The crowds that came to Montauk Point to witness the wild surf created by Tropical Storm Hermine were greeted by something large and white beached under the Lighthouse at Turtle Cove. Not a whale but a 27-foot Stamas fishing boat with twin 225-horsepower Yamaha outboard engines. Its name was Living the Dream. 

Evidently, the Connecticut-registered boat was operating off the Point early Saturday morning when it began taking on water due to some undetermined mechanical or structural problem. The boat’s owner called for emergency assistance over his VHF radio and the Coast Guard immediately responded. However, the owner, fearing an imminent sinking, intentionally beached the boat before the Coast Guard arrived to provide aid. 

The boat owner next called SeaTow, a company that provides a variety of on-water services to boaters, to remove the vessel from the shore. But, because the boat owner was unable to provide SeaTow with the name of his insurance carrier or contact his insurance brokerage company because the office was closed for the holiday weekend, and because he didn’t want to cover the substantial five-figure cost personally, the Stamas stayed on the beach. 

The despondent owner returned to Connecticut but remained in contact with the East Hampton Town Marine Patrol. The boat’s fuel and batteries were removed at the owner’s direction by a licensed service company to avoid any potential environmental problems. 

Tuesday morning, after the strong winds and rain had passed, local contractors hired by the owner lifted the damaged boat and placed it on a trailer for transport to a Springs boatyard. Unfortunately, during the time the boat was beached and removed, opportunistic low-lifes removed two stainless steel props and lower ends from the outboards as well as electronics from the helm. Contrary to published reports, the owner was not ticketed by Marine Patrol. No reason to rub salt in a wound. 

Most boat owners will never find themselves in the dangerous circumstances faced by the captain of Living the Dream. But, nonetheless, all boat owners should understand the somewhat fuzzy maritime laws under which those rendering aid to a recreational boater in peril can claim and receive substantial payments from the boat’s owner.

The collection of maritime laws created around 900 B.C.E. in Athens first codified the principle of offering a salvage reward for the saving of imperiled maritime property. Then, one fifth of any property saved from an imperiled vessel was awarded to the “salvor.” If the vessel was already lost to the sea, either one third or one half was awarded to the salvor, depending on the danger taken to retrieve the items. Modern salvage laws carry forward the principles of the Greek maritime codes.

Today’s laws covering salvage rights are divided into two categories: pure salvage and contract salvage. A successful pure salvage claim must demonstrate that the property saved was exposed to marine peril, the service was voluntary, with no pre-existing duty or contract to rescue, and the rescue operation was successful in whole or even in part under certain circumstances. Importantly, marine peril doesn’t have to be imminent or absolute. The law only requires that the rescuing party prove to the court that a reasonable apprehension of peril existed. Peril, of course, can be a subjective judgment. 

Contract salvage is less squishy. The salvor and the boat in distress agree on the terms of the rescue. This can be a flat fee, the cost of time and equipment, or even a cold beer and a pat on the back. The owner of Living the Dream most likely signed a contract salvage agreement with the company that removed his boat from Turtle Cove. 

Typically, the greater the value of the property and the greater the risk taken by the salvor, the larger the salvage cost or court award. The Supreme Court in the 1867 Blackwell case stipulated the factors a court must consider in determining the size of a salvage award. 

Members of SeaTow or similar companies should know that they are subject to pure or contract salvage claims from their service provider if the scope of the work and the risk required to rescue their boat are outside the boundaries of routine coverage. SeaTow clearly outlines its salvage rules on its website, seatow.com. They should be read by all its members. Boat owners should also be familiar with their insurance carrier’s salvage fee reimbursement coverage.

Let’s say you’re fishing at Plum Gut and your engine cuts out and won’t restart because of bad gas. A strong wind is pushing your now drifting boat quickly toward the rocky shoreline of Plum Island. A fellow fisherman observes your dire situation and motors over to provide assistance. He tosses you a line, you express your immense gratitude, and after a few moments he begins towing your boat to calmer waters where you can safely anchor and collect your thoughts. All’s well that ends well. Right? 

Maybe yes. Maybe no. Your boat was clearly in peril, the rescuer was under no obligation to help, and your boat was successfully removed from danger. All elements of a valid salvage claim have been met. If you have an expensive boat, the awarded claim could be substantial. But then again, you could have lost your valuable boat in the rocks. Interestingly, even if you had declined the fellow boater’s assistance, he could have towed your boat to safety and pressed a salvage claim based on the expectation of peril. 

Fortunately, the boating world is full of great people who are willing to help each other without any expectation of compensation. But, then again, there are scoundrels who steal props from beached boats, so it never hurts to understand the laws of the land before one ends up in an unfortunate situation like the captain of Living the Dream. 

And now back to our regularly scheduled fishing reports.

Mostly small but feisty false albacore arrived off Montauk Point, punishing baitfish and delighting light-tackle anglers. Attracting smiles from passing boaters was a large pod of dolphins, including many juveniles, who spent hours feeding and frolicking outside  Fort Pond Bay. Fluke season ends Wednesday, so don’t delay that last fluke trip.

Sebastian Gorgone at Mrs. Sam’s Bait and Tackle reported large sea bass north of Plum Island in deep water and squid in Three Mile Harbor. Snappers continue to tear into bait in local bays and harbors, he added.

Harvey Bennett at the Tackle Shop in Amagansett said the porgy bite remains strong, blowfish are hanging in Three Mile Harbor and Fort Pond Bay, and weakfish can be found around the Napeague bell buoy. Snappers are working well on the south side of Montauk for large fluke, he added.

Paulie’s Tackle in Montauk reported a few nice stripers taken right after Hermine moved on, but bluefish continue to be the primary catch. With an increasing amount of bait off the Point, striper action should increase soon, the shop said.

Dave Reutershan at Gone Fishing Marina in Montauk reported boaters were catching bass on the smaller side with eels and parachute jigs. The body of large fish that excited anglers for many weeks has moved on toward Block Island, he added. Offshore action remains slow, though one boat returned to dock with a 240-pound thresher shark, Reutershan noted.

Ken Morse at Tight Lines Tackle in Sag Harbor said the weakfish bite has slowed and a few fluke were taken here and there. Albies are at Shinnecock and big blues in Plum Gut, he added.

The Star’s fishing columnist can be followed on Twitter, @ehstarfishing. Photos of prize catches can be emailed to David Kuperschmid at fishreport@ ehstar.com.

The future of Montauk's downtown and harbor areas is under intense discussion this week as a team of planning consultants leads interested members of the public through a series of discussions and workshops Thursday through Saturday.

On walking tours in and around the downtown on Wednesday morning, and throughout the harbor area that afternoon, consultants observed conditions firsthand and collected information from members of the public who accompanied them about problem areas, issues residents would like to see addressed or solved, and potential opportunities for improvements.

Topics ranged from traffic to sidewalks, affordable housing, recreation, the fishing industry, and more. A brainstorming session on Wednesday night followed, during which the information about public concerns was collected through notations on large maps of Montauk.

Thursday night at 6:30, the process will continue with a modeling exercise focused on the downtown. Friday night, also at 6:30, a similar approach will hone in on the harbor area.

On Saturday morning at 9, the consultants, after taking in the public comments, will present an overview of the needs, problems, and wishes identified during the planning sessions, as well as some potential actions -- policies, laws, or structural changes -- for town officials and the public to consider.

All are welcome to attend any of the sessions, which will all be held at the Montauk Playhouse gymnasium. Information about the intensive planning sessions, called charrettes, is on the East Hampton Town website's hamlet study page.

Detailed analysis by members of the consulting team, focusing on the town's economy as well as on transportation and traffic, will be incorporated into a report to be presented later this year by the group, led by the firm Dodson and Flinker.

Those who wish to provide information or comments to the consultants may send an email to [email protected].

Tuesday's primary elections were quiet here on the South Fork, where only two political parties were asking voters to make decisions.

Southampton Town residents belonging to the Conservative and Working Families Parties voted in favor of Justice Andrea Schiavoni to appear on those party lines come November. She received 69.23 percent of the Working Families Party vote, while her challenger, Ernest R. Wruck, received 30.77 percent. Conservatives voted 59.7 percent in favor of the sitting town justice, while 40.30 percent voted for Mr. Wruck. 

Ms. Schiavoni, a North Haven resident, is seeking a second four-year term on the bench. She is running on the Democratic Party line. Mr. Wruck, an attorney who lives in Eastport, has been endorsed by the Republican Party.

They were preaching to the choir at Monday night’s meeting of the Amagansett Citizens Advisory Committee. Judging by their response to one another’s comments, all but one of the 60 or so people gathered at the American Legion Hall were there for a single purpose, to urge that East Hampton Town purchase the 30-acre Bistrian property north and west of the hamlet’s municipal parking lot and preserve it as the farmland it has been for as long as anyone can remember.

However, as Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell said at the start, “It’s a question of negotiating a fair and equitable price.” The Bistrians are asking $30 million for the land, according to Britton Bistrian, the family spokeswoman, while an appraisal commissioned by the town some years ago pegged its value at about $19 million.

When Kieran Brew, a member of the committee, asked whether the town would seek a new appraisal, Mr. Cantwell surprised the crowd by answering, “We have two appraisals, one completed in the past month.” He declined to elaborate, saying that he preferred to “leave the details” to the town’s director of land acquisition and management, Scott Wilson, “and keep the elected officials a little distant from it.”

Mr. Wilson was almost as reticent, saying by phone the next morning that “we don’t negotiate publicly. It’s between the town and the seller.” He added, however, that “I know there are third parties interested . . . there’s other parties out there, but I can’t reveal any information that will make it harder for us to accomplish what we all want.”

Whether the “other parties” are developers, environmental groups, or something in between, neither Mr. Wilson nor Mr. Cantwell would say, and Ms. Bistrian, who was at the meeting, said Tuesday that she’d been as surprised as anyone to hear about a new appraisal, much less of any “third parties” coming in. The town and the family have had “no active negotiations in months,” she said.

Ten contiguous parcels are on the table. The Bistrians purchased the easternmost, just under three acres abutting Amber Waves Farm, within the past year from the Suffolk County Water Authority. Altogether, the land, zoned for two-acre lots, could yield as many as 23 houses — the three largest lots are subdividable, Ms. Bistrian noted — which, according to an online petition from Windmill Lane neighbors called Save Our Farmland Amagansett, would “significantly increase traffic” there and on nearby roads and “increase the number of potential summer rentals and associated problems with megamansions right on top of the village.”

Negotiations are complicated, Mr. Cantwell told the crowd, because the parcel contains “different lots of different sizes that are in different ownerships.” The word he used to describe it was “checkerboarded,” meaning in real estate parlance that no two adjoining parcels are in the same name (lest the area be upzoned and they be merged). But all are owned by Bistrian family members, he said, and “the various family members are negotiating as one.”

After Mr. Cantwell assured him that the community preservation fund would cover the purchase if a deal is reached, Michael Cinque, the owner of Amagansett Wines and Liquors on Main Street, speaking of the forthcoming expansion of the parking lot following the town’s acquisition of two lots east of it, said, “I still think it leaves us 60 spots short of needed parking. Can the town buy a little more, maybe 150 feet width of the lot, for another 60 spaces?”

But Tina Piette, deploring the difficulty of making a left turn out of the lot now, said that if still more spaces were added it would be impossible to get out.

Speaking of the parking lot, Mr. Cantwell announced that work on the hamlet’s long-awaited bathrooms will resume “in a week or so” and should be finished in a month or less. The expansion of the lot will be completed before next summer, he said.

Scott Crowe, who started the Save Our Farmland petition, returned to the topic of the evening. “We want agriculture,” he said. “It seems the only issue here is price.” Citing a state law that “a public road that hasn’t been used for six years shall be deemed abandoned,” he asked that the Bistrians “abandon the threat of paving.”

Forty-six years ago, when the town bought the land for the parking lot from Peter Bistrian, it agreed to put in and pave an L-shaped access road from the lot to Windmill Lane, but never did. The Bistrians now say they will install the road themselves by Oct. 10 if no agreement is reached before then.

Bill DiScipio, a lone voice crying in the wilderness, said he would prefer to see the land developed. The homebuyers, he predicted, would be away most of the year and their taxes would keep other people’s down.

“Preserve it,” said Robert Kay of Windmill Lane. “Preserve, so Amagansett doesn’t become suburbanized as other communities have.”

“Our intention is to preserve it, for agriculture,” Mr. Cantwell agreed. “The town has a history of identifying the breadbaskets of our community.” He instanced Long Lane in East Hampton, “where we have a lot of contiguous farmland. Farming is thriving, despite economic predictions 40 years ago” that it would vanish.

“Every piece of farmland that has productive soil, we want to preserve,” the supervisor declared.

Sustained applause followed. Mr. Cantwell waited for it to die down, then added, “provided we can pay for it.

The former Child Development Center of the Hamptons school on Stephen Hand’s Path in East Hampton could become the town’s next senior citizens center.

A report commissioned by the East Hampton Town Board and released this week indicated that the 22,000-square-foot building was in excellent shape.

Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell said on Tuesday that the cost to convert the former C.D.C.H. building into a community center would be significantly less than the estimated cost to construct a new senior citizens facility from the ground up to replace the inadequate one on Springs-Fireplace Road in East Hampton.

While the town owns the land — part of a 44-acre complex that includes soccer fields — the building itself is apparently owned by Family Residences and Essential Enterprises of Old Bethpage, which managed the school. D.L. Bennett Consulting, which prepared the report for the town, said that the bill for repairs and converting the former school to a senior citizens center would be roughly $2.1 million. However, a purchase price has not been discussed and would be the wild card in ultimately deciding whether or not the plan to operate a senior citizens center there would be cost-effective, Drew Bennett said in his report.

The charter school closed at the end of the 2015-16 school year due to declining enrollment and financial losses. Students who had attended programs there have been largely accommodated by their home school districts.

The cost of a new senior citizens center has been estimated by the town at between $5.3 million and about $6.2 million. “Clearly, there is a substantial savings in that,” Mr. Cantwell said during a town board meeting at the Montauk Fire House on Tuesday.

Diane Patrizio, the director of the town Human Services Department, spoke favorably about the concept at Tuesday’s meeting. She said that in addition to the daily programs for older residents, the center houses a range of other services. These include a transportation program to get senior citizens out for grocery shopping and to medical appointments. A nutrition program is run there, as are individual case management services and youth programs.

In all, about 331 residents took part in nutrition programs at the senior citizens center in a 2015, according to the town, with more than 17,000 meals served.

Several 12-step groups use the senior citizens center during the off hours as well.

There are about 30 employees who work there in all, Ms. Patrizio said, many of whom are forced to park elsewhere, including at the nearby Calvary Baptist Church and others at Town Hall on Pantigo Road.

“We don’t have a lot of room there, and we have to use the same areas for different programs,” Ms. Patrizio said.

The C.D.C.H. site would allow the town to open a real community center with space for nonprofits and others to use the building.

Older residents who use the current senior citizens center like the location, Ms. Patrizio said, concluding, “We need more room.”

“People don’t like change, but once we made the move, the possibilities there outweigh any negatives,” she said.

“There are limitless options about how it could be laid out. It’s a really great building,” Eric Schantz, a member of the town planning staff, said at Tuesday’s meeting.

Mr. Cantwell said that there was a possibility that the East Hampton Food Pantry, which is facing the loss of its space in the Windmill II housing complex on Accabonac Road, might be able to move into the C.D.C.H. site, though he said that he was not sure yet if it would be an appropriate location for it.

“This is all attractive, but I am most concerned about traffic and getting there,” Councilman Fred Overton said at Tuesday’s meeting. He said he wondered about senior citizens making left turns from Stephen Hand’s Path onto Montauk Highway, particularly during the summer months. Mr. Cantwell responded that drivers could instead head east via Stephen Hand’s Path, crossing or entering Route 114 at the traffic light there.

The Child Development Center had been considered a potential solution to crowded classrooms at the Springs School. However, the Springs School Board concluded this summer that it would be legally unable to do so because the site is outside of school district boundaries. The Springs School announced in August that Family Residences and Essential Enterprises, the nonprofit organization that had managed the charter school, had agreed to give it a number of fixtures, including desks, chairs, and bookshelves.

Plans for a new senior citizens center on the Springs-Fireplace Road property have been under discussion for more than two years. A third of the East Hampton Town population is over 55, and officials say that the need for services for older residents will only increase.

Last year, the town’s transportation program run at the center accommodated 250 clients, making about 17,400 trips.

The current senior citizens center has been in use for more than 30 years in a former bar and restaurant estimated to be more than 100 years old. The town also operates a program for older residents at the Montauk Playhouse Community Center, where an extensive renovation project and fund-raising campaign has been ongoing for a second phase of improvements that would include an aquatic and cultural center.

If a car wash is allowed to be built at the site of a former discotheque on Montauk Highway in Wainscott, the average wait time to make a left turn from East Gate Road onto the highway would increase from one to six minutes, according to a memo from one of East Hampton Town’s senior planners.

James Golden of Golden Car Wash wants to build a 4,435-square-foot steel and glass building with 15 vacuum stations, a detailing area, space for 18 cars to line up, and nine parking spaces. He needs a special permit from the town planning board to proceed. Judging from the planner’s comments and the volume of letters in opposition, the project is in for a bumpy ride, even if it can get past the East Hampton Town Board’s proposed moratorium on new commercial construction along the highway in Wainscott.

The planning board was scheduled to discuss the site plan for the car wash last night.

Known many years ago as the Swamp, and, after that, as the Star Room, the dilapidated building is now considered unsafe, according to the memo from Eric Schantz, a senior town planner. This is the second time that a car wash has been proposed for the property. The first one, in 2012, did not pan out.

This one has generated staunch opposition in Wainscott. The planning board file contains dozens of letters that are uniformly against the car wash, with writers saying it raises traffic, health, and environmental issues.

“I write you out of serious concern for the health, not just of the wildlife and ecosystems immediately downstream from the applicant’s proposed car wash, but importantly for the health of those who drink water from wells downstream, eat fish and crabs from the ponds downstream, or swim in the waters downstream,” read a letter from Simon Kinsella, a member of the Wainscott Citizens Advisory Committee. Mr. Kinsella, who is the committee’s liaison to the East Hampton Town Trustees, talked to that group about the project on Monday and forwarded to the planning board a letter from Christopher Gobler of Stony Brook University’s School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences. In it, Dr. Gobler wrote that the location of the proposed car wash “is highly problematic for the well-being of citizens living on and around Georgica Pond.”

Both Mr. Kinsella and Mr. Schantz pointed out that the traffic study submitted to the planning board appears flawed in that it used data gathered on a weekday in 2013, as opposed to looking at the weekend crush of cars that pass through Wainscott at peak hours in the summer. Mr. Kinsella also pointed out that, in the study’s own words, the corner of East Gate Road and Montauk Highway has a higher accident rate than normal.

John Jilnicki, the town attorney who advises the planning board, said yesterday that the proposed one-year moratorium on development across the entirety of the north side of Montauk Highway in Wainscott would not preclude the applicant and the planning board from continuing work on the proposal over that time. However, a public hearing and final approval of any site plan involving the area would be barred until the moratorium was lifted.

Another Wainscott site plan was on the agenda for discussion last night, that of Barry’s Boot Camp. Located at 352 Montauk Highway, the building is owned by the Wainscott Village Association, which has rented it to the workout studio chain. A Barry’s Bootcamp is already in operation, but is considered an illegal use of the space. The studio needs a special permit from the town to legalize the use the space as an exercise studio.

The problem, in the eyes of the Planning Department, is that there are not nearly enough parking spaces on-site to meet the required number under the town code. Before the planning board can consider the application, Barry’s Boot Camp will have to go before the town’s zoning board of appeals to get a variance from the parking requirements, as well as a special permit.

A 2006 Mini Cooper rear-ended a 2015 Toyota on West Lake Drive in Montauk Friday night just before 10 p.m., resulting in trips to Southampton Hospital for five people.

The Toyota, driven by Maureen C. Merrigan of Brooklyn, 30, was in the southbound lane waiting for a chance to turn, according to East Hampton Town police. David S. Giacone of Northport, 57, also southbound, told an officer he had dropped something on the floor of the Mini Cooper and momentarily taken his eye off the road, leading to the crash. Four of the five passengers in the Toyota, all aged between 29 and 32, were taken to the hospital: Ms. Merri­gan, Christina Fischer, Katherine Connors, and James R. Peterson. Mr. Giacone was taken there as well. Police said none of the injuries were considered life-threatening.

An accident at the intersection of Norfolk Drive and Kings Point Road in Springs sent a Laurel Hollow man to the hospital late Sunday morning. Douglas E. Schmidt, 52, driving a 2008 Chevrolet Suburban, had just driven into the intersection when a 2002 Lexus driven by Ethel Tashman, 71, collided with his car. Ms. Tashman told police she did not see the Suburban enter the intersection. Mr. Schmidt was treated for unspecified injuries.

Primary elections on Tuesday are quiet here, with only two political parties asking voters to make decisions ahead of the general election in November.

Southampton Town residents belonging to the Conservative and Working Families Parties have a choice to make about a candidate for town justice. Andrea Schiavoni, now in her eighth year on the Southampton bench, is seeking a second term. She is running on the Conservative and Working Families lines, but was not endorsed by the Republican Party, whose candidate is Ernest R. Wruck. Mr. Wruck is challenging Ms. Schiavoni on both the Conservative and Working Families lines.

Justice Schiavoni, a North Haven resident, was challenged for some nominations in 2008, but prevailed on the Independence and Working Families lines. In 2012, she was nominated by all parties, including Republican, and ran unopposed.

Mr. Wruck, an Eastport resident, is a partner at Wruck & Wallace, a Patchogue legal firm. He has 30 years’ experience in estate administration, planning, and litigation and has served as an attorney for the Suffolk County public administrator, handling estates with unknown or missing heirs.

Conservative Party members in East Hampton and Southampton are being asked to vote for 12 members of the party’s state committee from among 24 candidates. They also can choose two of four candidates as delegates to the 10th judicial district convention.

Among the candidates for the committee are Brian Gilbride, a longtime member of the Sag Harbor Village Board and a former mayor, who is also running to be a convention delegate, and Jeremy D. Brandt, a Hampton Bays resident who made a bid against Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr. in 2012, though he withdrew from the race before the election. Trevor M. Darrell, an East Hampton attorney, is running as an alternate delegate. 

Amagansett’s business district will have a bigger municipal parking lot and perhaps a park, with the purchase of 2.5 largely open acres adjacent to the lot, which was approved last week by the East Hampton Town Board. The land is owned by Tom Field and Herbert Field, who have agreed to the sale. The future of other farmland adjacent to the lot — 30 acres owned by the Bistrian family — remained in contention, however.

Board members heard nothing but support for the Field purchase at a hearing last Thursday night and gave the plan a formal go-ahead.

The land will provide about 80 more parking spaces, a 50-percent increase in the lot’s capacity, according to Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell, and a park could be created alongside.

“Getting a park there would be fabulous for Amagansett,” Rona Klopman, an Amagansett resident, said at the hearing. Others said more room in the lot, which is often full, was sorely needed.

A half-acre of the land to be purchased is in joint ownership and will be purchased for $1.1 million. Two acres of a 2.7-acre parcel owned by Herbert Field will be bought for $1.8 million. He will retain a house and the remainder of the parcel.

Because it is agricultural land, only 30 percent of the two acres being purchased can be used for parking; the rest must be kept open. Therefore, the cost of the 2.5-acre parcel will be split, with the town’s community preservation fund paying for 70 percent, which will be preserved for open space or recreation, and capital funds covering the rest, as well as the half-acre in joint ownership.

Speaking about the Bistrian acreage at last week’s town board meeting, Bonnie Bistrian Krupinski said the family’s intent had always been to preserve the farmland through the sale of its development rights to the town. But, she said, after years of negotiations, the town had not offered a price they could accept. Drawing a comparison with the price being paid for the nearby Field properties, she suggested the town commission a new appraisal.

An appraisal commissioned by the owners last year, she said, set the purchase price at $29 million. But, she said, based on its own appraisal, the town made a $19 million offer — “a stark contrast,” she said, to the price being paid for the Field property.

A September 2007 appraisal, done for the Bistrian family on an outright purchase of the property, came in at $32.3 million for just over 30 acres, she said. The appraised value for only the development rights was set at the time at $30.2 million.

This week, in a letter to The Star, Robert P. Lynn Jr., an attorney for the Bistrians, reiterated some of Ms. Krupinski’s points. He provided a summary and verified the value of the property in the 2007 appraisal, done by R.J. Matuza and Associates, though it is unclear whether the appraisal took into account a required agricultural set-aside of 70 percent of the land in calculating how many house lots could be created on the land, which is in a two-acre residential zone. Mr. Lynn did not provide a more recent appraisal by another firm that, he said, the family had commissioned but called it “consistent” with the Matuza appraisal.

His letter read in part: “Absent a reasonable offer by the town, we as the fiduciary representatives of several corporations are regretfully left with our only remaining option, which is to establish the previously negotiated access to Windmill Lane, to the parking lot, and proceed with development of our residential properties — although this has never been our preference. We are suggesting to the Town of East Hampton, if they are truly interested in preserving the development rights to the property, they will need to do a new appraisal after the Field purchase.”

In a letter to the town, the family said they would take matters into their own hands and carve out the road to Windmill Lane if the town did not do so by a mid-October deadline.

 Speaking at the hearing last week, Job Potter, a former town councilman, called the Field deal a “great purchase.” Mr. Potter, who is now on the planning board, agreed that the latter purchase “does create a comparable” —- a sale that is pertinent to gauging the value of the Bistrian land.

“To me these fields behind Amagansett are extremely important to the town,” he said, “far more important than, say, the 555 property, which you did such a good job preserving.” By 555, he was referring to the purchase of property to the east of Main Street that prevented its being developed for housing.

  “Historically, Amagansett’s Main Street consisted of tiny little farms; these historic houses and then the fields behind them that ran north. We have a great historic district there. I think if these fields get developed in any way, it would really be a pity. If the board could find a number that the Bistrians would accept, I think the community would accept and fully support the board in an aggressive purchase,” he said.

“Whether or not we can come to terms in what that value should be, I don’t know,” Mr. Cantwell responded. But the board, he said, “will continue to try.” However, he said, “We have an appraisal; it was done by professionals,” and the board has its own fiduciary responsibility regarding spending from the community preservation fund.

A hearing before the East Hampton Town Board last Thursday on allowing affordable apartments in outbuildings as well as primary residences drew questions and comments on a number of issues. All of them, said one member of the committee that recommended the change, had been carefully considered before the law was proposed.

The town code amendment would allow apartments in accessory structures such as a garage, on properties of a half-acre or more where the outbuilding is no closer to property lines than the primary residence is allowed to be. The proposal would also change the present law covering accessory apartments to allow homeowners to live in the outbuilding while renting the main house.

Apartments within residences have been allowed since 1984, with a cap of 20 in each of the town’s school districts, but few people have applied for the necessary permits. The change to the law, recommended by a town committee on affordable housing, is designed to increase the number of affordable apartments; the 20-permit quota would remain in effect.

Speaking at the hearing, David Buda, a Springs resident, said the changes were not a “meaningful approach.” Better, he said, would be rezoning land specifically for affordable housing. Allowing apartments in detached structures, he said, would change the residential character of neighborhoods. “The Springs, particularly,” he said, “is overwhelmed” with cottages, motels, and other structures that were built before the zoning code was enacted and converted to housing. The proposed change would “send the wrong message to the community,” he said.

Zachary Cohen, also of Springs, wondered whether the cost of creating an affordable apartment could, in some cases, exceed the income it would provide (there is a town-imposed cap on affordable rents). Permits for apartments in detached structures, he said, should remain in effect only if the apartments are actually rented; if they remain unused for a period of time, he said, the permit should be rescinded.

A provision in the law requiring homeowners who add affordable apartments to be full-time, year-round residents might work against their creation, Mr. Cohen said. People who go away for the winter, for example, “are the same people,” he said, who are likely to build such apartments, if they could meet the town’s rules.

“We definitely have an affordable housing problem that affects local businesses like mine,” said Pat Trunzo, a builder and a former town councilman. “If you lose too much of the local community, do you still have a community?”

“Meeting the town’s affordable housing needs has got to be a public-private partnership,” said Catherine Casey, who works in that very capacity as executive director of the East Hampton Housing Authority. An assortment of housing programs is necessary, she said.

But, said Jim McMillan, a real estate broker from Amagansett, “on properties of under an acre, I think it’s really a mistake to go this route, even though we do need it.” He expressed concern about increased density on small lots, increased septic flow, and the impact on neighbors.

According to the Suffolk Health Department, Ms. Casey noted, when housing increases to more than four bedrooms per lot, an upgraded septic system is required.

Jeanne Frankl of Amagansett, who helped draft the affordable housing recommendations as part of the town committee, said there had been a “careful balancing . . . done in putting forth this legislation,” taking the factors mentioned by speakers into consideration. “There is nothing that was mentioned here that wasn’t carefully weighed,” she said. The character of the community will change, she said, “unless we make these compromises that will have to be made to get some affordable housing.” 

At the suggestion of Councilwoman Kathee Burke-Gonzalez, the town board kept the record open on the affordable apartment law change, for written comments only, until next Thursday.