Springs has become the focus of a debate about commercial vehicles parked on house lots, but the issue, which the East Hampton Town Board will take up in passing tonight, is far more wide-ranging than how large a dump truck (or two) can be left under one’s bedroom windows overnight.

    This evening’s hearing, at 7 in Town Hall, will sample public opinion on the narrow question of a gap in the town code regarding work vehicles. Some residents have objected to a proposal to allow two trucks of up to 14,000 pounds gross vehicle weight each to be left on residential property.

    These Class-3 trucks are considered “light duty” by federal regulators and typically include dump bodies and delivery vehicles. No special license is required to drive them. However, they are well above the weight limits set in some municipalities for residential roads. For that reason, allowing two of them on house lots seems overly generous.

    Conversely, a related move, banning the parking of commercially registered vehicles of any weight on town roadways in residential areas between midnight and 6 a.m. goes too far. An unintended consequence might be to legislate out of existence those commercial fishermen who are dependent on keeping boats, trailers, and gear at home. As proposed, many other residents with commercial license plates on their day-to-day pickups could find themselves ticketed.

    In place of the two-truck resolution, the town should limit the allowable vehicles left on private property to those of no more than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight — Class 2 — and likewise ban on-street parking in residential zones only of vehicles of that weight or more. The gross weight limit should also apply to recreational vehicles. It would be unfair if, for example, someone could store a heavier camper at home, but a neighbor with a similarly hefty work truck were forced to find somewhere else to leave it.

    Vehicles, however, are not the real issue; the commercial use of residential property is. This larger issue — the for-profit use of house lots for a whole range of businesses — is one the board does not appear to want to touch. One or two trucks parked somewhere overnight does not a crisis make; properties turned into staging areas for landscapers and builders can be a genuine problem for neighbors. Then, too, the board should also consider more closely the widespread enlarging of businesses such as restaurants and bars that predate zoning bans on them near houses. These are far more quality-of-life threats.

    The Army Corps of Engineers’ options for downtown Montauk and its beaches are just not good enough and will only pass the problem on to future leaders and generations. Moreover, the prospect of a multimillion-dollar undertaking using money approved by Congress for Hurricane Sandy relief gives rise to questions about the ethical, perhaps even legal, basis on which the plans are based.

    Even though the Army Corps is under the impression that East Hampton has reached agreement on how to proceed, it is critical to understand that there is no consensus here about what to do. The town board has not voted, nor has there been much official discussion. If there is to be public participation in decision-making, residents must demand loudly to be heard. And be heard they must. Simply hoping elected officials will come to their senses is not enough. The only sensible path is to slow down and call in the most qualified independent planning and coastal-process experts. There is no indication that town officials are considering this, which makes public pressure downtown Montauk’s only hope.

    The fault is not necessarily with the Army Corps; it does what it was set up to do, that is, build walls — and sometimes not all that well. Rather it is a long-term failure of vision and guts. This is made worse by local officials’ being sold on a wrong-headed direction by those who stand to benefit economically. What is needed is not advice from those who know how to move sand around, but top-level community planners able to re-envision the area so that it will be both commercially viable and resilient to the sea for a generation or more.

    Downtown Montauk’s problems have their origin in the ur-developer Carl Fisher’s ill-fated decision to site the commercial center of the hamlet where it should not have been. The hotels and shops are on a low, narrow isthmus between the ocean and Fort Pond. Indeed, a motorist on the Montauk Highway today can look toward the Atlantic and see breaking waves at tire level. It was a dumb place to put a commercial center in the first place and the choice seems all the more foolish now, knowing what we do about the shore.

    Montauk’s predicament is also not really the result of Hurricane Sandy, Hurricane Irene, or any of the recent years’ northeasters. In fact, the landward migration of the shoreline has gone on more or less unimpeded for decades. Nonetheless, Montauk restoration would share in the money Congress appropriated for hurricane relief. It is troubling to reflect on this at a time when other areas suffered far more serious losses during Sandy, leaving many people broke, still without homes, or inadequately compensated by flood insurance.

    What should have been an important basis for the proposed work — an economic assessment prepared at Town Supervisor Bill Wilkinson’s behest — is an amateurish, overstated hodgepodge without meaningful citations to back up its claims. And, worse, the supervisor has refused to make it available to those who have asked. From a copy we have seen, it appears the report was written by the First Coastal Corporation, which specializes in beach engineering projects and, as such, is hardly a disinterested party.

    Other attempts at backroom dealing have poisoned much support for the process. As it turned out, Mr. Wilkinson agreed only begrudgingly to allow residents to attend a recent presentation by the Army Corps, preferring, by his own admission, to be briefed privately.

    East Hampton Town cannot evade the question of whether it is appropriate for United States taxpayers’ money granted for Sandy relief to be used on what is essentially a false premise. At the very least, East Hampton owes it both to Congress and the American people to make sure that the millions in aid is spent responsibly. It would be deeply embarrassing, even immoral, if, 10 or 20 years from now, the town again had its hand out, essentially conceding that it failed the first time around.

    To be clear: Unless the public is ready to pay for expensive and unending sand-pumping from offshore sources, seawalls will inevitably result in the loss of the beach. By definition, seawalls are only installed in areas subject to beach loss; no one would bother otherwise. And without sand replenishment, there will be no beach. Take a look, for example, at the illegally expanded rock edifice defending the Montauk Shores Condominium just east of Ditch Plain. The result has been the loss of free passage along the shore — something that is supposed to be assured by the state’s public trust doctrine.

    If there ever was a moment to think big, this is it. Montauk’s long-term solution could well include a combination of approaches, including one that has not been mentioned so far. This would be for the town to creatively use the power of eminent domain to remove the first row of downtown Montauk’s residences and outdated hotels, and to give their owners the right to rebuild inland, in particular on the second block in from the beach.

    Consider that much of this area contains vacant or underutilized lots; one even has been given over to a municipal rest room. But wait, you say, what about the businesses already there? There is an answer for that, too. The owners of these retail properties could return to their original locations in new, modern spaces on the ground floors of the rebuilt hotel and residential complexes, all of which would be built to the highest hurricane-proofing standards and environmentally sustainable design.

    In the place of the former first row of developed properties, the Army Corps could build a high, protective dune, to be crossed at reasonable distances by walkways from an elevated boardwalk linking the new commercial downtown to a wide, gorgeous beach. It would be, in fact, somewhat like what Fisher had envisioned in his 1920s master plan, only this time taking the ocean’s ongoing threat into account.

    Conceding that this is a back-of-the-napkin concept, we nonetheless believe that such a radical project would buy not just 10 or 20 years’ protection at an ongoing and unknowable cost, but perhaps 50 or 75 years or more at an initially high, but limited cost. It would, frankly, be better for all parties concerned, not the least of whom would be tomorrow’s taxpayers, who would not have to pay to forever dump sand on top of today’s mistakes.

    It could happen this way or it might take another direction, but it is up to residents to make sure that everyone understands the stakes. What needs to happen is a very focused and guided public identification of costs, impact on property owners and the environment, and long-term maintenance expenses followed by a clear, systematic articulation of the community’s agreed-upon goals — and only then a decision. Thinking small will produce no answers.

    Underlying Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s demand this week that the federal government investigate potential health effects and the environmental impact of the sale of Plum Island is a sense that the remarkable and history-filled isle should be preserved. This helps put necessary pressure on Washington to save the island as open space and help protect Long Island Sound.

    Congress decided about four years ago that the national animal disease laboratory there should be shuttered and a facility to expand its work built in Kansas. The General Services Administration said at the time that the island should be sold to help pay for the new lab. However, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, a number of private groups, and officials in Connecticut said that concerns about groundwater contamination and residual toxic waste should be resolved before the island was put up for bid. Southold Town, of which the 840-acre island is a part, recently outlawed residential development there. And for his part, Representative Tim Bishop said he is working in Congress to block the sale.

    Though those opposed to private development of Plum Island hailed the Southold Town Board’s unanimous decision to change its zoning, much risk remains. The main concern is that a future board could reverse the decision and pave the way for perhaps hundreds of houses and intensive ferry traffic, with harmful effects on migratory wildlife and surrounding waters.

    The precedents for public preservation of federal properties once used for military or research purposes are many and include Camp Hero State Park in Montauk. The transfer of Plum Island to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, an environmentally responsible entity, or even the State of New York would be the right choice.

    There was not much the Town of East Hampton could do other than reluctantly say yes when a Showtime television production company recently sought a permit for a week or so of taping for episodes of “The Affair” at the end of the month. This is despite conditions that many residents described as intolerable when the series’ pilot was filmed in Beach Hampton in September. Back for more, the company is to tape scenes in five locations in Montauk and at the Lobster Roll restaurant on Napeague through June 4.

    Fees for film and TV production permits were just raised by the town board, but the extra dollars will do little to head off disturbances to neighbors, residents, and others inconvenienced when the crew trucks roll in. Those in the business say that the money it brings should assuage local concerns, but in reality, that means next to nothing to those who may find themselves forced to stay up all night because of noise or lights streaming in their windows. Moreover, much of the money for catering and other supplies will be spent out of town, making its overall economic importance to East Hampton overstated.

    Along with other forms of the commercial use of private property here, which are coming under increased scrutiny, the town board should consider much stricter rules on when and where production can take place. One idea is a May-to-September ban, on the assumption this place is busy enough in season as it is. Elected officials need to remember that it is to residents first that they must respond. Everyone else, even if they come waving a Hollywood banner, must wait in line.

    Ian Calder-Piedmonte called it like it is at a recent meeting of the East Hampton Town Planning Board, of which he is a member, when it considered yet again a massive Amagansett housing complex. In response to an apparent, and repeated, threat by the project’s Connecticut-based developer to put up affordable workforce housing there, Mr. Calder Piedmonte said, “I’m not so sure that we should be afraid of affordable housing.”

    The site in question is a 23-plus-acre group of parcels just east of the Amagansett I.G.A. Its new owner envisions a 79-unit village of sorts, with restrictions so that only people of a certain age could buy in. Prices would range from apartments at $550,000 to more than a $1 million apiece for two-story, stand-alone houses. A big impediment stands in the way, however.

    Nowhere in the East Hampton Town Code is there accommodation for such a plan. Moreover, the town comprehensive plan, adopted into law in 2005, specifically forbids this level of intensive development for the property. In order to proceed, the project’s backers would have to get the town board to establish an entirely new zoning category. Doing so with a single proposal in mind would be illegal spot-zoning.

    While existing land-use categories can, and sometimes should, be amended due to changing conditions in a community, doing so in opposition to the framework laid down in a comprehensive plan is expressly prohibited. Given this, it is, frankly, ridiculous that town officials, including planning board members, have wasted any time on the 555 Montauk Highway II application at all. Several planning board members told the developer just that during the Sept. 11 meeting at which Mr. Calder-Piedmonte spoke. Their message was that the discussion was moot until the town board weighs in. But the buck cannot stop there.

    If nothing else, the idea of a new, high-end housing zone exclusively for wealthy older residents should be debated by the five candidates for East Hampton Town Board. It is too great a question to entrust the embittered, lame-duck Wilkinson majority with, we are afraid. Weakening the comprehensive plan to allow for greater residential density along the town’s sole major roadway is serious business and requires maximum public involvement. Nov. 5’s voting could be seen as a referendum on the concept if concerns about its legality could even be resolved by then and the question became a campaign issue.

    Perhaps the developer’s hidden agenda in asking for pie-in-the-sky and an extreme favor from the town board is to build public pressure for the land’s purchase using money from the community preservation fund. Otherwise, unless he thought the fix was in, why would he seek something both prohibited under current zoning and at odds with the comprehensive plan?

    If there is one thing almost everyone here agrees on, it is that East Hampton needs more decent housing for its working people to live in and raise their families. What it does not need is more luxury development. Town officials should call the developer’s bluff. The worst that could happen is that there would be affordable housing there, and, as Mr. Calder-Piedmonte essentially said, how bad would that be?

    Plans for downtown Montauk’s ocean shoreline are to be presented at East Hampton Town Hall today, and all concerned, particularly owners of properties to the west, should pay close attention.

    The Army Corps of Engineers is expected to present at least three options. In order of least to most disruptive, they are a sand-only beach replenishment proposal, an 11-foot-high stone seawall to be buried initially with sand, and a series of groins, also known as jetties, spanning more than a half mile. Money for the project would come from federal millions earmarked for Long Island in Hurricane Sandy relief. Work could begin as soon as next fall.

    Nowhere in the material that we have seen does the Army Corps offer the option that nearly all coastal experts recommend — a managed retreat from the shore. And this is a shame. Time and again, Army Corps projects have failed to adequately protect the broad public interest. Now its armor-first mentality threatens long-term destruction of the ocean beaches.

    The risk is real that federal funding will dwindle away over time, leaving local taxpayers responsible for the full cost of maintaining the expensive sand replenishment required under any of the Corps’ Montauk options. Consider that funding for work in the nearly 50-year-long Fire Island to Montauk Reformulation Study only came as an add-on to Congress’s post-Sandy handouts. One expects such largess to be available only once every couple of decades, leaving someone else on the hook for repetitive annual costs, in all likelihood. Backers of a special taxation district for Montauk sand replenishment know this, which is why, in one early iteration of their effort, they sought to impose a new tax on every property in the hamlet.

    Local support for anything the Corps promotes must be contingent on a full understanding of the costs involved, not in year 1, but for 10, 20, 30, or more years. Equally important will be for the Town of East Hampton to hire a team of independent experts to review all of the options before reaching a conclusion.

    In the rush for a solution, irreparable harm could be done to our most cherished public asset, the beaches. And, equally bad, future generations could be left paying for today’s mistakes. If ever there was a time to slow down and get it right, it is now.

    Today’s meeting is at 11 a.m. in Town Hall. All concerned about East Hampton’s future should be there.

-

An earlier version of this editorial said that the work could begin in December. An Army Corps public information spokesman said Thursday that the most-likely start date would be no earlier than the fall.

   Two of the biggest dance parties of the summer of 2013 used the names of legitimate charities improperly in order to help secure East Hampton Town permits. In July, the Shark Attack Sounds gathering claimed to be a benefit for the Montauk Playhouse Foundation, and in August, a for-profit bash at Albert’s Landing in Amagansett, billed as Electronic Beach, salted its town application with references to a New York organization. Neither charity was asked whether its name could be used. Moreover, when the Albert’s Landing party violated the terms of its improperly granted approval, there was no official mechanism to shut it down or hold its organizers responsible.

    These two parties are examples of an event-permit review process in East Hampton Town Hall that is badly in need of an overhaul. Applications are rushed through without adequate staff review or time to make sure they are on the up and up. And so many large assemblies are being held in the summer that it has become almost impossible for police and ordinance enforcers to keep up.

    After the fact, the promoters of Shark Attack Sounds gave $8,000 to the Montauk Playhouse. This sounds like a nice sum until you learn that tickets to the sold-out event netted about $175,000.

    It is not clear how much, if anything, the charity named in the Albert’s Landing event’s permit application received. And, while the Montauk event took place on private property in the evening, the Amagansett bash got going in early afternoon and by nightfall made even swimming in the bay there unbearable for residents.

    Looking into the latter incident recently, Dan Rattiner, the publisher of Dan’s Papers, was able to get in touch with the founder of Harlem Leadership and Lacrosse, who said he had not been asked by the Electronic Beach organizers for permission to use his organization’s name. In a letter he sent to Mr. Rattiner, Simon Cataldo explained that he was able to learn that someone who volunteers for the group had been invited to set up a table to seek donations while the party was going on. Mr. Cataldo said he did not condone any disruption that the party may have created, and “. . . should we ever receive a check from the organizers of the party, it will not be deposited.” It would not have been all that difficult for someone in Town Hall to have made a similar inquiry.

    Officials may protest that they have neither the time nor the authority to check the claims made on mass-gathering applications. While that may or may not be true, additional steps must be taken to assure that permits for large-scale events are no longer handed out based on fraudulent assertions — and that community concerns are taken into consideration.

    A start would be for the town to ask for statements on letterhead from the beneficiary organizations of for-profit parties and those on public property, including parks and beaches. Next, officials need to improve how application paperwork is routed among relevant departments, including getting a draft to the town board, which votes on such applications, earlier in the process. Also key will be at least doubling the minimum lead time between when a permit is submitted and when it is taken to the board.

    Mass-gathering permits have been handled in far too easy-going a manner heretofore, but the disruptions they can create for those who expect to be able to use and enjoy public property or their own backyards are anything but casual. Reform must begin now.

   One of the unfortunate aspects of a very strange time for the East Hampton Town Board is that the public — as well as the two minority party members — rarely know in advance what subjects will be discussed at meetings.

    Going back several years now, agendas for town board meetings, which are supposed to come from the office of the supervisor, have not been available until a scant few hours before their starting times. Oddly, however, annotated versions of upcoming meeting agendas have been circulated by Councilwoman Theresa Quigley from her private e-mail account rather than an official one.

    The agenda gap extends to other town entities, but not all; some manage to alert the public to what they are up to well in advance. The zoning board of appeals, whose procedures are set in detail by town and state law, does so, providing detailed explanations of meetings and hearings. In fact, the Z.B.A. is an example of how it could and should be done. On the other hand, the architectural review board and, surprising perhaps, the planning board make it difficult for laypersons to figure out what is coming up.

    East Hampton Town Clerk Fred Overton, who is running for a seat on the town board, knows about the agenda problem first-hand. His office is responsible for posting notices, notably on townclerk.com, an online portal designed for this purpose. This week, for example, the agenda of Tuesday’s town board work session appeared only at the last minute and one for tonight’s meeting was not available at press time yesterday morning. It would be good to hear how Mr. Overton and the other candidates for town office think these procedures can be improved.

    Public participation in government is based on knowledge. East Hampton can only benefit from making access to the process open — and easy.

   Southampton Town officials are confronting a riddle about how to protect 14 Bridgehampton farm acres owned by the Peconic Land Trust. Ronald Lauder gave the property to a precursor of the land trust years ago. Unfortunately, the deal did not include restrictions on what the trust eventually could do with the property, and it even can be sold for house lots. Now the trust has asked Southampton to buy the development rights on the land, using money from the community preservation fund transfer tax, and it has threatened to put the farmland on the market if the town doesn’t come through.

    The public-relations problem for both parties comes from a misperception that the land is already preserved. Technically, it has not been, but the sense still is that the preservation fund should not be tapped unnecessarily. The trust says it would use the money to save more land, perhaps as much as 100 acres of additional farmland. Opponents say not so fast: The fund was not created to help underwrite the activities of private organizations. To them, the proposal looks a lot like extortion.

    Southampton officials should call the Peconic Land Trust’s bluff. We hate to say it, given the land trust’s positive record, but if the group wants to go ahead and put itself out of business as a preservation organization, town officials should respond, “Be our guest.” Public reaction to the trust’s selling off farmland for development would be swift and severe — and diminish the confidence of future donors. We hope that the trust would not take that almost-certainly fatal step.

    With the Town of Southampton as a partner, the land trust can continue to help broker deals to conserve farmland it believes needs saving. Engaging in risky and adversarial brinkmanship is the wrong approach.

   Having spent nearly $1 million to design, install, and maintain a culvert linking Gardiner’s Bay and Accabonac Harbor, East Hampton Town has allowed it to fill with sand, essentially rendering a giant investment of public money useless. The Gerard Drive project was long envisioned as a way to improve water quality in the harbor by providing it with a second tidal opening. To remain functional, however, the culvert needed the sand, which otherwise would accumulate and shut it off, regularly removed.

    For the first time this year, the town did not have the culvert cleared. The explanation was that there had been a conflict over testing with the State Department of Environmental Conservation and that the town’s director of natural resources sought water-quality samples from the harbor without the culvert’s presumed flushing effect. This would give the town a baseline from which to compare whether maintaining the culvert, at a cost of roughly $15,000 a year, was worthwhile.

    The decision to skip sand removal this year may have been defensible from a scientific point of view, but it was poor policy. Having sunk so much public money into the project over the years, from taxes and state grants, residents were entitled to a working culvert — or at least an open discussion of its merits and eventual fate.

    Accabonac Harbor remains one of East Hampton’s marine ecosystem jewels. Consensus appears to hold that the culvert will help keep it that way. It should be restored to full performance as soon as practical.