Owing to the continued presence of cyanobacteria, Georgica Pond will remain closed to the harvesting of crabs, the East Hampton Town Trustees determined at their meeting on Tuesday.

The trustees voted to close the pond to crabbing for 21 days on Aug. 11, shortly after a dense bloom of the harmful blue-green algae developed in the pond for the second consecutive year. Levels of cyanobacteria in the pond exceeded 100 micrograms per liter, according to Christopher Gobler of Stony Brook University, who has led a water-quality monitoring program of trustee-managed waters in conjunction with the trustees for the last three years. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which warned against exposure to the water, has set a threshold level of 25 micrograms per liter as the concentration above which a public notice is issued.

All of the water bodies monitored by the trustees in conjunction with Dr. Gobler “look very, very good, except for Georgica,” Stephanie Forsberg, the trustees’ assistant clerk, told her colleagues on Tuesday. The cyanobacteria bloom has spread across the entire pond, she said, and has exceeded the maximum levels measured last year, when the pond was closed to crabbing from mid-July into the autumn.

Levels of microcystin, a class of toxins produced by some cyanobacteria that can cause serious damage to the liver, is present at 1 microgram per liter, a level that Dr. Forsberg characterized as “a drinking-water threat, but not a recreational threat.” Nonetheless, she said, “I think we should continue the closure.” The pond remains a popular site for paddleboarding and kayaking, said Sean McCaffrey, a trustee. “I don’t want to see it closed,” Dr. Forsberg said, “but I also don’t want to see the alternative — if somebody should fall ill.” The trustees voted unanimously to extend the closure for another 21 days.

While blue-green algae are naturally present in lakes and streams, an abundance, caused by warm water temperatures and a lack of tidal flushing, can lead to harmful blooms. Georgica Pond was open to the Atlantic for much of this year, allowing prolonged flushing. Consequently, the trustees believe, the pond remained free of harmful algal blooms this year until later than in 2014.

Dr. Forsberg also told her colleagues that at this time last year cochlodinium, or rust tide, was present in both Accabonac and Three Mile Harbors in East Hampton. “But those sites are clean and clear now,” she said. Rust tide is algae that can be fatal to shellfish and finfish, but is not harmful to humans when ingested.

Cyril’s Fish House, the ever popular and ever controversial roadside bar on Napeague, is back in the news. According to New York State’s electronic court tracking system, on Monday, Acting Supreme Court Justice Joseph Farneti dismissed a countersuit  by the restaurant’s lawyers, Jordan & LeVerrier, against the town, which sought damages in connection with an ongoing lawsuit the town has brought against Cyril’s.

Comments from Jordan & LeVerrier and the firm representing the town, Sokoloff Stern, were not forthcoming because they had not received the written decision by press time. Joseph Prokop, who had originally handled the town’s lawsuit, also would not comment yesterday.

The countersuit was filed in reaction to the town’s suit, filed in 2013, that would require Cyril’s to either return to a smaller-size business, which the town says existed when Cyril Fitzsimons took over the site in about 1984, or shut down. Cyril’s has been operating this summer because it has appealed the State Liquor Authority’s revocation of its liquor license.

Meanwhile, the Cyril’s ownership group was before the East Hampton Town Planning Board on Aug. 19 for another round. It was last before the board in December. An approved site plan would allow the owners to apply for a certificate of occupancy, which, if granted, would finally legalize the establishment under town zoning and apparently end the lawsuit.

The controversy about Cyril’s centers around what was there when Cyril Fitzsimons took over the site in the mid-1980s, and what has been added since. Besides the case in state court, the town is  litigating similar charges at the local court level.

In 2009, the town’s chief building inspector prepared a list of all items he believed had been added, such as trailers and a dumpster. When the owners of the property, Michael Dioguardi and his family, and Mr. Fitzsimons were last before the board, they were told by the board that they needed to complete their site plan application. Eric Schantz of the town’s Planning Department said in a memo prepared Aug. 7 that the applicants had done what the board asked only in part.

 There are still many structures listed in the building inspector’s determination for which setback information has not been provided. Mr. Schantz deemed the latest effort incomplete.

Deborah Choron of Jordan & LeVerrier argued that Mr. Schantz was wrong. “There are certain structures listed in that memo that aren’t in existence,” she said. She told the board that the owners and the town’s Planning Department had had extensive meetings. “To my eye, the site plan is complete,” Ms. Choron said.

Marguerite Wolffsohn, the town’s planning director, defended Mr. Schantz’s work, telling board members that vital setback information was missing.  Mr. Schantz was out with an illness that evening.

“The planning board depends on the Planning Department to analyze these applications,” Kathleen Cuningham, a board member, told Ms. Choron. “If the Planning Department tells us certain setbacks are not depicted, we have to rely on that. We need you all to get in the same room. The building inspector’s concerns are quite lengthy,” she said, concluding, “The proximity to wetlands is our biggest issue.”

In the end, the board encouraged the applicants and their surveyor, David L. Saskas, to get together with the Planning and Building Departments and, as Ian Calder-Piedmonte, a board member described it, “Iron this out.”

Another site plan the board discussed that night was that of Frans Preidel. Mr. Preidel owns property on the dunes seaward of Sloppy Tuna, an establishment with which he has had frequent dustups.

 “This is just a shed for toys: paddleboards, surfboards, stuff like that,” he told the board. The problem is that the shed is not tall enough to hold his surfboards. He would like to more than double the shed, from 67 to 145 square feet. In return, he will remove some old decking and an outdoor shower.

The problem that the proposal presents to the Planning Department, according to Mr. Schantz’s memo, is the property’s “extremely close proximity to a primary dune” and that it is “situated seaward of the coastal erosion hazard line.” On the other hand, the memo continues, if there was a net decrease in lot coverage, than the planning and zoning boards should at least consider the proposal.

Nancy Keeshan questioned the need for the expansion, with Ms. Cunningham agreeing.

However, both Mr. Preidel and Ms. Keeshan examined the idea of simply increasing the shed’s height. There already is a board-approved 10-foot-high stockade fence on the property to screen off activity at the bar next door. It was an idea that Reed Jones, the board’s chairman, said he could support.

Two lots on Squaw Road in East Hampton will be bought by East Hampton Town from the Nature Conservancy, following a vote of the town board last Thursday night.

The properties, totaling about 1.6 acres, front on Three Mile Harbor. Formerly owned by the late Robert Olson, they each contain a house, which will be removed at the conservancy’s expense. The $2.6 million purchase price will be paid from East Hampton’s community preservation fund.

The proposal to buy the ecologically fragile property, which was highly rated as an important candidate for preservation by the town’s community preservation fund committee, became a topic of debate among neighborhood property owners and members of a local residents’ group, the Duck Creek Farm Association.

But following a hearing last week at which both opponents and proponents spoke, the board voted unanimously to proceed with the purchase.

Ira Barocas, as president of the Duck Creek Farm Association, a homeowners’ group in the neighborhood, said at the hearing that he “wholeheartedly endorse[s]” the purchases, which is important for water quality and for “mitigating septic into the harbor.”

But some Squaw Road neighbors said they would prefer that the property remain in private hands, and for houses to be built on the lots.

That, they said, would preserve their privacy, prevent extra traffic in their neighborhood, and keep the land on tax rolls.

“My family would be severely affected,” said Richard Levin, who circulated a petition against the purchase and told the board that area residents are “10-to-1” against public preservation of the land.

But Jack Lester, another Squaw Road resident, painted neighborhood opinion differently. “There’s a consensus in favor of the acquisition,” he said.

“Gone will be our privacy, gone will be our tranquility, due to the hordes of people. . . ,” said Mr. Levin, an immediate neighbor to the lots under discussion. He predicted that people “will come to swim, fish, perhaps picnic and watch the lovely sunset” and that the site “will be trashed.”

“My property will go down in value,” he said.

Denise Schoen, an attorney representing a group of the area’s residents who approve of the purchase, said she had reviewed the history of similar preservation fund properties and that the types of things that opponents said they feared had not occurred. Land preservation, she said, has been shown to have a beneficial tax impact, keeping municipal service costs down, rather than impacting the public by removing properties from the tax roll.

“The concept that the purchase of this property will bring an onslaught of people and cars and an overwhelming amount of use . . . that concern appears to be misplaced,” she said. The property will not attract beachgoers, she said, because the shore “from corner to corner” is covered with beach grass and rocks.

But, said Susan Tyler, a neighbor of the site, both she and Mr. Levin have sandy beach in front of their properties. If people can’t set down beach towels on the former Olson property, she said, they might use the nearby beach areas, which are publicly owned to the high tide line, including the one in front of her house. “And that’s frightening,” she said. If the land is publicly owned, she said, “nobody really knows what will become of it. It could be small use, and it could be huge. I worry about it.”

“I respect people’s anxiety; I really do,” said Steve Dickman, who lives across the street and circulated his own petition in favor of the purchase. But, he said, he has “the other anxiety,” about the impact of two new houses on the neighborhood, the properties, and the harbor.

“What is the true public environmental benefit of having an open space preserve?” asked Darren Rubin. He suggested houses that would have to adhere to the town’s zoning, health, and other regulations, would have a minimal effect on the environment and would provide “a better guarantee” that the area’s security and peace would be maintained, versus a public preserve for which a management plan is yet to be created. “Sell the land privately and let the neighborhood remain a private place,” he said.

“This is an opportunity for you to . . . protect the fragile ecology of this land, to let it return to its natural state, and to let it be what it should be — a gift to our world,” said Ellen Frank, Mr. Dickman’s wife, who also supports public acquisition.

She referred to the differences of opinion among her neighbors, and opposing information campaigns and petitions that burgeoned in recent weeks. “The tactics of really creating fear, creating divisiveness, the tactic of really misrepresenting what this would be saddens me.”

While the existence of other public lands in the neighborhood, such as the nature preserve on Babe’s Lane, was used by opponents to question why another public purchase is needed, others used the nearby lands as examples of preserved sites that don’t draw people who cause problems.

Eric Van de Bovenkamp, who only two weeks ago became a full-time resident of Squaw Road, where he has owned property for a decade, said that he shares neighbors’ concerns about traffic and other impacts of outside visitors, but that overall he supports the purchase. But, he said, “I do hope that we would have a good management plan.”

That plan will be developed by the town’s nature preserve committee and reviewed by the town board, which will have a hearing to consider public comment on it before deciding on its adoption.

In addition to the Squaw Road lots, the board also voted last Thursday, following hearings, to buy Peter Israelson’s 2.2 acres at 79 Bull Path in East Hampton for $950,000 and a shy half-acre at 57 Glade Road from Christine Singer for $235,000, both using the preservation fund.

Hearings will be held next Thursday night on additional proposed open space purchases with the preservation fund, including a .8-acre lot at 22 Fenmarsh Road in Springs owned by L Lucky LP and .8 acres at 124 Waterhole Road in Springs owned by Mary Spitzer, each for $700,000.

Another hearing will be held on adding 88 parcels in Springs to the preservation fund plan for potential future purchase, as part of an outreach effort targeting a total of 119 environmentally significant lots in the hamlet. They are properties that are contiguous or near other protected lands; that can accommodate trail connections or new trails or buffer existing trails, or that are waterfront parcels or in watersheds, the preservation of which will help prevent contaminants from reaching ground or surface water.

The lands comprise 105 acres and could be purchased only from willing sellers.

Relations between officials of East Hampton Village and the East Hampton Town Trustees, which have been strained by disagreements over garbage cans on the village’s ocean beaches, have been mended.

Diane McNally, the trustees’ presiding officer, told her colleagues at a meeting Tuesday that she and the trustees Tim Bock and Deborah Klughers had met recently with Barbara Borsack, the deputy mayor, and Richard Lawler of the village board, and agreed upon steps to reduce litter on the beaches, which are under the trustees’ jurisdiction.

One result is the addition of a 5 a.m. garbage pickup on the beaches on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays. This was implemented about two weeks ago, Becky Molinaro, the village administrator, said yesterday.

“What that does,” Ms. McNally said, “is leave the staff that arrives between 6 and 7 free to do another walk-around, to pick up anything large that might be away from a can.” The beach is raked around 6 a.m., and pickups by beach staff continue throughout the day, Ms. Molinaro said. The village’s Department of Public Works performs a late-afternoon pickup, as well.

“I thought it was really productive,” Ms. Klughers, who has most forcefully advocated for the receptacles’ removal from the sand, said of the meeting. “I still want the cans off the beach, but any progress toward a cleaner beach is a great thing. They are definitely trying.”

The receptacles have also been modified, Ms. McNally announced, so that garbage is less likely to spill out if a can tips over. Stickers will also be affixed to the cans requesting that, if the receptacle is full, beachgoers take their garbage to another one. “We will work with the language to see what fits on the cans,” Ms. Molinaro said yesterday.

“Importantly,” Ms. McNally said, “they are willing to work with us and/or the litter committee on developing a recycling program at road ends. They are willing to put cans specifically for water bottles and other plastics, and going on from there.” The village will take that request under consideration, Ms. Molinaro said, along with another request from the trustees to increase fines for littering on the beaches.

Next Thursday is Primary Day, and Independence Party voters here will see a contest for the two town board seats up for re-election in November. Three candidates are vying for the party’s endorsement for the two seats.

Councilwoman Sylvia Overby and Councilman Peter Van Scoyoc, incumbent Democrats who are seeking re-election, received the Independence Party’s backing this spring following the party’s two-day screening.

The third candidate, Lisa Mulhern-Larsen, was chosen to run on the Republican Party ticket after two others withdrew their names citing previous commitments. Ms. Mulhern-Larsen, a registered Independence Party member, forced the Independence Party primary, having produced a petition with the required 54 signatures. She said this week that she had gotten over 90 signatures.

In a letter in the Aug. 20 issue of The Star, Ms. Mulhern-Larsen wrote that “I am running in a primary in September to get the endorsement of my party. The local Independence Party had made its endorsement prior to my nomination in June. If you are an Independence Party member, please come out and vote for me on Thursday, Sept. 10.”

Elaine Jones, chairwoman of the East Hampton Independence Party, said that while Ms. Mulhern-Larsen had the right to challenge its chosen candidates, its endorsements stand. “She’s on the ballot, and there will be a primary,” Ms. Jones said Tuesday. “But just because she’s a member of the Independence Party doesn’t mean we select her. We have sent letters out supporting Sylvia Overby and Peter Van Scoyoc. They both have experience, and they both came to be screened.”

Frank MacKay, chairman of the state Independence Party, signed a certificate of authorization, per state law, allowing Ms. Overby and Mr. Van Scoyoc to run on the Independence Party line, Ms. Jones said. “We do not know her qualifications,” she said of Ms. Mulhern-Larsen, a political newcomer who runs a security and property management business in East Hampton. “We cannot take candidates on faith who are untested and have no record of public service.”

The East Hampton Town Architectural Review Board will hold a public hearing Thursday night at 6 at Town Hall on a longstanding proposal to put a canopy over the Citgo station pumps on Montauk Main Street. Richard P. Myers Jr., chairman of the board, is hoping to hear from Montauk residents. “They are the ones most affected,” he said Friday.

The canopy would be 16 feet high. It has been the focus of much debate, pro and con, over the past few years at town planning board meetings.

Two applications before the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals brought out strong opposition during public hearings on Aug. 4, in a session that seemed to raise questions that remained unanswered.

One application was for a slightly over one-acre oceanfront parcel at 22 Shore Road on Napeague, which is immediately to the east of the White Sands Resort Motel. The owner, a limited liability company named Gerard Point, wants to build a 4,320 square-foot, two-story house, 900 square feet of porches, decking and steps, and a 594-square-foot swimming pool, among other amenities.

 The dunes in the area,  with the exception of this small sliver, have been encroached upon by houses built in the 1970s, if not entirely obliterated, as was the case when the motel was built in the 1950s.

The applicant does not need variances but only a permit to allow construction near the dune crest, according to Julia Priolo of Land Use Ecological Services, who represented the owner.

The hearing was contentious from the beginning. Opponents and board members questioned the accuracy of the survey presented and asked what the elevations of the proposed structures would be.

Dianne LeVerrier of the law firm Jordan & LeVerrier, who represented Bernard Kiembock, an owner of the White Sands, even challenged the size of the property as presented. She alleged that town tax records show it as three-quarters of an acre while the map submitted by the applicant extended “into the Atlantic Ocean.” She questioned the size of the proposed house, as well as the request for a pool, saying it was out of character for the neighborhood, where the only pool was four houses away and had been allowed through a property exchange with the town.

 “Nothing should be built on this dune. It doesn’t make sense. We’re living on borrowed time out here,” one of the neighbors, Harvey Sands, said. That opinion was endorsed by another neighbor, Nick Gregory, who lives directly across the street. “Most if not all of the houses that are on the ocean have been there since the 1970s,” he said, adding that the topography had changed radically. During Hurricanes Irene and Sandy, he said, “We have had to sandbag the public parking lot four or five feet tall and still had flooding.”

 “There is going to be a lot of disturbance to this dune. Let’s be honest,” David Lys, one of the board members, said. Local practice does not allow the zoning board to totally deny construction on a legal private parcel, although it could recommend that it be purchased by the town.

 At the end of the hearing, which ran over two hours, the board agreed with John Whelan, its chairman, to keep the written record open for one month for the applicant to supply updated surveys, and another month for opponents to respond. 

Just as contentious was the other hearing that night, on a proposed tennis court on a parcel of about two acres at 76 Skimhampton Road. Three variances would be needed since the applicant wants to put in the court less than the required 50 feet from the north, south, and east lot lines. The variances requested vary from 2.1 to 9.3 feet.

Robert Connelly of the law firm Farrell Fritz spoke on behalf of the owners, a limited liability company called Iluminus Property Holdings. He told the board that the applicant planned to sink the court four feet below grade. Along with vegetation to be planted, any noise that might emanate would be reduced, he said.

 The court would measure 60 by 120 feet, but the plan also calls for an apron around it bringing the size to 64 by 122 feet. Mr. Whelan pointed out that, in part, the apron created the need for variances.

Carl Irace, a lawyer representing Jack and Eleanor Ecker, who own neighboring property, challenged the legality of the plan. According to Mr. Irace, the property had been cleared illegally. “This whole proposal is based on an error,” he said.

According to Mr. Irace, the Planning Department had incorrectly sent the Building Department a memo in 2012 saying the clearing pre-existed any zoning that would have prohibited it. Mr. Ecker,  however, said he had lived next to the site since 1957 and that it always was heavily vegetated.

Both he and Mr. Irace said the property may have been cleared at one point, over 125 years ago, perhaps for farming, but they said any such clearing had been abandoned. Mr. Irace presented aerial photographs showing what he said was illegal clearing, which had occurred in 2014. “A picture is worth a thousand words,” Mr. Whelan said.

“I have never heard of abandonment when it comes to clearing,” Mr. Connelly responded. Mr. Irace told the board he wanted to appeal the Planning Department’s decision, and asked that it delay any decision. Beth Baldwin, the board’s lawyer, however, said she did not believe an appeal could be made of a Planning Department memo.

In addition, one of the neighbors, Peter Lyons, told the board that the plans for the property appear to include building on an easement that gives him access to his property.

The board left the record open so that all sides could respond to what had been presented.

The tangled issues of a public restroom, the scarcity of parking, a hamlet study, a proposed rental registry, and the creation of a transportation hub occupied the Amagansett Citizens Advisory Committee at its meeting on Monday.

Committee members complained that the Long Island Rail Road’s small parking lot has no restrictions, resulting in congestion and hazardous conditions during weekend arrivals and departures. As for the municipal lot behind Main Street, while more than 100 people work in that commercial district in the summer, the lot holds fewer than 160 cars, and, members said, parking restrictions are rarely if ever enforced. The Highway Department is supposed to clean the lot between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. on the first Monday of every month, but vehicles parked during those hours impede that effort.

Tina Piette, who owns property adjacent to the municipal lot, asked for statistics regarding use of the railroad and of the Hampton Jitney — both of which add to parking needs — and for a map depicting town-owned land in the hamlet.

“Tina brought up a good point,” said Supervisor Larry Cantwell, the town board’s liaison to the committee. “We’ll get whoever we need from town staff to work with the group. It’s a perfect task for the C.A.C., to bring out the maps and come up with a regulatory scheme. Everyone knows the long-term solution is to acquire more land. But even with that, you’ll still have regulatory issues — time frames, what to do with the train station.”

“If we don’t start now,” Mr. Cantwell said, “we’ll be talking about it next June or July instead of trying something out next season.” The alternative, he said, was to wait for the results of a hamlet study, which he called a “couple-year process.”

The committee voted unanimously to create a subcommittee charged with recommending to the town board how to maximize public parking within the present infrastructure. Jeanne Frankl, who proposed the vote, said the group would make its recommendations within three months.

“How does this tie in with the transportation hub we’ve been talking about for 20 years?” asked Herbert Field. Such a hub, which might reposition the railroad station and the jitney’s embarking and disembarking points to a common area closer to the commercial district, has been an occasional topic of discussion. “If you’re going to do anything with parking, let’s consider the transportation hub also,” Mr. Field said.

Deliberations on the long-stalled public restroom in the municipal lot evoked similar frustration. Construction awaits approval by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, which will not issue a certificate of occupancy anywhere on the lot until the matter of a septic system that falls within the required setback of a private well is resolved.

The committee did vote, with some reluctance, to approve the restroom’s latest proposed location, on the lot’s northern perimeter. Ten members voted in favor, three were opposed, and two abstained. The board of directors of the Amagansett Library, along with Ms. Piette and other adjacent property owners, has objected to putting it behind the library.

Although she voted for the new location, Joan Tulp felt that its original placement was better. “But people don’t want it there, or the library didn’t,” she said. “It’s just, I want it done. . . . This is 20 years.”

The town board may discuss creation of a rental registry, intended to curtail overcrowding and the frequent turnover of tenants, at its work session next week, Mr. Cantwell told the committee. Seven of the county’s 10 towns, he said, do have a rental registry law. The town board previously considered, but did not act on, such a law.

“There are more pros than cons,” Ms. Frankl said. A requirement to register one’s rental property, she said, does not represent “a tremendous inhibition on people’s freedoms. You have to weigh it against the probability that, even though the motives may be very good, the results may be imperfect.”

Ms. Piette disagreed, saying that such a law raised constitutional issues. “Adding this is adding another layer of things that could not be enforced,” she said. “There is a way to do this: a search warrant. I’m not in favor of a neighbor complaining and complaining without knowing the facts.”

Jim MacMillan offered another point of view. “As a real estate broker, I hear from people who are non-renters, and they feel their constitutional right of the peaceful enjoyment of their own property is being infringed,” he said. “With a rental registry, at least there’s contact information, and the landlord is responsible. Non-renters have rights, too.”

“If we’re talking about it, there’s a problem,” said John Broderick. A two-bedroom house on his street, he said, was home to 25 people at one time. “You would be hard pressed to find someone to say there’s not a problem with rentals.”

“I’m completely in favor of a rental registry,” Mr. Broderick added. “I’m sure when zoning was introduced in East Hampton Town, there was a firefight. But no one bitches about zoning now.” 

East Hampton Town’s proposed purchase of two waterfront lots on Squaw Road in Springs, 1.6 acres in all, and the removal of two houses there so that the land can be returned to its natural condition, has aroused opposition. The site was owned by the late Robert Olson.

In an Aug. 3 letter to the town board, Richard D. Levin, who said 23 other neighbors are also against the purchase, said the group fears that “once the land becomes public it will attract swimmers and picnickers who will trash the property.”

“Possible bonfires, radios, CDs,” Mr. Levin wrote. “Where else in East Hampton can you park your car or truck 40 seconds’ walk to the beach, with no fee or parking sticker required?”

The property is now owned by the Nature Conservancy. The purchase price, $2.6 million, would come from the community preservation fund, which receives the proceeds of a 2-percent real estate transfer tax.

The town board will hold a hearing on the purchase at Town Hall next Thursday at 6:30 p.m.

Hearings will also be held on several other C.P.F. land purchases. They include the acquisition of 2.2 acres at 79 Bull Path in East Hampton, from Peter Israelson, for $950,000, and of a shy half-acre at 273 Springy Banks Road, East Hampton, for $235,000, from Christine Singer.

A lawsuit against the Long Island Power Authority and PSEG Long Island, filed by a group of East Hampton residents who claim the installation of a high-voltage transmission line through their neighborhoods is harmful to property values and their health and safety, will move forward on several fronts, in keeping with a July 23 court decision.

The 20 plaintiffs, a number of whom are members of Long Island Businesses for Responsible Energy, filed the lawsuit in late May. They are seeking damages of up to $50 million, as well as the burial of the electric lines and removal of the poles.

Acting Supreme Court Justice Andrew G. Tarantino Jr. ruled against the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case  but also dismissed several of the plaintiffs’ causes of action, reducing the number of claims that will be adjudicated.

The new power line stretches for just over six miles from a substation in East Hampton Village to another on Old Stone Highway in Amagansett. PSEG replaced standard utility poles along the route with 267 that are taller and thicker and carry the 33-kilovolt line, which runs along narrow village streets and Town Lane.

The plaintiffs claim that LIPA and PSEG failed to follow required environmental assessment procedures before undertaking the project and also failed to provide proper notice regarding pentachlorophenol, a chemical with which the new poles were treated.

Justice Tarantino agreed that the possible leaching of “penta” into the soil and air and electromagnetic emissions could be found to interfere with the property owners’ use and enjoyment of their land, ruled that they have a valid claim of trespass based on alleged contamination of the soil, and that the court could evaluate the allegation that LIPA and PSEG breached what is termed “duty of care” and caused damages to the plaintiffs.

However, the judge dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim that the installation amounted to a “taking” of their properties, based on an alleged inability to sell them because of their close proximity to the transmission lines. Claims of emotional distress and of fraud regarding statements on an environmental assessment form were also dismissed.

In his ruling the judge noted that a “negative declaration” under the State Environmental Quality Review Act — which effectively meant that the project had no potential for significant environmental impacts — had been issued more than a week before the environmental assessment required from the utilities was completed.

The plaintiffs are represented by Irving Like, an attorney who has been special counsel to Suffolk County on environmental, nuclear power, offshore oil, and utility rate and energy matters, and who worked to prevent the operation of the Long Island Lighting Company’s proposed nuclear plants at Shoreham and Jamesport, and by Leon Friedman, a professor of civil liberties law at Hofstra University and a former American Civil Liberties Union staff attorney.

A court conference is scheduled for Sept. 29.

Discussions between PSEG and East Hampton Village have been ongoing regarding burying the lines, with village ratepayers expected to shoulder part of the cost. The underground lines being discussed would not extend along the long stretch of roads beyond the village boundaries.