East Hampton Town

Eye C.D.C.H. Building

East Hampton Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell has been eyeing the building in Wainscott that houses the Child Development Center of the Hamptons, and on Tuesday urged fellow town board members to do so as well. The charter school is closing at the end of this school year and the building, which is on town land leased by the school, could provide “an opportunity for the town to acquire [it] for a public purpose,” Mr. Cantwell suggested. The Springs School Board has discussed purchasing or leasing the building from its owner, a nonprofit organization called Family Residences and Essential Enterprises, or FREE, in order to alleviate overcrowding.

Flight Data Enabled

New technology will enable town residents to access data on airplane flights over East Hampton Town on their computers or smart phones. A public access portal on what is called the Vector system, which tracks planes in the airport’s airspace, will allow a user to look up information by date, time, or location. The system will show aircraft flying at 10,000 feet or below and a plane’s flight track and altitude within an approximately 12-mile radius of the airport. Although officials can see the information in real time at the airport, outside users will have a 10-minute lag time in obtaining information. A link to the system will be provided on East Hampton Town’s website. The Vector tracking system also will provide a link to the town’s aircraft noise reporting system so that complaints about flights not adhering to mandated curfews or to suggested altitude guidelines can be reported.

C.P.F. Purchase

With a vote last Thursday night, the town board approved the purchase for open space of 10.6 acres on Six Pole Highway in Wainscott from Sharon and Dering Sprague, using $1.4 million from the community preservation fund

Three pieces of state legislation specifically drafted for the Sag Harbor community have passed the Assembly and the Senate.

Lower speed limits are coming to East Hampton and Sag Harbor Villages. According to the new legislation, speed limits will be reduced to 20 miles per hour on certain streets in the two villages.

In Sag Harbor, the limit will be reduced on Main Street, Bay Street, Madison Street, and Jermain Avenue. In East Hampton, King Street, McGuirk Street, Middle Lane, Mill Hill Lane, and Meadow Lane will see reductions. All the streets currently have 25 m.p.h. limits, which is the minimum under state laws, except for school zones. Anything lower requires special legislation.

Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele, who drafted the legislation at the request of both village boards when he was also serving as Sag Harbor Village’s attorney, said the villages’ roadways have become more and more congested and dangerous. “The additions of new traffic calming measures are not always feasible in the village due to the landscaping configurations and desired community character,” Mr. Thiele said in a statement. The best way to make the streets safer for drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians, is to lower the speed limit, he said.

Senator Kenneth P. LaValle introduced the bill in the Senate.

Another piece of legislation also benefits the Village of Sag Harbor, allowing it to create an organized and regulated mooring field in waters that are more than 1,500 feet from shore. Over the years, there has been an increase in the number of transient vessels anchoring in the waters surrounding the village, in an area that was an unregulated “no man’s land,” Mr. Thiele said. The haphazard mooring area posed a safety hazard to boaters and swimmers. There have been reports of boats sinking and washing up on the breakwater or at Havens Beach, spilling debris and fuel and discharging sewage.

 The village asked that East Hampton Town Trustees be allowed to manage what had become an unregulated seasonal anchorage area beyond the village breakwater, which is in the trustees’ jurisdiction. The trustees gave their support in March, after the legislation had passed the Senate. The Assembly voted on June 15.

The bills are now on Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s desk for approval.

Cultivation of edible seaweed is coming to Gardiner’s and Peconic Bays.

Last week, the New York State Assembly and Senate passed legislation authorizing Suffolk County to allow bottomlands in those bays to be used for a pilot program to research and assess the feasibility of cultivating seaweed. Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr. and State Senator Kenneth P. LaValle sponsored the legislation, which will be delivered to Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo for his signature.

The state has already ceded 110,000 acres of bottomland to the county for the purpose of shellfish cultivation, authorizing it to develop a leasing program to provide shellfish growers access to the waters in an environmentally sustainable way. The Suffolk County Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program was adopted in 2009 and its implementation is under way.

Seaweed cultivation in neighboring states, including Connecticut and Maine, has demonstrated a viable market product, one that has the dual benefit of being a nutrient sink, removing excess nitrogen from estuarine waters.

“We were approached by those that have leases for shellfish already, for the same land, and saw a potential economic benefit,” Mr. Thiele said on Tuesday. “Because other states are doing this, we got a request for not just shellfishing but seaweed. Particularly, I think where there’s a commercial market is sugar kelp,” or saccharina latissima, which is high in iodine, protein, and calcium. “It’s probably great in a salad,” Mr. Thiele joked, “but as far as a food product, there is a commercial use.”

Initially, the project is limited to five leases of one acre each, Mr. Thiele said. “This is a pilot project to ‘put our toe in the water’ and see if there is any potential here.”

An East Hampton Town law limiting use of the East Hampton Airport by aircraft defined by the Federal Aviation Administration as noisy was the subject of arguments before a panel of three judges at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan on Monday.

The law restricting noisy aircraft to one takeoff and landing a week at East Hampton during the summer season was one of three air regulations enacted by the town board last spring to “stop excessive airport noise and its negative effects on the peace and tranquillity of the community,” as Councilwoman Kathee Burke-Gonzalez, who represents the board on airport matters, pointed out Tuesday.

After an aviation group called Friends of East Hampton Airport sued, the once-a-week limit was barred by the court, while two overnight curfews — a general ban on takeoffs and landings from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. and an extended curfew, from 8 p.m. to 9 a.m. for noisy aircraft — were allowed to stand. They took effect last July.

The town appealed the decision by Judge Joanna Seybert of U.S. Eastern District Court on the one-trip-a-week law, and Friends of East Hampton Airport also appealed, seeking injunctions against the adopted curfews.

Attorneys for each side were given 12 minutes each to make their case in front of the judges on Monday. After Kathleen Sullivan of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, an airport counsel hired by the town, and Liza Zornberg of Lankler, Siffert & Wohl, the attorney for Friends of East Hampton Airport, made their statements, oral arguments went on for more than an hour, Ms. Burke-Gonzalez said.

Judge Dennis Jacobs, presiding judge, Judge Guido Calabresi, and Judge Reena Raggi asked “dozens of questions,” Ms. Burke-Gonzalez said, touching on the legal underpinnings of the case, such as the federal Airport Noise and Capacity Act and a helicopter case against the City of New York, which addressed the rights of airport owners, as well as the law’s compliance with tests of “reasonableness” or with a “proprietor’s exception” regarding an airport owner’s ability to enact regulations. A decision by the court is expected by the end of the year.

Town officials have said the three use restrictions were intended to work together. “We believe all three laws are lawful and necessary to protect the quality of life on the East End,” East Hampton Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell said in a press release. “These three laws are the result of careful, thoughtful, and transparent balancing by the town board. We are hopeful that the Court of Appeals will recognize that all three laws are essential to address the problem of excessive aircraft noise.”

The East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals has made several decisions this month upholding the town’s head building inspector’s interpretation of the zoning code. The board even ruled against an appeal of one of the inspector’s determinations while conceding that what the applicant sought might actually be better than what the zoning code allows.

On June 7, the board ruled that Ann Glennon, the inspector, was correct in September last year when she said a merger of two lots and the construction of a new building in their place on the Montauk Highway in Wainscott would result in the property becoming less conforming to zoning and therefore not permissible.

 On June 14, the board also agreed with Ms. Glennon, who had found that opening yoga or exercise classes to the public at Montauk’s Surf Lodge would be an illegal expansion of its legal but nonconforming use.

On the other hand on June 14, the board voted unanimously in favor of Sean MacPherson’s plan to resurrect the Montauk Association clubhouse, and one of its members spoke of it in glowing terms.

The Wainscott lots are at 405 and 407 Montauk Highway. Dubbed Wainscott Wombles II by their owner, Michael Davis of Michael Davis Design Construction, they are developed with two aging houses that have been used for businesses in recent years. Mr. Davis wanted to tear them down, merge the lots, and build one structure for his business, as well as his son’s landscaping business, which would have the exact square footage of the two houses, combined.

Mr. Davis already owns the property to the west of the houses, on the corner of Sayre’s Path and Montauk Highway, where he constructed a business building as well as a small house for his son.

The problem is that the house lots are zoned for residential use. While the houses have been used for many years for businesses, one of them, at 405 Montauk Highway, has a certificate of occupancy as a residence.

Mr. Davis appealed to the Z.B.A. hoping it would overturn the Building Department’s decision, and a public hearing was held on April 19.

“To me, it is a well thought out plan. I commend them,” John Whelan, the board’s chairman, said on June 7. However, Cate Rogers reminded her fellow members that “we are not here to decide whether it is a nice application.” With Ray Dalene having recused himself, four board members found Ms. Glennon’s interpretation correct and denied the appeal.

The June 14 decision upholding Ms. Glennon on the Surf Lodge was unanimous. The Surf Lodge, a hotel as well as a nightclub, had been allowing the public to join hotel guests in morning yoga and wellness classes on its deck. Because the Edgemere Street establishment is on property zoned for residences and is allowed to operate because  it pre-exists the town code, Ms. Glennon determined that opening the classes to the general public would be an illegal expansion. 

The applicant, through its attorney, Richard A. Hammer, had made the argument at a May 17 public hearing that allowing the public to attend the classes was an accessory use allowed under state law. Ms. Glennon said inviting the public to use what would otherwise be an accessory use by hotel guests was an additional use, or an expansion.

David Lys pointed out that exercise studios are defined in the code, and have certain parking requirements that the Surf Lodge would have to meet. “It is a use that is not allowed there,” he said, except for hotel guests.

While Mr. Whelan, the Z.B.A. chairman, said, “The idea of this being open to the public is wonderful,” he agreed it would be an expansion of use. Lee White said reversing Ms. Glennon’s determination would push the town code onto a “slippery slope.” The rest of the board agreed.

Meanwhile, an application for variances that the board had previously denied will likely be revisited. The variances sought would allow an existing third story to remain on a house at 186 West Lake Drive, owned by Michael Walrath, who also is a partner in the Surf Lodge. Mr. Walrath had offered mitigation in several ways, but Mr. Hammer, Mr. Walrath’s legal representative, pulled the application before the Z.B.A.’s attorney, Elizabeth Baldwin, could write the final decision. The board’s 5-to-0 decision against the application was a straw vote, she and Mr. Hammer agreed. A decision is not legally final until it is written down by the town attorney’s office and voted on again by board members.

Withdrawing the application allows Mr. Hammer to sit down with the town’s Planning Department to search for a solution. Withdrawing the proposal also takes litigation off the table since a lawsuit could not be filed against the Z.B.A. until the decision was finalized.

Mr. MacPherson’s plan to reconstruct the old Montauk Association clubhouse, another three-story house, has unanimous approval. His plans were described in detail in a previous Z.B.A. story. On June 14, Mr. Lys,“This is one of the most unique projects we have ever seen. I commend the landowner for investing the amount of time and money.” He pointed out that while the property is in a designated historic district, Mr. MacPherson could have built anything he wanted, up to 5,000 square feet. Instead, he chose to meticulously recreate what was lost so many years ago. “We may never come across something like this again,” Mr. Lys said.

As Democratic voters get primed for Tuesday’s primary, in which they will choose a candidate to face Lee Zeldin, the first-term Republican incumbent in the House of Representatives from the First Congressional District, the contest between Anna Throne-Holst, the former Southampton Town supervisor, and Dave Calone, a businessman, former prosecutor, and chairman of the Suffolk Planning Commission, has heated up, with each sending out multiple flyers containing scathing accusations about the other.

In telephone interviews earlier this  month, candidates spoke about their records and drew contrasts in an effort to portray themselves as best equipped to defeat Mr. Zeldin. They pointed disparagingly to Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, whom Mr. Zeldin has endorsed, and described their stands on issues they said are important to South Fork residents. To a large degree, they touted their records on the environment.

Ms. Throne-Holst said “dealing with degradation of ground and surface waters was a top agenda item” during her six years as supervisor, during which the impact of multiple algal blooms on eelgrass and shellfish, as well as commercial and recreational fishing, became evident.

  “I took great personal interest in this, and started working with Chris Gobler,” of Stony Brook University’s School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, she said. When research pointed to excessive nitrogen as a culprit, “it became clear . . . for all thinking heads to come together under one roof and put their heads together on how to get to a final project that would be both affordable and able to treat nitrogen on site.” This, she said, came to fruition as the New York State Clean Water and Technology Center at Stony Brook University, which she helped establish.

Mr. Calone referred to his efforts as chairman of the planning commission to defeat, in 2013, a controversial housing development at 555 Montauk Highway in Amagansett. “We need to preserve what’s left here on the South Fork. We were under a tremendous amount of pressure from the town board, the town supervisor, and others to allow that project to go forward. I stood up to them on the county planning commission,” he said.

Mr. Calone criticized Ms. Throne-Holst over what he called her last-minute withdrawal of support for the East Hampton Town Board effort to impose curfews and restrictions at East Hampton Airport in response to noise. “She basically insisted there be a solution and then stabbed the town in the back when they went to implement it,” he said. “My position has always been, local control means local control.”

For her part, Ms. Throne-Holst criticized the prior town board’s implementation of a transition route for aircraft in and out of East Hampton Airport, which she said negatively impacted Southampton residents. She explained her concern about new restrictions at East Hampton Airport, which she said “were only going to push this problem east or west,” including to the Southampton Village helipad and Gabreski Airport in Westhampton Beach. “We welcome restrictions, but we just need to know that this does not unduly impact every other landing site,” she said.

Ms. Throne-Holst’s campaign has criticized Mr. Calone’s tenure on the Long Island Power Authority’s board, with Andrew Grunwald, her campaign manager, charging that Mr. Calone voted to increase utility rates. Mr. Calone said he had served on LIPA’s board because “there was no one on the board pushing for renewable energy. . . . During the time I was a volunteer there, the major thing I spearheaded was the largest increase in renewable energy in Long Island’s history.” Mr. Calone had directed a LIPA storm management committee and resigned from the board soon after Hurricane Sandy, for which the utility’s response was roundly criticized.

He also said climate change was both a federal and local issue. “But the federal government needs to step up in terms of support for renewable energy.” He wants to “make sure there is a cost for those who are engaging in carbon pollution. . . . That’s a way we can both fund renewable energy, move away from a carbon-based energy system, and do our share to fight climate change. We are on the front lines like almost nowhere else in the country, stuck out in the ocean as we are.”

Ms. Throne-Holst agreed that the federal government had “a huge role to play” in climate-change mitigation. “How are we working together to deal with not only preparedness and mitigation, but starting to do what it takes to reverse the effects of climate change and sea level rise? Coordinated leadership on all those, starting at the federal level, is hugely important.”

Mr. Calone said that he had consistently fought against overdevelopment on the South Fork and he charged that Ms. Throne-Holst had supported it in Southampton. He also criticized her past contributions to the Conservative Party and cited her recent registration change from the Independence to the Democratic Party.

 “If you want a progressive, I’ve been doing that since I was 18 years old,” he said. “I’m a real Democrat who is interested in building our party.”

But Ms. Throne-Holst countered that, saying, “I’m the only one in this race who has actually managed and legislated proactively and gotten the job done in government. Having done both private sector and government work, there is a material difference between the two.” Neither Mr. Calone nor Mr. Zeldin, she said, had “gotten people of all political stripes to work together. That is what is missing in Washington today.”

The Independence Party has endorsed Mr. Calone, which he said would bestow a 3 or 4-percent advantage in the contest against Mr. Zeldin in November. Ms. Throne-Holst pointed to the wide margins in her election victories, which came “in a Republican-leaning district,” something that cannot be done “unless you know how to run a good, strong campaign and appeal to a general public.”

Both candidates positioned themselves between Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee for president, and Senator Bernie Sanders, whose insurgent campaign galvanized younger voters.

 “I see my own candidacy as a healthy mixture of both,” Ms. Throne-Holst said. “But I do think we will be in the hands of a very strong leader with Hillary,” who, she said, “brings a treasure chest of experience. When we’re talking about foreign policy issues, which are so front and center now, she is someone who has worked and forged relationships with world leaders.”

“It’s important we coalesce behind Hillary,” Mr. Calone said. “I think she is clearly the best prepared person to be president, and the best to build on President Obama’s record.”

Both strongly criticized Mr. Trump and predicted that either of them would benefit from a Trump-Clinton matchup in the race against Mr. Zeldin.

“I think people are absolutely going to reject the Trump-Zeldin ticket,” Mr. Calone said. He called the incumbent congressman “a far-right representative” who is “really out of step with Long Island values.”

“I’m very pleased that Hillary is free to go up against Mr. Trump,” Ms. Throne-Holst said, “and expose him for what he really is, which she will.” She hopes Ms. Clinton’s coattails will be long enough to carry her to victory.

“The fact that she is the first woman running for president is significant, and I would be the first to represent this district in Congress. There’s some synergy there. I think we have an excellent chance of winning this in November.”

Each of the candidates has won significant endorsements. The New York Times endorsed Mr. Calone last week. Other key endorsements have come from the East Hampton Town Democratic Committee, the Long Island Environmental Voters Forum, East Hampton Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell and his Democratic colleagues on the town board, and five county legislators, including Bridget Fleming, formerly of the Southampton Town Board.

Those who have endorsed Ms. Throne-Holst include Tim Bishop, who represented the First Congressional District for six terms until his defeat by Mr. Zeldin, New York’s Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, six members of the House of Representatives from New York, State Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr., Southampton Town Supervisor Jay Schneiderman, and Judith Hope, a former state Democratic chairwoman and East Hampton Town supervisor, as well as Emily’s List, a nationwide organization.

With 100 percent of machine votes counted, Anna Throne-Holst, the former Southampton Town supervisor, maintained a razor-thin lead over David Calone in Tuesday’s Democratic primary election to represent New York’s First Congressional District, and the race will come down to absentee ballots. 

With a light turnout at the polls, Ms. Throne-Holst led Mr. Calone by just 29 votes out of almost 11,000 cast. As of 11 p.m., Ms. Throne-Holst had 5,446 votes to Mr. Calone’s 5,417. If that lead holds, once the absentee ballots are counted, she will face Lee Zeldin, a Republican serving his first term in the House of Representatives, in the Nov. 8 election.

"We are waiting for all votes to be counted, but are proud to have a lead at the end of election night," Ms. Throne-Holst said in a statement released at about 11:30 p.m. "We are confident going forward that victory will be ours now . . . and in November." 

Should she prevail in the primary and win the election, Ms. Throne-Holst would be the first woman to represent New York’s First district, in a year in which Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, would also represent a first in American history. Ms. Throne-Holst told The Star earlier this month that she hoped Ms. Clinton’s coattails will be long enough to carry her to victory. “There’s some synergy there,” she said. “I think we have an excellent chance of winning this in November.”

New York’s First district includes eastern and most of Central Suffolk Country, including East Hampton, Southampton, Shelter Island, Southold, Riverhead, Brookhaven, and most of Smithtown.

The commercial areas of Amagansett and East Hampton outside the incorporated village were in the spotlight when residents met in discussion and hands-on design sessions with planning consultants last week. Following similar meetings that concentrated on Wainscott and Springs, Harry Dodson and Peter Flinker of Dodson and Flinker, a firm hired by the East Hampton Town Board, Lisa Liquori, an independent planner who was East Hampton’s planning director in the 1980s, and traffic and economic planning consultants led residents in walking tours and workshops from last Thursday through Saturday.

The town’s comprehensive plan, a blueprint updated in 2005 that addressed overall zoning and land preservation, had called for additional studies to home in on the town’s hamlet centers so that new laws and policies could shape how what are considered their downtowns would be allowed to change over time.

During one of the sessions last week, Mr. Flinker said the consultants had been hearing, overall, that residents don’t want to see more development or traffic. The key, he said, is to achieve balance between “allowing for appropriate growth,” shaping the future of what is already here and setting conditions in place for it to change in desirable ways over time, and not doing anything to destroy what’s cherished.

“If this was going to change —  and certainly it’s going to change over time — we want to guide it in some way,” he said.

Those who have taken part in the hamlet sessions have focused generally on creating or maintaining a village ambience in the hamlets even if Montauk Highway runs through them, as it does in Amagansett and Wainscott. In Mr. Dodson’s view, by setting standards the town can foster areas that have “pedestrian amenities . . . pleasant places to be.”

Among the goals discussed for all of the hamlets were enhanced transportation and traffic safety, for pedestrians and bicycles as well as vehicles, and identifying services and amenities desired by the community and then suggesting ways in which the town might help maintain or achieve them. New regulations governing private property and town actions, such as designating parkland, were mentioned.

With plans for such things as access roads behind commercial buildings, which would be set back and screened from the road by trees and bushes, “walkable centers that feel like they are a natural part of a historic town like East Hampton,” can be created, Mr. Dodson said last week.

  “Not doing anything would just allow the current trends to continue, and it will get worse,” Mr. Dodson said. “Instead of just waiting for things to happen to you, it’s so important to solve these problems of affordability, to solve these problems of traffic, of having businesses to serve year-round locals. Change —  especially if it’s change that you control, can be very positive,” he said. “New development can be a tool to address the needs of the community. It doesn’t have to be ugly. It can fit in with the historic character of the town.”

“We want to make sure that the plan reflects your concerns, and isn’t something that’s imposed from outside. You need to take control — which is what tonight is all about,” Mr. Flinker told a group of residents.

According to Mr. Dodson, there’s a high potential for future development in the hamlet of East Hampton outside of the incorporated village. More than 900 housing units could be created in the hamlet under current zoning, he said. With an average of 16,000 vehicle trips per day, the North Main Street area is second only to the Montauk Highway in Wainscott in traffic.

East Hampton beyond the incorporated village is also second only to Springs in population density; a third of its land mass is preserved, the largest block of preserved farmland in the town. 

Discussion also centered on potential changes to traffic patterns along North Main Street to relieve congestion, on the possible future commercial use of the former Stern’s department store site on Pantigo Road, and on the use of the Bistrian mining pit on Springs-Fireplace Road at some time in the future after the sand extraction that takes place there is exhausted. That area has the potential to provide a mix of parkland, housing, and space for local businesses, the consultants said.

As for Amagansett, the consultants said 11 percent of the land is still vacant and subject to development under current zoning. The hamlet has 2,500 residences, fewer than almost every other hamlet in the town, and only 24 percent are year-round residences, Mr. Dodson said. An additional 403 houses could be built. It was noted that the farmland behind the municipal parking lot on the north side of Amagansett’s Main Street is not preserved and is zoned for two-acre house lots

Some of the Amagansett discussion centered on the future of the eastern part of the hamlet along the Montauk Highway. This included the potential for redevelopment of the IGA shopping area, and the inclusion of affordable housing above stores. One group listed new businesses residents would like to see: a variety store, drugstore, dry cleaner, hair and nail salon, hardware store, shoe repair, and bank.

But Michael Cinque, the owner of a liquor store in the center of Amagansett’s downtown, said the hamlet’s central Main Street should be the focus of planning efforts “instead of creating an ‘Amagansett A’ and ‘Amagansett B.’ ”

To ease traffic and beautify the area near the Amagansett train station — perhaps also screening the unsightly new power substation built by PSEG — there was a suggestion to reconfigure the end of Old Stone Highway and its railroad crossing, creating a right-angle intersection with Montauk Highway and eliminating the Y-shaped jog motorists must take to get on and off the highway. A planted expanse was suggested there.

 Also last week, Russell Archambault of RKG Associates, the economic consultant for the hamlet studies effort, surveyed year-round residents during a number of focus group sessions, polling them on positive and negative factors of life here, shopping patterns and preferences, and priorities for economic development.

The consultants will return in the fall for sessions on the last of the hamlets to be studied — Montauk. In the interim, they will draft plans to be considered by the public and town officials for the four hamlets already studied.

Town officials are preparing for a vote in the fall on whether to let a portion of the community preservation fund, now earmarked for land purchases only, be used for water quality improvement projects.

Referendums will be on the November ballot in all five East End towns to extend the life of the Peconic Bay Region Community Preservation Fund through 2050, continuing the 2-percent real estate transfer tax that provides money for the fund, and to allow up to 20 percent of the C.P.F. to be used to combat the increasing pollution, by septic waste and runoff, of ground, drinking, and surface waters.

The local law, mirroring state legislation, would define the types of water quality improvement projects that could be funded, including wastewater treatment systems, pollution prevention, and aquatic habitat protection and restoration. Some of the money earmarked for water quality could be pooled with money from other East End towns for regional projects that fall within the guidelines.

Money could not be used for “projects that accommodate new growth,” said Nancylynn Thiele, a town attorney who presented a draft law to the town board at a meeting on Tuesday. Projects would have to be consistent with adopted water quality plans, including one that is being drafted by town staffers, and individually authorized by the town board after public hearings.

A lawsuit aimed at keeping vehicles off a 4,000-foot stretch of ocean beach on Napeague began on Monday with the presentation of an edited video showing a beach crowded with vehicles, people, and dogs on a summer weekend in 2014. Plaintiffs sharpened their line of attack Tuesday, seeking to frame the dispute in terms of public health and safety and blaming the beach-driving permits issued free of charge to residents for what they say is an out-of-control situation.

The plaintiffs are oceanfront property owners; East Hampton Town and the town trustees are the defendants.

Town Councilman Fred Overton and Ed Michels, the town’s chief harbormaster, were among those called to the witness stand on Tuesday. The plaintiffs also called a public health sanitarian and an aquatic safety consultant to advance their argument that some beachgoers congregating on the stretch of beach between the end of Napeague Lane and the border of Napeague State Park are defying the town’s beach regulations. Town beach-driving rules were amended in 1991 to allow vehicles on that stretch of beach on summer days.

Both sides have drawn a line in the sand, with the majority of homeowners claiming ownership of the beach above the high-tide line by virtue of an 1882 deed. The town board and trustees are adamant that public access in all forms as well as the traditional activities that accompany it are allowed. Should the plaintiffs prevail, the town will move to condemn the shorefront in dispute, as well as another stretch that is the subject of a similar lawsuit.

Representing the plaintiffs, Stephen Angel told Justice Ralph Gazzillo of State Supreme Court in Riverhead that because most of the other ocean beaches are off-limits to drivers on summer days, his clients bear a burdensome and hazardous situation on what is sometimes referred to as Truck Beach. The town, he further implied, makes no effort to encourage use of nonresidential oceanfront areas.

There are no restroom facilities at the beach in question. Interrogating Mr. Michels, Mr. Angel sought to portray a relaxed or even negligent attitude toward enforcement of the town code. “Do you know what people do when they need to use the restroom?” he asked. No, was the reply.

Mr. Michels conceded that the number of vehicles, and subsequent complaints, increased around 2001, after New York State required that cars and trucks entering Napeague State Park, east of the beach in question, display a paid state permit. Complaints involved vehicles exceeding the 15-miles-per-hour speed limit or having no beach-driving sticker, he said.

But since that peak period, he told James Catterson, representing one of the homeowners, “it’s backed off a bit, or a combination of people behaving better.” Families take four-wheel-drive vehicles to the beach particularly on Sundays, he said, because most adults work every other day of the week.

His department makes multiple daily patrols, Mr. Michels told Mr. Angel, and he estimated 50 to 100 vehicles congregating over a half-mile stretch.

Had he ever seen as many as 150? “I could have,” he said.

Mr. Catterson sought to portray lax enforcement, but Mr. Michels did not cooperate. “Just because someone says this is happening doesn’t mean it’s happening,” he said of a telephoned complaint. “We’ve gone down there on a hundred occasions for a complaint . . . and it’s not there when I arrived.”

Nor does a summons result from each of the tens of thousands of complaints called in to the East Hampton Town Police Department annually, he observed. “I can tell you, they don’t let anything go that they can write a summons for.” Michael Rikon, representing the town, asked Mr. Michels if his department enforced the town’s beach code prohibitions. Speeding, fires, litter — all would result in a summons, he answered.

Under questioning by Anthony Tohill, representing the trustees, the harbormaster said he has been familiar with the area in question since 1993, when he was first hired by the town. Now, as then, people swim, barbecue, picnic, and play volleyball — “whatever you do in normal beach activity.” He said he could not recall a single beach-code violation issued on the 4,000-foot stretch in dispute, nor any injuries, illnesses, or arrests there.

Mr. Overton, who supervised the issuance of beach permits during his 14 years as town clerk, said he has visited that beach sporadically since 1974, in a vehicle. Given there are no restroom facilities, Mr. Angel asked, what did people do? “I can’t tell you,” Mr. Overton said. “I know what I did: I didn’t.”

Mr. Angel continued to portray a situation spiraling out of control, citing a jump in town-issued resident beach driving permits from 151 in 2000 to 1,793 the following year, with well over 1,000 issued annually since then. The permits do not expire. With more than 21,000 issued since 1999, Mr. Catterson suggested that “there is a permit out there for every man, woman, and child, and, presumably, unleashed dog.”

That was incorrect, Mr. Overton said. Stickers fade over time, a vehicle’s bumper may be replaced, or a vehicle may be sold. There are various reasons why someone could obtain three or even more permits over a 10 or 15-year span. “I’ve never run a report for that information,” he testified.

Mr. Catterson then asked about the town board’s move to condemn the beach, which Mr. Overton said he supports. Why would he vote to appropriate taxpayer money for condemnation proceedings against land that is publicly owned, he was asked. “It was suggested to me that there was a title dispute,” Mr. Overton answered. “There’s other residents of the town that claim they own the beach. I believe the public owns the beach. If it takes a court action to prove the public owns the beach, I support that.”

Mr. Angel also called Robert Powitz, a public health sanitarian who lives in Connecticut. By request of the plaintiffs, he surveyed the beach in August 2013, arriving at 11:30 a.m. when, he said, “cars had started to gather.” When he left a few hours later, there were around 80, he said, as well as several dogs, trash, and a high concentration of people. He said it was “disturbing” that ingress and egress was often blocked. “Had there been an emergency of any kind, it would have been hard to enter or exit.”

The conditions, Mr. Powitz said, did not comply with standards for a recreational beach. “We noticed people go into the dunes. People defecate, urinate in water. We saw dogs doing it. People were there for the entire day — they have to go.” There should be control, he said, and state health regulations should apply.

On cross-examination by Mr. Rikon, Mr. Powitz admitted that he had not seen the chapter of town code pertaining to beaches. “You’re unaware, sir, that all of those conditions are specifically prohibited?” he was asked. And was that not a police matter? The police or Health Department, Mr. Powitz replied. Had he knowledge of any illness caused by bathing at that beach in the last 100 years? No, was the answer.

Mr. Rikon continued in an effort to discredit Mr. Powitz’s conclusions. If only the plaintiffs swim and enjoy other beach activities, should the beach be subject to state regulations, he asked. Yes, was the answer. So, if the plaintiffs prevail and vehicles are banned, would the property owners be required to place lifeguards and construct toilets? “Whoever does it, that’s what code requires, yes,” Mr. Powitz said. By that logic, Mr. Rikon implied, lifeguards and toilet facilities must be present at all of the town’s 22 miles of ocean beach. Moreover, nothing in state regulations pre-empt local governments from enacting their own regulations with respect to beaches, he said.

Thomas Griffiths, the aquatic safety consultant, had also been asked to visit the beach in August 2013. He told Mr. Angel that he had observed vehicles swerving and children playing between, behind, and in front of them. He called the scene “an accident waiting to happen.”

Mr. Rikon asked Mr. Griffiths if he had ascertained the number of accidents at the beach over the 20 years prior to the lawsuit, or obtained police reports. Mr. Griffiths said that he had not.

The trial continued yesterday. According to lawyers and other observers, it may take another week.