After detecting heightened levels of blue-green algae during routine testing of Georgica Pond, the East Hampton Town Trustees agreed Thursday evening to temporarily prohibit shellfishing or fishing in the pond and have advised those who use the pond to take precautions when doing so.

"While the toxins at this site are at low levels, preventative measures for all users of the pond should include not swimming or wading near blooms of surface scum, not drinking the water, keeping children and pets away from blooms and scum, [and] rinsing with clean water if exposed," the trustees wrote in a letter to the Georgica Pond Homeowners Association, baymen, and the general public.

Last year, the trustees began testing for water quality and toxic algal blooms in Georgica and other town water bodies. "The results in 2013 had no high levels of toxicity" in Georgica, the trustees wrote Thursday. "However, as of today, July 24, 2014, one sample from Eel Cove tested slightly above the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation level for 'blue-green' algae."

In D.E.C. testing this year, blue-green algae blooms have also been found in Big Reed Pond in Montauk and Lake Agawam and Wickapogue Pond in Southampton, the latter of which had a high level of toxins at the last D.E.C. sampling on July 15, according to the agency's website.

Blue-green algae is the common name for cyanobacteria, which "are naturally present in lakes and streams in low numbers," according to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, but can form harmful algal blooms under the right conditions, typically in "nutrient-rich waters" during "hot, calm weather." They produce "toxins that can be harmful to people and animals," the D.E.C. says. Cyanobacteria can "discolor the water or produce floating rafts or scums on the surface of the water," according to the website for the New York State Department of Health.

While there is no data confirming that shellfish, such as crabs, or other marine species in the pond would be affected by the bloom or that consuming that shellfish or fish would be unsafe, the trustees "determined it is in the best interest of the public" to close the pond to shellfishing and fishing until at least Aug. 12.

"Rest assured," the trustees' letter says, "mitigation and/or removal practices are and will continue to be discussed by the board of trustees. Unfortunately, there is no quick fix for the toxic or macro algae blooms. However, although no direct link has been defined yet, we encourage all home and property owners surrounding the pond to look at their own upland practices (i.e. aging septic systems, fertilizer use, lack of natural shoreline vegetation) to reduce the risk and potential for blooms in the future."

The landlord of a summer rental in Springs pleaded guilty Thursday to 14 felony charges stemming from his use of surveillance cameras to spy on his tenants.

Donald J. Torr, 70, of Celebration, Fla., placed 15 cameras around the his rental property on Winterberry Lane, according to Daniel Justus Solinsky of Salenger, Sack, Kimmel, and Bavaro, an attorney for one of the families victimized by Mr. Torr. Mr. Solinsky spoke last year after Mr. Torr was indicted by a grand jury in Riverside. The family is suing Mr. Torr, as is another family that he admitted to spying on.

Mr. Torr’s wife, Astrid Torr, has been named as a co-defendant in the civil suits, which are in federal court, but was not charged with any crimes by Suffolk County. East Hampton Town police, along with Suffolk County detectives, began investigating the house in the summer of 2012 after receiving reports from one of the two families now suing Mr. Torr that they had discovered a hidden surveillance camera. The house was rented out during summer seasons for $6,500 a week.

In addition to 14 counts of unlawful surveillance in the second degree, a felony charge, Mr. Torr also pleaded guilty Thursday to 9 counts of misdemeanor endangering the welfare of a child. The unlawful surveillance charge is brought when police believe that a defendant has taped or viewed private acts of an intimate nature with no legitimate purpose for doing so. The renters included nine children, leading to the nine misdemeanor charges.

Mr. Torr, formerly of Montauk, has appeared 17 times in Supreme Court Justice Barbara Kahn’s courtroom. Her court handles cases involving East End felony sex crimes. Mr. Torr has undergone court-ordered psychiatric examinations, but the results of those examinations have not been released.

He is the former owner of the Crow’s Nest in Montauk. During a recess at a recent court appearance, he spoke nostalgically of fishing off Duryea’s dock when he was young, using scrap lobster pieces given to him by workers at the dock as bait. He is scheduled to be sentenced on Sept. 18.

 A 17-year-old was helicoptered to Stony Brook University Hospital Sunday evening after falling off a Jet Ski in the waters of North Haven Bay.

“There were three people on the same Jet Ski,” Albert Tuzzolo, Southampton Town’s Senior Bay Constable said Tuesday. “The passenger on the rear,” Penelope Heller, “fell off. The other two on the Jet Ski recovered her,” he said, and brought her to shore. There, she was aided by Sag Harbor Ambulance personnel and Southampton Town police and eventually flown to the hospital for treatment. She has since been released.

Two people reportedly fell three stories into a basement when scaffolding collapsed at a construction site in Montauk on Wednesday afternoon.

Both people were flown to Stony Brook University Hospital.

The accident was reported at 11 Wills Point Road in Culloden Point at 2:51 p.m. 

One Medevac helicopter, based in Westhampton, landed at the nearby Montauk firehouse on Flamingo Road. The second helicopter, which flew from Islip, was meeting a Montauk ambulance at the East Hampton Airport. 

The Montauk Fire Department's heavy rescue squad was called to help remove the patients from the basement. The height of the fall could not immediately be confirmed.

A Central Islip man was arrested in downtown Montauk on Friday morning, charged by East Hampton Town police with exposing himself.

Charles J. Porter, who was said to be walking along the beach in street clothes with his fly open, was arrested at about 9 a.m. and arraigned in East Hampton Town Justice Court shortly after.

Mr. Porter, 38, told Justice Steven Tekulsky he was in Montauk “looking for new property to own.” The charge against him is considered a simple violation.

“This is an allegation, but if it does happen to be true, do not do it again,” Justice Tekulsky told him, setting bail at $150, which he posted.

Justice Tekulsky’s warning apparently did not make an impression, according to the police. At about 2:15 that afternoon, Sag Harbor police received a report of “a white male in a blue blazer and blue jeans walking on Long Wharf with his penis hanging out of his pants.”

Arrested for the second time in five hours, Mr. Porter was charged with public lewdness, a misdemeanor. At his arraignment in Sag Harbor Village Justice Court, Justice Andrea Schiavoni set bail at $2,500.

Unable to make bail, Mr. Porter was taken to the county jail in Riverside, where he was being held until his next court appearance.

A paid paramedic working for the Amagansett Fire Department has been recognized for the care he gave a heart attack patient earlier this month.

A 66-year-old man, whose name was not released, called 911 on the morning of July 9 complaining of chest pain, nausea, and profuse perspiration — classic signs of a heart attack in men — after going on a 12-mile bicycle ride.

Nick Calace was on duty that day, and arrived to evaluate the patient’s condition within four minutes of the call. Following his protocols, he assessed the man with the help of a mobile electrocardiograph and defibrillator, which the paramedics carry with them in Amagansett’s first-responder vehicles.

In a letter to the Amagansett Board of Fire Commissioners, Jade Fallon, one of the new program’s supervisors, wrote that Mr. Calace “quickly identified the patient was having a heart attack in an area of the heart we call ‘The Widowmaker.’ Death to this part of the heart frequently results in cardiac arrest.”

The paramedic transmitted the EKG results to Stony Brook University Hospital, and doctors decided the patient should be airlifted to the hospital, which has a cardiac catheterization laboratory for treatments he would not be able to receive at Southampton Hospital. The patient was alert and conscious. As Mr. Calace prepared the man for transport, he took a second 12-lead EKG, which showed the situation was rapidly worsening.

“In my opinion we had the first great success of the program,” Ms. Fallon wrote. “Nick’s rapid response and treatment likely saved this man’s life. A proud day for us all.”

The staff at the “cath lab” at Stony Brook agreed. Pamela Kostic, a registered nurse and chest pain coordinator, thanked the ambulance team for “saving this man’s life” in a letter sent to the Amagansett Fire Department the next day. “Performing the second EKG and transmitting both made the difference for him and his family. The Cath Lab staff have been praising your department all day,” Ms. Kostic wrote.

Mr. Calace, 23, has been working as a paramedic for two years and was a critical care technician for two years before that. A Hampton Bays resident, he also works for the East Hampton Village Ambulance Association and the Southampton Village Volunteer Ambulance.

He was among the advanced life support personnel, necessary in major trauma or heart attack calls, hired by the Amagansett Fire District this spring when the district instituted a paid emergency medical service program. (Basic emergency medical technicians do not have the same skills and cannot use the same equipment.) District commissioners budgeted $150,000 for the program.

“The program basically paid for itself in one save,” said Dwayne Denton, chief of the Amagansett Fire Department.

The board of fire commissioners congratulated Mr. Calace immediately upon hearing of the save. “By this happening, we accomplished what we set out to do — protect our local community the best we could. That’s why we’re so thrilled,” said Daniel R. Shields II, its chairman.

At the launch of Amagansett’s program, paid personnel worked from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. From May 15 to Sept. 15, a paid provider answers calls 24 hours a day. The district had been without advanced life-support services since December.

Volunteers continue to drive the ambulance and to offer basic life support. Mr. Shields said the paid personnel and the volunteers are “intermixing well. It’s actually working out beautiful. Everybody’s getting along.”

The battle over Cyril’s Fish House, a popular summer bar and restaurant on Napeague, is over as far as its 2014 season goes, but the larger question of whether businesses can be operated in areas zoned for residential use if they have expanded their use, as East Hampton Town alleges Cyril’s has, remains up in the air.

The testimony phase of a hearing on whether to grant the town an injunction,   pending trial in the lawsuit the town brought against Cyril’s owners came to an end on July 15 in State Supreme Court. Justice Joseph Farneti  gave each side until Aug. 22 to file briefs and until Aug. 29, three days before Labor Day, to respond to them. If, as Joseph Prokop, the attorney for the town, said last April, “With these defendants, the goal every day is just get to the next day,” Conrad Jordan and Dianne Le Verrier of the law firm representing the owners, have accomplished just that.

No matter which way Justice Farneti rules on an injunction, the season will be largely over when his decision is issued. That makes it is more likely than ever that the case will go to a full trial, with the three weeks the two sides spent sparring at the hearing likely to serve as practice session for the real battle.

The town seeks to force Cyril’s to remove structures and operate as it existed in 1984. If the town had obtained an injunction earlier, Cyril’s would have had to demolish parts of the structure, or shut down in the middle of the season. Mr. Prokop tried to establish during the hearing, which stretched over three weeks, that the roadside bar, just south of the main building, did not exist in 1984 and that the restaurant had expanded by constructing the bar and other additions.

At the session on July 7, Mr. Prokop was able to introduce an aerial photograph that appears to substantiate the town’s claim of expansion. However, Mr. Jordan made the argument the photograph was deceptive in that it was taken from an oblique angle, and he introduced Xeroxed images of three other photographs, from the town fire marshal’s archives, which he claimed proved otherwise. Mr. Jordan had received them by subpoena, along with some 20 other documents, which he put into evidence. Also put on the stand on behalf of the town by Mr. Prokop was William Walsh, who surveyed the property in 1984 when the business was known as Skipper’s Gallery, and again in 1990, after it had become Cyril Fitzsimons’s operation. Mr. Jordan did not call any witnesses.

Televised meetings would greatly benefit the East Hampton Town Trustees, a resident and frequent visitor to that body’s twice-monthly gatherings urged on Tuesday.

Diana Walker of Amagansett continued a campaign to persuade the trustees to install video equipment at the Lamb Building in Amagansett, where they meet. She spoke after the body concluded the latest discussion with a Louse Point, Springs, property owner who is among four applicants seeking to protect their properties by installing a rock revetment to stabilize the toe of the bluffs facing Gardiner’s Bay.

The exchanges with Ms. Walker and the property owner, John Mullen, illustrated the trustees’ multiple frustrations. On one side, they feel that their ongoing efforts to protect the public’s access to beaches, which the trustees manage on the public’s behalf, is under constant attack by shoreline property owners who install hard structures on the beach, which the trustees assert is counterproductive and in fact erodes coastline. On another, they feel constrained by an inadequate budget and a dismissive attitude toward their jurisdiction among town officials and the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation.

Ms. Walker called the discussion with Mr. Mullen, in which the trustees proposed a compromise that would allow a hard structure along part of the 560 feet of shoreline in question, “an incredibly valuable conversation.” The debate, she said, was “another argument for revisiting your resistance to being televised. . . . I gather that the budget is not an issue.”

Deborah Klughers, a trustee who works for LTV, the town’s public access channel, told Ms. Walker that, while the prior town board negotiated a contract with LTV that would allow for televised trustee meetings, “I was told it was $50,000 to do two cameras and a rack of equipment. . . . The money to wire this room, to properly install cameras and equipment, is not in anyone’s budget.”

“If you have some real interest, then it’s your challenge on behalf of your constituency” to find the resources, Ms. Walker said.

Tim Bock, a trustee, asked if she was suggesting that taxpayers shoulder the cost.

“Absolutely,” she said, “because you’re representatives of the taxpayers.”

To illustrate her point, she told the trustees that she had discontinued her use of the herbicide Roundup as a result of the body’s discussions at a prior meeting. “The point is, if you’re interested — because there seems to be a perception that you’re not — that is an argument to make this happen.”

But there are other factors, said Stephanie Forsberg, a trustee. She has urged the town to make the trustees’ clerk a full-time paid position with a salary comparable to those of the town government’s department heads. At the same time, she said, the trustees’ budget is better allocated to programs such as the water-quality testing they initiated last year. Further, the purchase and installation of equipment would be wasteful if the town board decided to move the trustees’ meetings elsewhere.

“We would love everyone to be educated as to what we’re discussing,” Dr. Forsberg told Ms. Walker. “But right now . . . we’re literally fighting for $1,000 here, $500 there. We would like help with the hundreds of thousands in our legal fees.” The trustees are often in litigation with shoreline property owners over the installation of hard structures on the beach.

But televising their meetings, Ms. Walker said, “is going to validate the trustees in the future in terms of outreach, of ‘They really are important and we must lobby the powers that be.’ ”

Diane McNally, the trustees’ clerk, said that they would consider televising their proceedings “when we have the funds . . . when we’re going to be presented professionally.”

“Don’t lose your sense of mission about how important it is to educate us,” Ms. Walker pleaded. “Don’t give up on it, ’cause I ain’t gonna.”

The trustees discussed their Aug. 13 budget meeting with town officials. Ms. McNally said that she would ask for an increase in excess of 2 percent over their 2014 budget of $251,456. “I am going to ask for $50,000 in legal fees,” she said, noting that the body has already paid its legal representatives more than $100,000 in 2014.

“Think about the support the town gives us in fighting these legal suits,” Ms. Klughers said to her colleagues. “Is that moral support? Show me the money.”

A Montauk property owner is challenging a town ban on some erosion-control measures in the hope of saving his blufftop house.

A proposed revetment to protect John Ryan’s house overlooking the ocean received a rocky reception on July 15 at an East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals hearing that lasted until midnight.

Mr. Ryan and his representatives told the board that if it did not approve his request, his house would soon topple into the ocean. Opponents warned that approval would be tantamount to the destruction of the Montauk oceanfront.

One major impediment for Mr. Ryan is that his revetment is proposed for an area in which the town has banned such structures since 2007.

Despite the fact that the hearing ran four and a half hours, it was not nearly enough time for board members to wade through the volume of testimony and documents they received. The hearing was left open and will be continued on Aug. 12.

Mr. Ryan’s proposal calls for a 185-foot-long stone revetment at the bottom of an earthen-clay 40-foot-tall bluff facing the ocean on the western edge of the Shadmoor State Park and Rheinstein Town Park. All parties who spoke on July 15 agree that the bluff, which runs almost two miles between Ditch Plain and the downtown Montauk area, has been collapsing into the ocean at the rate of several feet a year.

The revetment would be 15 to 25 feet wide, according to a memo to the board prepared by Brian Frank, the head environmentalist for the East Hampton Planning Department, and would wrap around an extra 40 feet to connect to another revetment.

Mr. Frank told the zoning board that the proposal was contrary not only to the town code, but to the comprehensive plan, which was adopted in 2005, and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan.

The new structure would be composed of “armor stones four or five tons each to an elevation of 22 feet above sea level, with 10-to-12-ton armor stones at its base, and 250 cubic yards of imported sand.” All this would be brought to the site by trucks entering the beach at the South Essex Street cut at the western edge of downtown Montauk.

Mr. Ryan’s nearly one-acre property is at the end of Surfside Avenue and contains a 1,800-square-foot, two-story house.

He needs a permit to build the structure at the bluff face as well as a variance to build a structure that is prohibited by town code.

This is the second time in three years that Mr. Ryan has been in front of the zoning board asking for a revetment. In 2011, a previous board approved a 100-foot-long, 10-foot-wide stone structure designed to control the water flow in a gully at the eastern edge of Mr. Ryan’s property. The key difference is that the earlier revetment was not designed to interact with the ocean, but to control erosion of the gully wall.

Mr. Ryan’s house has already been moved once and there is nowhere else to move it, his engineer, Drew Bennett, told the board. “Retreat is no longer an option,” Mr. Bennett said.

He told the board that his client plans to truck in 45 cubic yards of sand every year to replenish the beach.

“I’m sure the board is afraid of setting precedent, but our situation is unique,” Mr. Bennett said.

Mr. Ryan spoke as did his representatives, Larry Penny, an environmental consultant who had been the town’s director of natural resources when Mr. Ryan’s earlier revetment was approved, and Mr. Ryan’s attorney, Anthony Pasca of Esseks, Hefter and Angel.

Precedent was only one of the concerns expressed by three of the four zoning board members who will vote on the application. Lee White, who lives in Montauk, recused himself from the hearing as he had from the 2011 deliberations. Only he and Don Cirillo were on the board three years ago when the earlier revetment was considered.

Mr. Cirillo, while not expressing outright support, has in the past supported property owners’ efforts to protect their houses from the ravages of nature, a sentiment he expressed again on July 15. The variance request requires at least three yes votes if it is to be approved.

“Can you assure that public access will always be guaranteed?” David Lys, another board member, asked Mr. Bennett. Mr. Bennett said he did not believe the project threatens public access, but opponents felt differently.

Speaking against the project were Michael Bottini, chairman of the Eastern Long Island chapter of the Surfrider Foundation; Jay Levine, a member of that organization; Thomas B. Muse, a neighbor and Surfrider member; Robert DeLuca, president of Group for the East End; Jeremy Samuelson, director of Concerned Citizens of Montauk, and Carl Irace, an attorney for C.C.O.M. Mr. Irace was the zoning board’s attorney in 2011. Before the meeting, the board had received letters of opposition from Dr. Stephen P. Leatherman, an environmental consultant known as “Dr. Beach,” and M. Pamela Otis, director of environmental management for the New York State Office of Parks, which oversees Shadmoor State Park.

The speakers expressed a chorus of concern over the massive proposed project, frequently echoing and underscoring each other’s arguments. They all agreed that public beach access would likely disappear as a result of the project. Right now, the sand and rocks beneath the bluff serve as a corridor for beachgoers walking between downtown Montauk and Ditch Plain. More importantly, emergency rescue teams use the corridor, they said.

“Lifeguards as well as the town marine patrols traverse this section of beach,” Mr. Bottini said. “It seems incongruous to us that the construction of a revetment to protect a house could be more important than the safety patrols on the beach to protect people.” Mr. Muse and Mr. Irace echoed that point.

Mr. Cirillo argued that to an extent all this traffic was trespassing on Mr. Ryan’s property, when it is north of the median high-water mark.

“It should come as no surprise that other homeowners will be lining up,” Mr. Levine said about the wave of requests that the board would likely receive if it grants the variances requested.

Mr. DeLuca warned, as did Mr. Frank, that the proposed revetment would be the first in about a mile in either direction. “How will this structure impact neighboring properties, and what precedent will it set?” Mr. DeLuca asked.

 The overriding concern of all speaking in opposition was the scouring and erosion they said would be the inevitable aftermath of the revetment.

Mr. DeLuca reminded the board of William Rudin’s attempt to break the impact of the ocean with a steel cofferdam installed in 1998 in Sagaponack. Many blamed it for severe erosion during a series of fall and winter storms that followed and said it had caused the scouring of the beach on either side of it and contributed to the loss of dunes protecting Scott Cameron Beach.

“The ocean had a different idea,” Mr. DeLuca said. “The whole thing collapsed.”

“Where you see a structure end, you will see scour,” Mr. Frank said.

Mr. Bennett told the board that the revetment would not cause scouring, because it was tapered at its ends. Both Cate Rogers, a board member, and John Whelan, the chairman, were skeptical. Mr. Whelan pointed out that the erosion was even worse on the western side of Mr. Ryan’s property. The revetment, he said, “would make a peninsula of Mr. Ryan’s property.”

The revetment is designed to deal with northeasters, Mr. Bennett said, adding that major storms would upset the placement of the massive stones, which would then have to be moved back into position. All this movement of multi-ton stones underneath a fragile clay bluff brought out questions of worker safety from board members and project opponents alike.

Ms. Rogers asked if a soft solution not involving stones had been considered. Mr. Pasca said that the collapsing bluff had been, in effect, a soft solution, a notion Ms. Rogers took exception to. “I’m going to stop you there. I don’t know how sand randomly falling can be compared to a coastal restoration project,” she said.

Mr. Samuelson concluded, as many of the opponents did, that at the least, the project should fall under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, which would trigger a need for a study on its environmental impact. “Approval would be a travesty,” he said. “At a minimum, seek an environmental statement. At a maximum, you have enough now to deny.”

Mr. Pasca emphasized the need for speed, either way, in the process. Mr. Cirillo urged that the hearing’s second round be scheduled for what would normally be a work session, Aug. 12, and his fellow board members agreed.

Self-employed contractors and tradesmen who work during the day at customers’ houses and return home at night with their trucks and equipment helped fill Town Hall to standing-room capacity last Thursday night, protesting a new law that would restrict the parking of their commercial vehicles on residential streets. Most if not all of them were from Springs.

Many residents of the hamlet turned out as well, in support of the proposed law. Residents have complained that all kinds of landscaping trucks, trailers, dump trucks, box trucks, and the like are being parked, often several at a time, on small lots or narrow streets, impacting property values and causing dangerous traffic conditions.

Plumbers, carpenters, and others whose trades require practical, spacious vehicles and lots of tools acknowledged those legitimate concerns but urged members of the East Hampton Town Board to address only the number of vehicles they can park at their houses, not what kind. The proposed restriction, which targets large trailers, box trucks, dump trucks, modified trucks with rear beds taller or wider than the cab, and any vehicle over 12,000 pounds gross weight, threatens their livelihoods and a common way of making a living that is traditional in the town, they said.

Patrick Brabant described the impact that news of the proposed regulations has had on many workmen. “You get upset, you get sick . . . You think about your life, and what are you going to do to take care of your kids,” he said. “I don’t think any of us here purposely has a trashy yard if they own their home.”

Mr. Brabant also addressed the expectation that small, sole-proprietor businesses would naturally move to a commercially zoned home base after they got established. “I’m a mom-and-pop,” he said, “and you know what, some of us don’t want to get bigger. We like, at 3:30 or 4:30, to go to the ball game and play with our kids, and enjoy our kids. This is our home; this isn’t a second home.”

He had rented a commercial site for a time, he said, but abandoned that idea after his trailer, filled with tools, was stolen — twice — leaving him out $24,000 of equipment. Now, he said, he keeps everything at his house. As for building a garage to stow some of the work gear, he said that it would increase his property tax, and taxes are already high in Springs.

“You are outlawing Bub trucks,” he added about the flatbed trucks traditionally used by locals. “Every 18-year-old had one . . . I know Fred had one,” he said, gesturing toward Councilman Fred Overton.

Other speakers agreed that even if the town were to create commercial truck parking areas, they needed instant access to their vehicles, and said security would be a concern.

“Let’s try to correct the flagrant part of it,” said James Schoenster, a plumber who has several trucks of a size that would be outlawed at residences. He himself has a two-acre property, he said, and is able to park them out of sight. “I don’t run a business there. I drive my truck home, I park it there.” Existing codes outlawing businesses in residential areas have not been well enforced, he added.

Adam Osterweil, who has posted a You-Tube video of the activities in a neighboring yard, vividly described his problem. “A full-size construction company moved into the house next to me,” he said. The constant activity, including large trucks beeping while backing up, has been “an absolute nightmare,” he said.

Mr. Osterweil described his neighbor as a “family guy” whom he had been reluctant to cause problems for, expecting that he would soon move the business elsewhere. Finally, he said, he approached the man about moving it to a commercial property. “But he told me it would be a waste of money.” Because the town code does not currently define which commercial vehicles are allowed in residential zones, Mr. Osterweil said, it took ordinance enforcement officers about a year to gather evidence for a case against the neighbor. He was recently cited in zoning court.

David Buda, a Springs resident who has been photographing properties where commercial trucks are parked and sending emails to a wide list of contacts to illustrate examples of what he says is an egregious problem, displayed more photos at the hearing. “These are examples of things that are going on in a residential community, that never should have been there,” he said. “We need to rein it back in.”

No one, he said, is “trying to displace . . . the skilled tradesmen that are the backbone of the community.” Numerous types of work vehicles could still be parked overnight at houses under the proposed law, he said.

Home-based businesses “should be the exception,” said Sandy Camillo. “It is not the obligation of the other residential homeowners to justify why the residential zoning should be upheld.”

David Harry grew emotional while describing how the proposed law would affect him. “I have a knot in my stomach,” he began. Mr. Harry said that he had, with great effort, purchased his own box truck for his work as a pool company employee so that he could have a safe vehicle to drive and a place to store his tools. But, he said, “I’m going to be turned into a criminal as a result of these proceedings. It’s not fair.” People who come to East Hampton to retire or who do not have to work, he said, don’t understand the challenges and needs of a working person. “Enforce the laws that are in place; don’t penalize the workers,” he told the town board.

“It’s about respect,” said David Wagner, the president of the Clearwater Beach Association. “Respect for your neighbor; respect for the town. Those who would disrupt a residential neighborhood for selfish monetary reasons should not be permitted to continue.”

Phyllis Italiano said there had been a “gradual but noticeable deterioration” of her neighborhood in Springs, but that she opposes the law as written. “You can do better than this,” she told the board.

“We allow four people to have a house together, and these days, all could be tradespeople,” said Zachary Cohen.

“I am interested in preserving the ability of people to work out of their houses,” said Tom Knobel, to applause.  The law, he said, would have “an enormous financial impact on a lot of people.”

“One of the big problems in the law is, there is no reference to the size of the property, or the type of disruption,” Mr. Knobel continued. “If it’s tucked away out of sight and out of mind, what’s the harm?”

“Clearly, equal in your mind should be the working-class people that live in the town,” said Lona Rubenstein.

“It’s our livelihood; it’s our life,” said Rossano Berti. “I’ve got a wife and four kids, and I’ve got to work my butt off all day every day just to cover a mortgage, equity line, and their needs.” Renting a commercial site, he said, “is just too much.”

“You shouldn’t all of a sudden come up with a rule because people don’t want to see trucks,” he told the board. “You should be able to keep some things on your property if you have discretion and you’re not bothering anybody.”

Justin Leland said small businesses “operate on very little margin.” To have to rent commercial space would “put a great additional strain on these local businesses, on these sole proprietorships that this town was built on,” he said.

“People who say they should be able to make a living at their homes — why have residential zoning?” Carol Buda asked. “Those who have abused the system,” she said, “have had a devastating impact on property values and neighborhood life. We have anarchy. Many people are struggling to make a living in East Hampton,” she said. “What about sympathy for us?”

“There’s no question that there should be a law that gives residential zones protection from commercial parking,” said Margaret Turner, who heads the East Hampton Business Alliance. However, she said, town officials “have no idea how many vehicles this would displace, or where they will go,” so a business-needs study should be conducted first.

“Right now there isn’t enough commercial space,” Keith Ellis said. “People can’t afford the commercial space that’s there. Or are these guys just supposed to join the ‘trade parade’?”

“This is a hard issue,” said Nan French, “because there are so many people who have businesses from their homes, and they’re not disturbing their neighbors.” She said there had been “really good points” made at the lengthy hearing.

Last week’s hearing was the first time the town board has heard publicly from many of those who would be most affected by the proposed law. The town code currently allows the overnight parking of a “light truck” at a residence, apparently as a way to distinguish between the types of pickups often used as personal vehicles and the larger types of work trucks for business use.

However, because “light truck” is not defined by the code, officials have been unable to stem that tide. Conducting a business in a residential zone is clearly prohibited, though, with the exception of a few low-intensity “home businesses.”

At the close of the hearing, during which Supervisor Larry Cantwell repeatedly solicited specific information from many of the tradesmen about their practices and concerns, the board voted to leave the record open for two weeks for additional written comment.