate to disclose and step aside. It’s always better. You’ve got to be concerned about the appearance.”

    Democratic candidates for East Hampton Town supervisor and town board outlined a proposal to expedite planning board approval for non-permanent farm structures such as hoop buildings and cold frames at a press conference on July 13 at the Amagansett Farmers Market.

    The law would apply only to structures used for the production of food crops, as opposed for tree farms or nurseries.

    The goal of the proposed legislation, according to Zachary Cohen, the Democrats’ supervisor candidate, is “to make the process easier and less expensive for the applicant while still protecting the neighbors.”

    Sylvia Overby and Peter Van Scoyoc, the Democratic candidates for town board, joined him at the press conference.

    “Applicants don’t always know what to submit and board members don’t always know what they have to submit,” added Mr. Van Scoyoc, who is also a member of the town planning board.

    The legislation would designate two types of applications: one for structures less than 1,350 square feet (or .6 percent of the total square footage of the property), and another for structures greater than that. In addition the more rigorous review process applied to larger structures would be triggered for smaller buildings if the “town or county has an ownership interest in the land, in part or whole for farmland preservation” or if “the planning board receives comments from the public opposing an application” that it believes “raise sufficient community and neighbor concerns to warrant a public hearing.”

    In both cases, the proposed structure would need to meet setback requirements. Abuilding permit would also be necessary, as would permits for water and electricity. A formal survey would not be required, although the applicant would need to indicate the location of the proposed structure “on a reasonably accurate map generated by the Planning Department.” 

    Although the smaller structures would not necessitate a public hearing, the application would appear on the planning board agenda and neighbors would be notified. The larger temporary buildings would require a public hearing might require “other submissions based on the complexity of the application and existing conditions,” such as “in cases where the total allowable coverage is reached or exceeded with proposed addition of the temporary structures.”

    In February, Theresa Quigley, a Republican town board member, proposed similar legislation, although her proposed law also included farm stands, which, according to Ms. Overby, “have a lot of other, more complicated issues.” Mr. Van Scoyoc added that unlike the previous legislation, his team’s proposal includes “some land-use review.”

    Reached yesterday for her response to the Democrats’ version of a simplified temporary farm structure law, Ms. Quigley said “my gut reaction is that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.” She explained that she had proposed the legislation in response to requests from local farmers, including Alex Balsam, and that it was still being worked on after input from the public and elected officials of both parties.

    “If the issue is an important one, why is this [duplication] happening? Is the subtext ‘We Democrats are careful and the Republicans aren’t?’ ” she asked.

For only $500 and a red tie, you too can see Ira Rennert’s own private Xanadu in Sagaponack. Mr. Rennert, his wife, Ingeborg, and his family, along with Rep. Peter King, are hosting a fund-raiser on Sunday to benefit Randy Altschuler’s planned 2012 rematch against Rep. Tim Bishop of the First Congressional District.

Mr. Altschuler lost to Mr. Bishop, a Democrat, in 2010.

Rep. Eric Cantor, the house majority leader, will be on hand, along with a host committee that includes Kenneth Bialkin of East Hampton, Peter and Mary Kalikow of Montauk, and Andrew Sabin of Amagansett.

The lunch for Mr. Altschuler will be held at noon on Sunday at Fairfield, the Rennert compound, 281 Daniels Lane, Sagaponack. Tickets range in price from $500 per person to $2,500 for a "campaign friend."

For more information or to R.S.V.P., the contact is Christina Sofia Comer, who can be reached at [email protected] or by phone at 518-369-3962.

    With the stroke of a pen on June 9, the Town of East Hampton endorsed the right of a Montauk mechanic to ply his trade on the otherwise gentrified shores of Fort Pond Bay.

    Tom Ferreira, who has run an auto repair business at 63 Navy Road for decades, has agreed to erect an eight-foot fence to shield the operation. The memorandum of understanding, entered into earlier this month by Mr. Ferreira and John Jilnicki, the town attorney, represents a dramatic change in the mechanic’s relationship with the town, a change prompted, his attorney claims, by an oversight that town officials now understand. However, the outcome of an Article 78 legal proceeding that Mr. Ferreira brought against the town as well as the future of a short-wave radio antenna on his property remain up in the air.

    In the suit, filed in State Supreme Court in Riverhead on Feb. 3, Mr. Ferreira contends that in 2009, after years of being harassed and receiving town summonses, officials, civic organizations, and neighbors launched a campaign to force him out of business and eventually out of his family home. Mr. Ferreira’s suit states that the town confiscated over a dozen cars and other belongings, added the cost of the work to his tax bill, and placed a lien on his property when he couldn’t pay his taxes. The case is scheduled to come up in court today.

    The property is in an area whose zoning was upgraded from commercial industrial to residential in 1983. Mr. Ferreira held state and town licenses to operate the business, Automotive Solutions, but neighbors complained its cars and car parts were an eyesore. Because the rezoning could have put him out of business, Mr. Ferreira sued the town and won. Then, in September of 2003, the town building inspector clarified the issue by ruling the business was a pre-existing, nonconforming use and thereby legal.

    Nevertheless, complaints continued and pressure mounted. In early 2009, Mr. Ferreira settled numerous citations in Town Justice Court related to the condition of his yard. On June 18 that year, the town board unanimously authorized the forced removal of what it cited as “litter,” on the grounds that it was dangerous to the public’s health, safety, and welfare. The board said it was acting on complaints from neighbors and from the East Hampton Town Litter Committee, a civic organization. Board members also said they were acting on the advice of Dominic Shirrippa, then the town director of code enforcement.

    On at least two occasions, Mr. Schirrippa and Kenneth Glogg, a code enforcement inspector, had declared that the property’s abandoned cars, tires, propane tanks, “and other combustible materials when ignited . . . would lead to possible catastrophic consequences.”

    However, James Dunlop, the town fire marshal, inspected the property on May 15, 2009, and found “no violations of state and local code were noted at the time.” In a report dated June 17, 2009, the day before the town authorized the first of two property seizures, he wrote, “We would like to congratulate you on this attention to fire safety in your place of business.”

     Mr. Ferreira has said that as a mechanic with 30 years’ experience, he always “mummified” the vehicles on his property, meaning he drained them of gas, fluid, and oil.

    On June 22, Trinity Transportation, an outside contractor, hauled away 12 vehicles, charging the town $9,850. Neighbors complained that Mr. Ferreira had eight more cars delivered to his property the next day, although he denied it. The town then hired Trinity once more. It removed cars and other property on Sept. 14, 2009, also at a cost of $9,850.  

    The subsequent tax lien on Mr. Ferreira’s property of $19,700 remains in place to this day. In addition, Mr. Ferreira claims the cars and other property seized, sold, and/or destroyed by the town were worth $143,302. Six new summonses related to the condition of his grounds were levied in October 2010, and in connection with the presence of a radio antenna. They are pending.

    Mr. Ferreira’s Supreme Court brief argues that the town violated his right to due process under the federal and state Constitutions. The suit claims he was not notified that the town board intended to consider seizing his property and, thus, that he was not given an opportunity to rebut the charge that his business posed a danger to public health and safety. Nor, he claims, was he given a chance to fight the charges in Town Justice Court, after requesting a trial.

    Robert Connelly, the attorney representing the town in court today, said yesterday that case law supported municipalities’ “abating a nuisance” by simply notifying, by letter, the person charged. This was done, Mr. Connelly said, adding that in the case of a gas or fuel hazard, no notice was necessary.

    Town Councilman Pete Hammerle, one of the board members who voted to clear Mr. Ferreira’s yard, said last year that the board had been besieged by complaints. “His own family was calling us. His aunt could not sell her [neighboring] house.” Mr. Hammerle said Mr. Ferreira had been “delaying, delaying. Our only option was to get him to pay for it down the line. Put it on his tax bill. Not that he won’t be able to pay so we can get him out.”

    Former Councilwoman Pat Mansir, while also voting to seize Mr. Ferreira’s property, balked when it came to asking him to pay for it. “We had spent money to clean up Rian White,” she said, referring to the forced removal of debris from Mr. White’s Maidstone Park property in 2009.    

    “When it comes right down to it, the town attorneys didn’t seem that comfortable,” Ms. Mansir said, about having town employees remove private property. “So we . . . hired from the outside. Same with Ferreira. It was a bad decision.”

    Mr. Ferreira pointed to differences between his business, which was operating on property zoned for it, and Mr. White’s situation. “And, he got a trial, and I didn’t.” Mr. Ferreira said.

    Although another attorney initiated Mr. Ferreira’s lawsuit, he is now represented by Thomas Horn, a former East Hampton Town fire marshal and safety officer. Mr. Horn believes his client was the victim of an unchecked crusade by the town, the Montauk Citizens Advisory Committee, real estate interests, and neighbors, including Mr. Ferreira’s aunt.

    Mr. Horn said he agreed that his client’s right to due process had been violated and offered an opinion about why the town agreed to a memorandum of understanding with the embattled mechanic even before the court acts on the case.

    “The M.O.U. serves both sides in that it defines what my client can do on his property, and perhaps more. The town finds it advantageous to take the M.O.U. since they were not empowered to enforce state codes at the time or to enforce the local code either,” Mr. Horn said.

    He went on to explain that in his opinion the town had slipped up by changing the title of “officer” of the code enforcement department to “inspector” in its union contract, but by failing to make the change in the town code. Officially, there were no code enforcement officers at the time Mr. Ferreira’s property was seized, and therefore, he said, the town’s actions were illegal.

    He also said the seizures were improper because the town neglected to solicit bids for the work. Of the subsequent tax lien, Mr. Horn found a series of faults in the process by which it had been imposed.

    Pat Gunn, an assistant town attorney, said he disagreed completely with what Mr. Horn was suggesting. He would not comment further because the town is involved in ongoing litigation with Mr. Ferreira.

    “I find it interesting, however, that Mr. Horn has offered an opinion since he does not represent Mr. Ferreira on the 2009 case. It is my understanding that Austin Manghan Esq. is the attorney for Mr. Ferreira on this matter.”

East Hampton Town

Councilman Swings His Vote

    Grasses, not grapes, will be grown on town-owned farmland at Robert’s Lane and Cedar Street in East Hampton, according to a majority vote of the town board on Tuesday. The decision must still be formalized with a resolution.

    Board members have been weighing two proposals from potential lessees — one from a nurseryman who wants to grow native grasses and the other from members of the Principi family who proposed growing wine grapes there.

    Councilwoman Theresa Quigley, citing a desire to promote wineries in East Hampton Town, and Town Supervisor Bill Wilkinson favored the grape-growing plan, while Councilman Pete Hammerle and Councilwoman Julia Prince voted to lease the land to the grass-grower.

    Town Councilman Dominick Stanzione took a bit of razzing from Mr. Wilkinson for his swing vote siding with the two Democrats on the board, against his fellow Republicans. To grow grapes, the property would have to be fenced off from deer, he said, according to the proposal, an idea he was “not too keen on.”

Separation Incentive Program

    Before the end of its session in Albany, the New York State Legislature acted on East Hampton Town’s request for permission to borrow money to fund an employee separation incentive program.

    A change to the state finance law will allow the town to issue a 10-year bond to cover the cost of incentives and benefit payouts to employees who opt to step down from their town posts. A separation program is yet to be designed or offered.

    Though there is no legal requirement that the state approve an employee separation program, Town Supervisor Bill Wilkinson has maintained that the ability to borrow the money for its cost was crucial, and said the Legislature’s failure last year to approve the town’s request to issue bonds for it prevented it from moving forward.  

    From virtually the moment it was proposed back in December, the MTK: Music to Know festival, scheduled for Aug. 13 and 14 at East Hampton Airport, has attracted attention, some of it negative, from residents who said, among other things, that staging an event for 9,500 ticketholders in the height of the summer was just too much.

    Now the event seems to have attracted something else: a 13-foot giant rat that could be inflated near the airport, on Industrial Road, to call attention to the wrath of union workers over the hiring of non-union labor to stage the show.

    The East Hampton Town Board is expected, at a meeting tonight, to issue a mass-gathering permit for daily demonstrations by up to 100 union members, plus the rat, from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. each day from tomorrow through Aug. 13, the first day of the festival.

    The groups listed on the permit are the Theatrical Teamsters Local 817, Theatrical Stagehands Local 340, and the Teamsters Local 817, all based in Nassau County.

    Reached yesterday by phone, Chris Jones, one of the dogged organizers of the festival, which will feature bands such as Vampire Weekend, Bright Eyes, and Ellie Goulding, who performed this spring at the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton, said he was aware of the request for a demonstration, but doubted it would come to pass.

    “We’ve actually been talking to the union for a couple of months now,” he said. “We’ve already had several meetings with them. They told us they were doing this.”

    “This is a process that they always do,” he said of the groups’ plans to demonstrate, “because it’s the only negotiating tool that they have.”

    “There’s no need to use union labor,” he said. “We don’t have to.” Hiring union stagehands and others, he said, was “a lot more expensive. It really comes down to the economics of the festival. But we’ll work something out with them.” He declined to detail what that might be, because of the ongoing negotiations.

    Calls to the union organizers of the event were not returned by press time.

East Hampton Town

MTK Festival Ponies Up

    East Hampton Town has received a $100,000 check from the MTK: Music to Know Festival, which promised to make a donation of that amount for distribution to local charities in exchange for receiving a mass-gathering permit for the event. The two-day concert and “lifestyle” festival will take place at East Hampton Airport on Aug. 13 and 14.

    Chris Jones, an organizer of the event, confirmed this week that the organization had given the town a certified cashier’s check. It has reportedly been placed in an escrow account. The town board is to make the final determination about how the money will be distributed among a list of local nonprofit groups, including the East Hampton Day Care Center and several food pantries.

    Also this week, the town board agreed to pay a $35 court cost for the withdrawal of a lawsuit initiated by Amagansett residents against the town over the issuance of a permit to have the concert in that hamlet. The plaintiffs withdrew the suit in light of the change of venue.

New Head of Buildings and Grounds

    Tony Littman has been appointed head of the town’s buildings and grounds maintenance unit. A longtime employee in the Parks and Recreation Department, his title is now town maintenance supervisor.