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.

A proposed East Hampton Town law that would allow downtown Montauk restaurants to have legal  sidewalk dining will be the subject of a hearing tonight at 6:30 at Town Hall.

Considered a pilot program, the law would require restaurants to obtain a license through the town fire marshal’s office. Applications would require a description and sketch of the outdoor dining area, insurance naming the town as a covered party along with an indemnification agreement, and a fee of $30 for each seat to be placed outside.

Restaurants would not be allowed to increase their maximum seating as set by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services but could shift up to 20 percent of the total seats, but no more than 16, to the outdoors. Permits would run from May 1 until the third Monday in October.

Permits would be issued only for dining locations that would not interfere with keeping a sidewalk at least six feet wide clear, and tables and chairs would have to be removed before midnight and set out again no earlier than 7 a.m. Umbrellas and lighting would be prohibited. Any alcohol would have to be served within an area delineated with partitions, as approved by the fire marshal.

The legal outdoor dining program was developed by a citizens business committee and presented to the town board on a limited trial basis. The committee has also talked about outdoor seating at businesses other than restaurants, such as takeout food shops, and it is expected to take up that issue and make additional recommendations.

Southampton Town

To Improve Crosswalks

Officials have secured $700,000 for improving pedestrian safety in Bridgehampton through crosswalk and lighting enhancements. Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr. announced this week that he obtained $500,000 from the state and municipal facilities program, on top of $200,000 that State Senator Kenneth P. LaValle had secured.

The money will be given to Southampton Town to administer. The idea is that the funding will be used for crosswalks and lighting along Main Street or the streets that feed into it. Anna Pump, a chef, cookbook author, and owner of the Loaves and Fishes shop, died after she was hit by a car while crossing Main Street near the Bridgehampton Post Office one night last October. Mr. Thiele’s office said her death heightened awareness of the problems along the busy corridor, but that plans to make improvements there had been in the works long before.

Engineering will have to be done in conjunction with the state’s Department of Transportation, since Main Street is part of Montauk Highway, a state road.

Police Chief Search

Interviewing for a new Southampton Town police chief will begin later this month, as yesterday was the final day for applications to be submitted. The committee the town board established in April will meet tomorrow to review the résumés submitted by 17 applicants and to develop a protocol for the interviews, according to Frank Zappone, the deputy supervisor, who is on the search committee.

While Mr. Zappone declined to name the candidates so far, East Hampton Village Police Chief Gerard Larsen has said he is among the applicants. Mr. Zappone said a little more than one-third of the applicants are from within Suffolk County. “I’m very impressed with the number of résumés we have attracted,” he said. “I thought we’d do well, but . . . I’m sort of impressed that the response is so broad and far-reaching.”

Robert Pearce, the current chief of the Southampton Town Police Department, is retiring at the end of September. Interviews are expected to continue into July, with the committee making a recommendation to the town board by early August.

Art Hamptons Parking Restricted

In anticipation of Art Hamptons, an art fair at a farm at 900 Lumber Lane in Bridgehampton that will take place from next Thursday to June 26, the Southampton Town Board approved parking restrictions in the area, as well as the use of six town police personnel. Hampton Expo Group will have to reimburse the town $6,109 in overtime pay.

No parking will be allowed on either side of Brick Kiln Road from Fair Hills Lane to Scuttlehole Road during the opening night next Thursday from 4 to 9. No parking will be allowed on the north side of Scuttlehole Road from Butter Lane to within 1,000 feet of the intersection with Brick Kiln Road, nor will it be allowed on either side of Lumber Lane from Scuttlehole Road south 2,500 feet during those same hours.

Farmland for Food Production

Three public hearings have been set for July 12 at 1 p.m. on the acquisition of enhanced development rights for two properties in Water Mill through the community preservation fund. The first is 25.4 acres on Cook’s Lane owned by C.R.W., L.L.C. The others, owned by members of the Rogers family, are 37.6 acres on New Ground Lane and 62.4 acres on Scuttlehole Road, said to be in Water Mill. The town has purchased several enhanced development rights on properties recently to ensure that farmland is used for food production and not other agricultural uses, such as a winery or horse farm.

Putting the Brakes on Boats

The Southampton Town Board is looking to slow down boats as they near shore. The board will hold a hearing on July 12 at 1 p.m. on a law amending the town code to prohibit any vessel from being operated in excess of five miles per hour within 500 feet of shore, in order, according to the legislation, to protect beach bathers and kayakers.

The provision would not apply to the channel running east of the Ponquogue Bridge in Hampton Bays or the area of the Quantuck Bay navigational channel from Quogue Canal to just east of the Beach Lane Bridge.

In their ongoing effort to resolve the dispute over the ownership of stretches of the ocean beach on Napeague, East Hampton Town officials moved ahead this week with eminent domain proceedings.

The town resolved in 2014 to condemn, depending on the outcome of the current legal proceedings, two separate parcels totaling just over 22 acres of shorefront between the mean high water mark and the toe of sand dunes.

One parcel includes 4,000 linear feet between the end of Napeague Lane and the border of Napeague State Park; the other stretches for 1,550 linear feet from the eastern boundary of Napeague State Park to the road-end at Dolphin Drive.

On Tuesday, a consultant hired to complete a required environmental review before condemnation can take place briefed the town board. To move ahead with an environmental impact statement, he said, the board should declare itself lead agency on the project and then schedule a meeting to hear public comment on the potential environmental impacts of claiming town ownership.

Residents of a neighborhood surrounding a sand-mining pit off Middle Highway in East Hampton asked the town board last week to investigate dumping they said was taking place there. The pit, which is legal because it was created before local zoning laws, is owned by the Talmage family and has both local and state Department of Environmental Conservation permits.

Nanci LaGarenne, representing the Freetown Neighborhood Advisory Committee, spoke to the board, as did her husband, Jim LaGarenne. Use of the site is of concern, the LaGarennes said, as it is in an area now zoned for three-acre minimum residential lots as well as a water recharge zone. A Suffolk County Water Authority well is in the vicinity, Mr. LaGarenne said, as is the Soak Hides dreen, a water course that drains into Three Mile Harbor. Ms. LaGarenne also said she thought the property had recently been sold, but town officials said it had not changed hands.

Supervisor Larry Cantwell said the East Hampton Town Building, Code Enforcement, and Attorneys Departments were investigating the status and use of the property, and that it could continue no matter who owns it. But, he said, “We’re not going to tolerate any illegal dumping there, under any circumstances.” He encouraged anyone who observed any allegedly illegal activities there to inform the Code Enforcement Department. 

Betsy Bambrick, the head of that department, said Tuesday that an investigation was ongoing, but she said the only thing observed being placed on the property so far was topsoil.

A long hoped-for local shuttle-transport service, involving light diesel trains that would coordinate with buses and taxis, may be in place as soon as next year.

New York State Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr. announced recently that the Long Island Rail Road had agreed to explore a South Fork shuttle service similar to one that ran with success on a trial basis in 2007 and 2008.

“This is a major breakthrough, getting the L.I.R.R. to agree to this as a goal,” Supervisor Larry Cantwell said at an East Hampton Town Board meeting on Tuesday. Representatives from the five East End towns are expected to attend a strategy meeting with Patrick Nowakowski, the L.I.R.R. president, in Riverhead early next month.

A commitment on the part of Suffolk County and the local governments to provide connecting transportation services, marketing, and public outreach, in a campaign to gain riders, is key to the plan’s success, Mr. Thiele said. The initial goal would be to establish two morning shuttles and one in the afternoon.

“I view this as the first positive development for increased South Fork service in years,” said the assemblyman, who met with Mr. Nowakowski last month. “However, it will take a concerted effort among the L.I.R.R., local government, business leaders, and the community to make this successful. I look forward to leading this effort.”

With local governments, Mr. Thiele has worked to expand public transportation here for some years. Five Town Rural Transit, a grassroots organization, was instrumental in getting the pilot shuttle program on line. Mr. Thiele successfully pushed for the inclusion of $37.5 million in the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s 2013 budget for the purchase of lighter diesel trains to be used for shuttling, but the L.I.R.R. could not find such trains that were both compatible with their system and also met federal requirements.

Instead, diesel trains already owned by the railroad will be used, and the L.I.R.R. will use the $37.5 million for other capital projects.

Last Thursday, the town board voted to endorse the state’s proposed creation of a Peconic Bay Transportation Council, facilitating cooperation on public transport among East End town governments. According to the resolution, “Traffic congestion has resulted in increased trip delays, declining air quality, adverse impacts to historic and rural resources in  the region’s villages and hamlets, parking problems, [and] adverse impacts to residential communities and neighborhoods resulting from the diversion of traffic from major highways and arteries to rural residential streets and roads.”

As the beat of the summer season begins this Memorial Day, live bands that have been booked for performances this season at many an East Hampton Town restaurant and bar could be silenced, depending on the outcome of a systematic license review being conducted by the town.

News of the town’s review just before the start of high season has led to criticism and charges of a “no-fun” regime.

“How quickly people forget last Fourth of July weekend,” East ­Hampton Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell said this week, explaining that officials are using all the tools at their disposal to rein in an out-of-control summer resort scene that so many residents complained about last summer.

Montauk, which has a particular concentration of bars and music venues, “has a long history of music; it’s an important part of the community today,” he said this week. “However, business establishments should be in compliance with the local zoning and public safety laws of the community.” Those lacking all the proper licenses could see their music shows shut down.

Public drunkenness, overrun bars and clubs, taxi traffic jams, disorderly visitors, and overcrowded and illegal summer rentals created so much chaos in Montauk last Fourth of July weekend that close to 300 residents flowed into a town board meeting several days later to express their concerns and frustration and plead for relief. Town officials responded with stepped-up enforcement by police and code enforcement officers and the enactment of new regulations designed to tamp down out-of-hand party spots.

The live entertainment that draws many patrons to a growing number of venues requires not only a music entertainment permit from the town but also approval from the New York State Liquor Authority, if a business holds a liquor license.

The liquor authority held a hearing recently regarding the Surf Lodge, which is the subject of several summonses issued by the town. Five noise complaints, two overcrowding charges, and two charges related to yoga classes offered on site are pending in town justice court, according to the town attorney. (An issue regarding a mural on the Surf Lodge building was resolved on Monday with a guilty plea and a $1,000 fine. The business plans to apply to the zoning board of appeals to keep the mural, or paint it over.)

In its review the liquor authority found that the Surf Lodge is not categorized as a live music venue under its license classification.

After town officials learned this, they decided to review the status of other businesses that offer music under town music entertainment permits “to determine whether or not they’re operating within the scope of their S.L.A. permits,” according to Michael Sendlenski, the town attorney.

That information could be compiled by next week, said Supervisor Cantwell. Businesses with live music whose liquor authority licenses lack that designation are subject to charges by the agency. “Contrary to some opinions it’s not about shutting down businesses in Montauk. Businesses should be operating within the law, and that includes local laws, and state liquor authority laws,” Mr. Cantwell said.

While authorization for live music under the S.L.A. appears to be only a matter of categorizing oneself as a live music venue in licensing paperwork, rectifying a license could take an estimated four to six weeks.

In an email, Jayma Cardoso, a managing partner at the Surf Lodge, said she believes numerous other Montauk businesses will find themselves in the same position as her business as far as their liquor licenses.

“The town has allowed live music via a town-issued music permit,” she said.  “Now that the town is pursuing/encouraging enforcement of the liquor license limitations, any business operating without live music on their license is at risk.” The Surf Lodge, she said, is working with state and local officials “to adapt to new methods of enforcement of state and local codes.”

“It is very frustrating as a resident and business owner, but I am committed to figuring out how to strike a balance and deliver the experiences our guests love and being a good neighbor and member of the community,” she wrote.

Ken Grille, a retired teacher and music aficionado, is among the numerous participants in a discussion of the issue on Facebook, many of whom have criticized the town for its actions and their potential impact on live music shows, particularly just before the start of the summer season.

“It seems like there’s a war on live music,” he said on Tuesday, “and I think it’s going to affect the community. People are not going to want to go to Montauk. I go for the live music; it’s part of the culture.”

“Does anyone realize how much business live music brings into a community?” Mr. Grille wrote in a Facebook post. “I can say that pretty much every time we have been to Montauk for live music we have dinner, drinks, and shop in other locations. In my opinion, this is a town that is shooting itself and its business owners in the foot. I hope they see this before it is too late.”

“It’s a shame that it’s coming up at the beginning of the season,” he said Tuesday of the town license review. “Be careful what you wish for.”

“We understand that there needs to be a balance, but we are at risk of seeing a central part of the culture of Montauk disappear,” said Ms. Cardoso. The Surf Lodge’s series of free summer concerts, which brings well-known as well as up-and-coming nationally acclaimed acts to town, has been put on hold, though Ms. Cardoso said she is optimistic that the club’s issues will be resolved in time to put live music back on the summer schedule.

Paul Monte, the president of the Montauk Chamber of Commerce, also expressed concern this week about the town’s actions just before the high season. While businesses must comply with regulations, “we are a resort community, and a big part of the allure is being able to enjoy music, both indoors and out — respectfully of course,” he said Tuesday. “The chamber is concerned and ready and willing to work with the town and any of the establishments to ensure that music will go on in Montauk.”

Nancy Atlas and her band have been playing weekly shows at the Surf Lodge from Memorial Day to Labor Day for nine years. “I realize there are issues that need to be addressed, for sure. It just seems that they’ve really put a crunch down right before the season’s beginning to start,” Ms. Atlas said this week. “Musicians book three to six months ahead, so to pull the rug out just before the season starts is kind of playing dirty. I’ve lost seven shows in the next month.” To soften the blow, she said, the Surf Lodge is sponsoring the move of her weekly Wednesday night performances to Baron’s Cove in Sag Harbor.

A resident of Montauk, Ms. Atlas, who was among the crowd at the Montauk Firehouse calling for action last year, said she shares concerns about the hamlet but that the town’s actions must be balanced. She suggested that the enforcement pendulum has swung too far.

Both she and Ms. Cardoso raised questions about the decibel readings used to enforce the town noise code, which have been described as unfair, since the noise violation threshold is barely above normal ambient noise.

“We need to reexamine what constitutes inappropriate noise level, as our primary interest is to work with the town and the S.L.A. and serve as a thoughtful member of the community,” Ms. Cardoso wrote in her email.

Last year, Ms. Atlas said, officers issued $1,000 noise violation tickets without first issuing a warning and giving bands a chance to turn it down. Now, she said, “restaurants aren’t so quick to have live music, because they come in for music and get them for three other things.”

“It’s really, truly affecting a lot of people that live and work and support families out here.”

 The state liquor authority seeks input from local municipalities and police when issuing liquor licenses, and Mr. Cantwell said that “assuming a location is in compliance with our local laws” the town will “be happy to support” an application or a license modification to include live music.

But, he acknowledged, for those operating illegally, the liquor license issue will provide leverage, bringing pressure to bear on business owners to clean up their acts. “It presents an opportunity to motivate establishments to come into compliance,” the supervisor said.

He defended the timing of the review initiative, saying it was based on the liquor authority’s discovery about the Surf Lodge license at a recent hearing.

“We didn’t make it happen that way,” he said. Once the situation came to light, “we’re not going to turn our back on the problems that exist . . . which has been done too long in this town.”

“If I were a local musician, I don’t know if I’d want to play in an establishment” lacking the proper permits, Mr. Cantwell said.

The town music entertainment permit, he said, was “designed to provide a music amenity at a restaurant or bar.” Instead, he said, what has happened is that places have morphed into music venues.

The town board had planned to discuss an overhaul of the permit system and would still like to review the law, he said.

It calls for a board hearing and possible license cancellation after three noise violations for any license holder. Last year, permits were pulled for two Montauk restaurants/music spots, Harbor and Ciao by the Beach, both of which are now out of business.

A host of town code violations and court charges led to the closure of Cyril’s, another longtime hot spot. The owner of the bar and restaurant on the Napeague stretch said complying with the standards required by the town made it impossible to continue to do business

The Long Island Commercial Fishing Association has joined the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission in the latter group’s motion to oppose the designation of an offshore marine monument in the Northeast Atlantic, which environmental groups support.

Conservation groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council have urged the Obama administration to permanently protect the undersea canyons and seamounts area approximately 150 miles off Cape Cod, with the N.R.D.C. warning of a “push to fish, drill, and mine in deeper and deeper waters” that will put the coral and ecosystems there at risk.

Last week, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Interstate Fisheries Management Program unanimously approved a resolution opposing any designation, but offering recommendations should such a monument be created. Those include limiting it to the smallest area compatible with the care and management of objects to be protected, limiting a prohibition on fishing to depths greater than 900 meters, and a prohibition only on bottom-tending fishing in the designated area.

Bonnie Brady, executive director of the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, released a statement on Friday in support of the fishery commission’s resolution. The resolution “allows for the protection of deep-sea corals, while at the same time protecting commercial fishing jobs,” she said. “It prevents the further contraction of our fisheries as we try to reclaim domestic markets from the onslaught of imported fish and shrimp, which too often is harvested by forced and involuntary laborers working in inhumane conditions.”

A comprehensive financial audit of LTV, the nonprofit organization that provides public access cable TV in East Hampton and is funded largely by the town, found no misappropriation of funds but pinpointed 19 financial practices that fell short.

The town funnels the lion’s share of the franchise fee it receives from Cablevision to LTV — at present some $677,000 annually. In light of the audit’s results, officials have called for LTV to prepare a corrective action plan addressing every one of the auditors’ findings and for the submission of periodic written progress reports.

Auditors from the accounting firm Nawrocki Smith discussed the audit, which covered 2010 through 2014, at a town board meeting on Tuesday. The administration of LTV underwent wholesale turnover after the audit period, with Jim Shelly now the board chairman and Morgan Vaughan executive director. They attended the meeting on Tuesday, along with a number of current board members.

Among the areas where the auditors said improvements were needed were recordkeeping regarding payroll and employees, the handling of cash receipts and bank statements, the use of credit cards, and adherence to a policy requiring approval from the LTV board for purchases of over $5,000, and from the town board for purchases over $10,000.

The audit was set in motion after Robert Strada, the former LTV board chairman, raised the question of possible misuse of funds by its former director, Seth Redlus, who had resigned after a clash with Mr. Strada and his wife, Michelle Murphy Strada, who was also on the LTV board. Town officials commissioned the full review of the books last summer. The approximate $40,000 tab for the audit will be deducted from the money the town gives LTV.

Mr. Strada questioned continuing payments to Mr. Redlus for technical consulting services even after he had relocated. But others defended the arrangement, saying Mr. Redlus’s expertise was needed during a transition period. A rift among board members followed, which resulted in the ouster of Mr. Strada and his wife as well as several of their allies. Mr. Strada then asked the county district attorney for an investigation. The auditors said this week that they had met in December with the D.A. to discuss the audit, but did not address  any possible investigation.

 Citing “the seriousness of the findings and recommendations that were made,” Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell said after Tuesday’s presentation that improvements were needed “to insure that the contribution that’s being made by the town is accounted for.”

Mr. Shelly called the recommendations the auditors made “invaluable.” Thirteen of the suggestions have been implemented and six are in progress, Mr. Shelly said.

“This audit, painful as it was, has provided us with a roadmap to the future. We realized that some of our management practices were inadequate for the organization we have become,” he said.

 “The importance to the town is that we’re funding your organization to a large extent,” Mr. Cantwell told the LTV representatives. “The truth is there has been a serious lack of internal controls at LTV, and the oversight has been woefully inadequate on the part of the board.”

“I think what we’ve realized is, because of the amount of funding we receive from the town and the village, we’re treated differently from other not-for-profits you do business with,” Mr. Shelly said. “The board of LTV now realizes that we have to perform to a much higher standard.”

Following the auditors’ report, Ms. Vaughan, who was appointed LTV’s interim executive director last spring after Mr. Redlus departed and stepped into the position permanently in August, addressed each of the auditors’ recommendations, assuring the board that the problems had been addressed.

But the supervisor called her assurances insufficient. “As we go through these things, I don’t want you to assume that your response is an acceptable response,” he said. Ms. Vaughan expressed frustration with the criticism. “We’re producing a vast amount of things,” she said of the work being done by LTV. “This is not money that is being squandered.”

Besides providing opportunities for the public to produce their own cable shows on channel 20, LTV tapes and airs meetings of governmental bodies on channel 22, which also airs school and educational programs.

“That’s not the point here today,” Mr. Cantwell told Ms. Vaughan. “This is not about the quality of the services that you are providing. This is about the quality of the accounting of the funds that you are receiving and spending.” An earlier audit of LTV, conducted by the town budget office in 2012, had identified similar shortcomings.

The federal Environmental Protection Agency has honored Christopher Gobler of Stony Brook University’s School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences for his research on Long Island’s water quality problems. On Friday Dr. Gobler received an Environmental Champion award, which recognizes individuals dedicated to protecting public health and the environment in New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand nominated Dr. Gobler for the award.

A marine biologist and leading researcher on the harmful algal blooms that have become common in Long Island’s coastal waters, Dr. Gobler was enlisted by the East Hampton Town Trustees in 2013 to perform water quality testing of waterways under trustee jurisdiction. More recently, the Friends of Georgica Pond foundation, a group of property owners at the East Hampton pond that experienced dense outbreaks of cyanobacteria, or blue-green algae, in 2014 and ’15, hired Dr. Gobler to assist in their efforts to restore the pond’s ecological health.

Dr. Gobler runs a research lab at Stony Brook’s Southampton campus, where he and his colleagues investigate brown tides, fishery collapse, and the impacts of climate change on marine ecosystems. He also helped to develop the Long Island Nitrogen Action Plan and is working with Suffolk County to address how septic systems and cesspools are contributing to the area’s nitrogen pollution problem.