Montauk neighbors are expected to offer dueling appeals of East Hampton Town Building Department determinations at a meeting of the town zoning board of appeals on Tuesday evening. In one corner is the soon-to-be Southampton Town supervisor, Jay Schneiderman. In the other are Carla and Christopher Concannon, owners of a house under construction at 747 Old Montauk Highway.

Mr. Schneiderman and his sister, Helen Ficalora, own the Breakers Motel, at 769 Old Montauk Highway. They are challenging the department’s having given the Concannons a building permit for a new and larger house  after an existing house was torn down. They are represented by Richard E. Whalen of Land Marks.

The Concannons, who are represented by David E. Eagan of Eagan & Matthews, contend that the Building Department issued a certificate of occupancy for the Breakers, which is immediately to their east, in error in 2005 because the C. of O. included a restaurant. He called the challenge from the owners of the Breakers “retribution.”

According to Mr. Eagan, the Concannons are not disputing the right to have a  restaurant at the motel, which, like their property, is in a resort zone, but believe the owners must obtain site plan approval from the East Hampton Town Planning Board. The question is whether the restaurant existed in 1984, when the town adopted its comprehensive plan, Mr. Eagan said.

If the restaurant existed at that time, a site plan would not have been required. But, according to Mr. Eagan, “The restaurant did not exist since the late 1970s; it did not exist in 2005.” His clients have lived next to the Breakers since the 1980s, and, he said, they “have a whole slew of neighbors who are going to testify.”

Mr. Whalen, on the other hand, said Mr. Eagan was misinterpreting the law. The issue is simply whether the restaurant space existed in 1984, he said, not whether it was functioning as a restaurant “The space was always there, and it was equipped.”

“A commercial operation in a business zone should not be the subject of, I hesitate to use the term harassment, but this is very close to that,” Mr. Whalen alleged.  He also challenged the timeliness of the Concannons’ appeal, an issue Mr. Eagan had also addressed.

Appeals of building inspectors’ decisions must be made within 60 days from when a neighbor might reasonably have been expected to have learned of its issuance, rather than within 60 days from its issuance.

In other words, a building permit that sits in a drawer for two years could still be appealed up to 60 days after construction begins if the neighbors had no way of knowing of its existence earlier. While they agree on that legal point, they disagree on how it applies here.

According to Mr. Eagan, the Concannons learned of the siblings’ plans for a restaurant only after reading about it in The East Hampton Star in April. They filed their appeal within a week. “Our client did not become aware of the 2005 C. of O. until Mr. Schneiderman made his plans known,” Mr. Eagan said.”

Mr. Whalen disputed that, saying that in 2010, when Mr. Schneiderman applied for site plan approval to build decking and stairs outside the Breakers, notification was sent to neighbors and “both the public hearing notice and the Planning Department memos explicitly mentioned the restaurant.” He said the 60-day clock started and ended over five years ago.

Mr. Whalen contends that the house originally on the Concannon property would have been considered a legal, pre-existing structure. But, he said, that status was lost when the house was demolished, with the replacement house being larger.

Mr. Concannon had received site plan approval to reconstruct his house, Mr. Eagan countered. The plan called for two of the four walls to remain standing. However, as demolition went forward, it was discovered that the walls were no longer structurally sound. “They left the foundation in place.”

A complaint was received by the Building Department, and a stop-work order was issued. The stop-work order was revoked after needed revisions were made. “We have been told that we are in good standing,” Mr. Eagan said.

The main event takes place Tuesday at Town Hall at 7:10 p.m.

The almost yearlong negotiation between the East Hampton Town Trustees and residents of Lazy Point in Amagansett, who lease the land on which their houses stand from the trustees, was finally completed on Nov. 10 with the trustees voting 6 to 1 to adopt new rules and regulations.

The tenants, many of whom had regularly attended the trustees’ meetings and had met with them on several other occasions throughout the year, were successful in obtaining several clauses that they said would provide greater security.

Terms of the one-year leases, which expire on April 29, include an annual 2-percent increase, the right to rebuild in the event of weather-related damage to their houses, and automatic renewal of their one-year leases provided they were in compliance with the terms.

Deborah Klughers, a trustee who did not win re-election this year, had told her colleagues at several meetings that the leases did not reflect the market value of the land. The annual lease was $1,650 in 2015, a 10-percent increase over the previous year, but far below other proposals the trustees had debated. Ms. Klughers cast the lone dissenting vote on Nov. 10.

The East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals voted 4 to 1 this week to revoke a building permit for the construction of a 150-foot-tall communications tower behind the Springs Firehouse, on Fort Pond Boulevard.

Objections to the tower were widespread when it went up in April, leading to an appeal of a building permit issued by the Building Department. The original hearing on the appeal was held on Oct. 6.

The four Z.B.A. members who voted after midnight Tuesday to revoke the building permit made it clear that they were not opposed to the pole per se, but wanted it reviewed through the proper channels, most likely by the town planning board. They criticized the cellphone-services company that leased the land for the tower, Elite Towers, saying that it had mislead the Springs Fire District’s commissioners in suggesting the district was exempt from local zoning review. The district is to receive a monthly payment from the firm.

Exactly what will happen next is unclear. Although the tower exists, having been put up in April, the communications equipment intended to go on it has not yet been installed.

“We need to make sure our communications work,” Pat Glennon, the chairman of the board of fire commissioners, said by phone yesterday. He also said the commissioners had inquired with the town Planning Department, as well as its legal team, and had been given a verbal okay to put up the tower based on a 2004 determination involving the Amagansett Fire Department.

He pointed out that in addition to the tower’s use for cellphone communications, it was essential that new equipment be installed for the fire department because there are now numerous dead spots where volunteers’ pagers do not work. When asked if the department might take the Z.B.A. to court, he said, “It is an absolute possibility.”

In its deliberations Tuesday, the Z.B.A. had to consider two questions: first, whether the appeal was timely, and second, whether the Springs Fire District’s board of commissioners had taken the proper steps in approving the tower, which was built in April. The answer was yes to the first question, but no to the second. Don Cirillo was the lone dissenter in both cases.

Mr. Cirillo argued, as the department and their representatives had during the Oct. 6 hearing, that neighbors should have known a tower was to be built because it had been mentioned at 19 commissioners meetings, stretching back to early 2013.

However, Cate Rogers, a Z.B.A. member, argued that the Springs commissioners had not followed the open meetings law. Informal discussions should not be held when a quorum of a public board is present, she said, which appeared to be the case here.

She said the public could not have reasonably known the tower was being considered because minutes of commissioners’ meetings are not published, and the topic was rarely posted on its agendas.

She singled out three 2013 meetings, including one on Dec. 9. “None of this is on the agenda, and we are already moving onto the lease.” She added, “There is nothing transparent in this process.”

Mr. Cirillo, in a protracted back-and-forth, argued that anyone who moves next to a municipal building like a firehouse should assume expansion is possible. “It is incumbent upon you to check if something is going on,” he said. “I think there is enough on the transcript for an appeal,” Mr. Cirillo warned after the vote was taken.

On whether the commissioners had followed the proper process in applying for a building permit, the board found that state case law cites fire districts and fire companies as, generally speaking, being under the purview of local zoning laws. “I think they were led awry,” a Z.B.A. member, David Lys, said.

Ms. Rogers also criticized the commissioners’ handling of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. She read from the SEQRA handbook, noting that the commissioners couldn’t be both “the applicant, and the lead agency.” Further, she argued, the commissioners erred when they found, under SEQRA, that the tower had no adverse impact on the area. “Any structure exceeding 100 feet above ground level without zoning regulations pertaining to height is a type-one action,” Ms. Rogers said. In other words, the tower required much more detailed review.

“I want to reiterate the respect we have for the Springs Fire Department, all fire departments” John Whelan, the panel’s chairman, said after the board voted to rescind the building permit. “You just have to follow the process,” Lee White, a member of the board, said. Mr. Lys agreed. “You don’t want to slow down the fire department, but the proper process must be followed,” he said.

The East Hampton Town Board will hold a hearing tonight on the proposed establishment of a rental registry. According to draft legislation, owners of properties to be rented would be required to file with the town and receive a rental registry number before advertising for tenants.

The law would require landlords to certify that their properties comply with building and safety codes and to provide information regarding property size, lease terms, and number of tenants.

The hearing will begin at 6:30 p.m. at the American Legion Hall in Amagansett.

East Hampton Town Board members and the town trustees have reached an agreement under which the two governing bodies will jointly pursue and finance the acquisition and condemnation of approximately 4,000 feet of the ocean beach on Napeague, the subject of two lawsuits brought by private property owners who object to driving and parking on the beach in front of their houses.

An agreement dated Tuesday details the town’s goals: to “preserve, ratify and confirm the rights of the town’s citizens to the use and enjoyment” of the beaches in question. These include not only the longstanding right to land fishing boats and spread nets on adjacent lands “as has been customary on the south shore of the town lying to the west,” but also to drive and park vehicles, fish, walk, ride horses, picnic, sunbathe, swim, surf, and “enjoy all other activities associated with a public beach, by way of eminent domain proceedings. . . .” 

The agreement emphasizes both governing parties’ understanding of the effort’s cost, which, beyond legal services, will involve environmental analysis, survey work, and appraisals. The terms are retroactive, to include the town’s expenses in preparation of eminent domain proceedings, and will continue until the matter is concluded or has been discontinued. 

The trustees have agreed to contribute up to half the cost of the condemnation efforts. The town will share information related to costs as well as an accounting of its expenditures. Important to the trustees, the agreement includes creation of a joint management plan, to manage the beaches “in a manner which best serves the interests of the town’s residents and assures the continued access by the public. . . .” 

Diane McNally, the trustees’ clerk, has signed the agreement, a copy of which was obtained by The Star yesterday. The document needs the signature of Supervisor Larry Cantwell to be made official. That signature is pending authorization of the town board, which Mr. Cantwell said yesterday could be discussed at the board’s Dec. 1 work session. The board, he said, must review the proposal before moving forward, “but the basic concept is something that was discussed with Diane.”

“We’re pleased to work with the trustees on this,” Mr. Cantwell said. “There’s a lot at stake for both trustees and the town.” Preservation of the pub ic’s right to use the beach in question, he said, “is a priority of the town board.” 

All eight of the nine trustees present at their Nov. 10 meeting voted to support the agreement, then in draft form. “The most we can do, going forward, is to ensure the public knows that this board did everything it could to ensure public access to that beach,” Ms. McNally said the next day. “It was not an easy decision to make. We agreed to condemnation months and months ago, but this is putting our money where our mouth is.” 

At their meeting on Tuesday, Ms. McNally said trustees would attend the town board’s Dec. 3 meeting, “where we will formally present and/or acknowledge that this agreement exists between the trustees and the town board.”

The trustees, co-defendants with the town in the suits brought by Seaview at Amagansett Ltd. et al. and White Sands Motel Holding Corp., have already spent at least $165,000 to defend public access to the beaches in question, Ms. McNally said. She acknowledged the $15,000 contributed by Citizens for Access Rights, a group that formed in response to the lawsuits. 

“We’re still moving forward on parallel lines,” Ms. McNally had said earlier. “We’re moving forward with the concept that this issue needs to go to trial, and then the condemnation.” In December 2014, the town hired Michael Rikon of the Manhattan law firm Goldstein, Rikon, Rikon & Houghton, to lead the effort to condemn the disputed oceanfront property.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuits complain of what they say is a huge increase in four-wheel-drive traffic on the beach, along with bonfires, barbecues, and fireworks, which they say present a hazard to residents, beachgoers, and upland properties. They also allege that trucks have been illegally parked on beach grass, which could destabilize dunes. 

The plaintiffs further assert that the trustees ceded 4,000 feet of the ocean beach between Napeague Lane and Napeague State Park to the east in an 1882 deed to Arthur W. Benson, who owned much of Montauk. Their claim that some of the property owners own the beach to the high-tide line was upheld in a June 2 decision by Suffolk Supreme Court Justice Jerry Garguilo, in which he denied a request by town lawyers to dismiss the case, in a reversal of his own September 2014 decision. 

The Benson deed contained language reserving the public’s right to use the beach to fish, and the trustees maintain that the right to use the beach freely was bestowed by the 1686 Dongan Patent, under which they manage the town’s beaches, waterways, and bottomlands. Public access, the defendants argue, was not meant to die with the Benson sale. 

The plaintiffs, however, challenge the continued existence of that agreement and also claim that the vehicular use of the beach for recreation exceeds that exemption. 

According to New York State law, municipalities may pursue ownership of private land, with just compensation, for a “public purpose.” The town, Mr. Rikon said in January, would pursue condemnation of the beachfront portions of all of the properties without regard for the outcome of the ongoing lawsuit. 

Also on Tuesday, a group calling itself Safe Access for Everyone announced its formation and a campaign to prohibit sport utility vehicles from the section of the ocean beach on Napeague that is often called Truck Beach. In a release, the group calls driving on that section of the beach “irrational.” The group, according to its release, “invites pedestrian use of the populated beach, and asks that S.U.V.s move to an uninhabited part of the same stretch of beach,” calling that “a free, simple solution that works for everyone.”

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation will hold a public meeting to discuss Hurricane Sandy fishery grants on Tuesday from 7 to 9 p.m. at Montauk Downs State Park.

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo announced that $3.6 million in grants were available to businesses in the fishing industry affected by the October 2012 storm. The grants, funded through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, will reimburse sectors of the fishing industry that suffered losses of revenue because of the storm. Eligible applicants include businesses in the following sectors: bait and tackle, for-hire fishing boat operators, marinas, commercial harvesters, aquaculture facilities, and commercial seafood dealers, shippers, or processors.

The D.E.C. will accept applications through Dec. 15, with funding distributed to those eligible following the application period. Applicants must provide documentation to demonstrate more than $5,000 in revenue or gross income loss as a result of the storm and have at least $15,000 in annual earnings in one of the eligible sectors.

The D.E.C., in collaboration with the Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery, will administer the program. Businesses in Suffolk, Nassau, Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, Richmond, Rockland, and Westchester counties are eligible to apply.

Applicants can apply at apps.cio.ny.govapps/cfa, by contacting the D.E.C. at 518-402-8044 or [email protected], or by contacting the Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery at 855-697-7263 or [email protected]. gov.

With a unanimous vote on Tuesday, the East Hampton Town Board adopted a $73.7 million town operating budget for 2016, up from $71.5 million this year.

The spending plan will result in a 1.6-percent tax increase, to $29.30 per $100 of assessed value, for residents of the town outside incorporated villages. Those in the villages will pay $11.70 per $100 of assessed value, reflecting a .65-percent increase.

For the owners of a house assessed at $1 million, that will mean a $34.16 increase in town taxes next year for those outside villages, and a $5.32 increase for those who live in the villages of East Hampton or Sag Harbor. 

The adopted spending plan is $221,500 above the tentative budget proposed by Supervisor Larry Cantwell. However, increases in anticipated revenue will offset all but $26,500 of the additional spending.

Items added include $145,000 for the first phase of a planning study of the town’s hamlets, $50,000 to install a paid parking system at the airport, and $25,000 to cover additional insurance costs.

An error in the salary increase for most elected officials, which was to be set at 2 percent but appeared in the initial budget at 2.5 percent, was corrected.

The final budget remains under the state-imposed cap on tax increases by almost $132,000.

A few hours before two of the first protestors appeared in East Hampton Town Justice Court yesterday morning on charges of disorderly conduct for refusing to move away from the Army Corps construction site on the downtown Montauk ocean beach, Kim Wells became the 14th protester arrested. 

Judge Steven Tekulsky gave Bess Rattray and Lisa Spellman maximum fines of $250 each, which came to $375 with fees. They were represented in court by Carl Irace, the East Hampton attorney representing Defend H2O and others who have brought suit to stop the project. A number of other protestors have court dates in December, and Mr. Irace has offered his services pro bono to all of them.

Ongoing civil disobedience actions and rallies on the beach have attracted the attention of regional television news. News12 Long Island and ABC’s Eyewitness News sent camera crews to the beach and to Town Hall on Tuesday, with interviews and news reports airing that night. 

Several hundred people attended an East Hampton Town Board meeting in Montauk on Tuesday morning to ask for a halt, at least temporarily, to the construction of a downtown beach sandbag seawall by the Army Corps of Engineers, after ongoing protests and civil disobedience since Friday that have drawn attention to widespread opposition to the project. Seven people were arrested, three on Friday and two each on Monday and Tuesday mornings, for disorderly conduct after refusing to leave the beach work zone where contractors have excavated dunes and are digging up sand.

Of 38 speakers at the Tuesday meeting, which was moved from the Montauk Firehouse to the Montauk Playhouse because of the expected crowd, all but a couple told the board that the $8.9 million federal project, through which sandbags will be piled to make a 15-foot high wall stretching for 3,100 feet along the shore, is not the solution to protecting imperiled waterfront buildings and Montauk's downtown. The structure will actually result in loss of the beach through accelerated erosion, opponents argued.

Many urged the town board to "hit the pause button," and have the work, by a contracting company hired by the Army Corps, suspended while further community dialogue and decision-making takes place. The project has been the subject of public discussion for more than three years, but many in the community were unaware of the plan or had not grasped its scope until work began recently on the beach.

In an exchange marked by civility and expressions of mutual respect, Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell responded to speakers, telling them that yesterday he had called both the Army Corps and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which is a partner in the project, to inquire about the legalities and repercussions of the town asking those agencies to suspend the work, either for now or for good. Once those answers are obtained, he said, the town board will discuss the situation.

The almost yearlong effort to negotiate new leases for residents of Lazy Point in Amagansett, who own their houses on land owned by the East Hampton Town Trustees, is nearly complete. On Tuesday, the trustees and several residents of the shorefront neighborhood seemed to agree to the new rules and regulations, and the trustees are set to vote on them next week.

Diane McNally, the trustees’ clerk, told the residents that she had received a petition with more than 200 signatures in support of the revisions while the board had also received “comment from one gentleman questioning some of the amendments.”

Lessees had agitated for amendments they said would provide greater security. In keeping with their requests, the trustees have agreed to a 2-percent annual rent increase as well as the right to rebuild in the event of weather-related damage to their houses. The rent is now $1,650 per year.  Language regarding automatic renewal of the one-year leases provided they are in compliance with the rules and regulations, will apparently have to be modified. John Courtney, the trustees’ attorney, explained that “automatic renewal” was not intended to mean in perpetuity. He recommended that the wording be modified to state that the clause is subject to amendmens by future boards. Those in attendance indicated their agreement.

The heavily debated question of the land’s true value, however, has not been put to rest. Ira Barocas, who lives in Springs and regularly attends the trustees’ meetings, presented what he called a radical proposal. “I don’t see why you don’t just give mortgages to the people,” he said.

Bill Taylor, an incumbent trustee who was just re-elected, asked Mr. Barocas if he was suggesting the trustees should sell the property. “Exactly,” was his reply. “You’re giving it away. It’s not up to the commonalty to subsidize any group. . . . It’s a sham rental,” he said, given that the lessees are able to transfer leases to relatives.

Ms. McNally said that of the approximately 100 acres at Lazy Point, fewer than 10 are developed, with the rest “natural and available for the public’s use.” She told Mr. Barocas that the rentals  provide substantial revenue for operating expenses, but added that the “issues you raise are those that should be discussed between the homeowners and trustees in the future.” 

In other news from the meeting, Kevin McAllister of Defend H2O, an environmental advocacy organization, mentioned the work being done on the Montauk beach by the Army Corps of Engineers, and received the trustees’ nod of approval for the protest against it. The trustees do not own the beach there but they have been adamant against hard erosion-control structures on those they do.

Mr. McAllister had come to the meeting to describe his efforts to curtail aerial application of methoprene, a mosquito larvicide, over wetlands by the Suffolk County Department of Public Works vector control division.

Last month, Mr. McAllister attended a meeting of the county’s Council on Environmental Quality at which it considered the vector control division’s 2016 plans. “They approved the plan” to continue regular application of methoprene, “citing that there was no new science” to support halting its use, which he said was false. Crustaceans, he said, are among the nontarget species that are negatively impacted by the insecticide.

Mr. McAllister said that Southampton Town’s trustees are preparing a letter to the county’s planning and environment division opposing the use of methoprene, and that he will ask the same of Southold’s trustees next week. He asked the trustees to send a letter of their own.

“We’re all in unison that we don’t want our wetlands dosed with poison any longer, but we’ve got to take the fight to Hauppauge,” he said. “Otherwise, we’re dismissed out here. I would like to say that trustee boards in three townships are opposed to this application.”