Perhaps some day the East Hampton Town Building Department will become a humdrum place, free from scrutiny.
However, for now, with monthslong delays for building permits and recent indictments by the Suffolk County District Attorney alleging bribery by employees, people are paying close attention.
The department was the subject of a few discussion items at Tuesday’s town board meeting, including an update on its backlog. Richard Normoyle, the chief building inspector, detailed the organization of the greatly expanded department (it’s nearly doubled in size in just the last year, to 19 approved positions) and said it would be fully caught up on the permit backlog by the end of the year, five months ahead of his last estimate, offered in May.
He said his department had reviewed all applications from 2025 and was examining those submitted in January and February of 2026. They’re completely caught up on solar, rental registry, and research requests.
Answering a question from Councilman Tom Flight, he said that in March the department had approximately 1,400 total applications in its queue, and now it’s down to about 400. The department is putting out about 150 permits a month and receiving slightly fewer applications, he said.
Mr. Normoyle gave a few reasons for his department’s positive change in momentum.
First, he credited a change in OpenGov that made it possible to identify smaller permits and issue them quickly to “get them out the door.” Second, new hires from the fall and late winter were now fully trained. “They know how to do their job. Instead of spending time with them teaching them, they’re giving us output every day. We’re issuing permits and updating C.O.s on a daily basis.” Finally, a new office layout that shielded clerical staff from public interactions has allowed them to remain on task, typing and processing C.O.s and permits, he said.
While he didn’t have statistics, he said that anecdotally, the volume of phone calls into the office has also declined. “Folks are getting trained to go to the portal for comments.”
He also set a goal of six to eight weeks to inspect and issue permits for new builds and substantial renovations, claiming the historical target turnaround for permit issuance was 10 to 12 weeks.
Still, some in the industry questioned the timelines. On Monday, one land-use company employee shared screenshots of three open permits, filed in 2025, which still have received “no comments” from the department.
“I just don’t believe that any of this is based in reality,” the person said in a text. “I have permits from September and October that I’ve heard nothing on.”
Mr. Normoyle said one problem still plaguing the system was incomplete applications. When using OpenGov, an applicant isn’t able to go from one page to the next without adding necessary files. However, the system isn’t smart enough to know when a blank page is submitted as a placeholder.
“We’re still trying to find solutions to prevent incomplete applications from being submitted,” he said. “If you have 20 people submitting incomplete applications, the one person that does submit a complete application has to wait for the 20 in front of them that are incomplete. So yeah, it creates an issue.”
The problem will fix itself, he ventured, once his department is caught up enough to be able to flag incompletes quickly. “We’re catching up every month,” he said.
At present East Hampton Town Code is very specific about the amount of time one should wait for a permit: 15 days. After Mr. Normoyle’s presentation, Jake Turner, the town attorney, encouraged the board to amend that section of code, leaving the wait time indeterminate.
His recommendation was not supported.
Even before the town board had time to discuss it, three members of the public spoke out during the public portion of the meeting to say it was a bad idea.
“It needs to be a specific time,” said Jack Forst, a builder. “To leave it open-ended is just wrong and it doesn’t make anybody accountable for anything.”
Michael Forst, owner of Forst Construction Inc., and the East End chairman of the Long Island Builders Institute, agreed. “The town has an opportunity to show that they are dedicated to the building community and the residents for an efficient and predictable turnaround on their review and approval process, which we are long overdue for,” he said.
Predictability was the point.
“It’s very important to have an actual standard and actual time frame,” said Marc Clejan. “It makes us able to plan and staff and prepare to execute projects as opposed to an open timeline, which makes it very hard to do that.”
Mr. Turner said the problem was that the code currently compels the issuance of a building permit after 15 days is up, which creates a safety issue. “I don’t want to enter any building in this town where a permit has been issued automatically,” he said.
He added that if an applicant was unsatisfied with the Building Department’s response time, they could appeal to the zoning board of appeals. “They have recourse. To put any sort of timeline on issuance of a permit presupposes that a permit will be issued without proper planning review, which means buildings can go up that are unsafe.”
While the board agreed the 15-day time frame was unrealistic and “antiquated” -- it was added to the code in 2004, according to Councilman David Lys -- members seemed open to a third way: extending the time frame, striking language that would compel permits to be automatically issued, and adding other language to make clear that the “shot clock” begins only after a fully complete application is submitted.
Councilman Flight said that if the department’s goal was to issue permits in six to eight weeks -- 42 to 56 days -- perhaps that was a realistic time frame to add to the code.
“When you’re looking at this from outside the perspective of government operations and looking from the business perspective, giving that kind of guidance, our operations expect that we can get these permits out to you within this time frame, I think is fair and realistic,” he said.
“We are not a business. We’re a government,” shot back Mr. Turner. “Any sort of timeline you put on, you are compromising the safety of the public.” He said he would come back to the board in the next week or two with amendments. If it ultimately agrees, the proposed legislation would still be subject to a public hearing before it could become law.
The board was more supportive of a suggestion to give applicants an option to allow a licensed engineer or architect to certify that all structures on a property have applicable C.s of O. that match their survey. This could free up town staff. The third party would have to submit an “affidavit of compliance” to the Building Department, which would then issue the updated C. of O.
If an architect or engineer misrepresents themselves, they risk losing their license.
The proposed legislation could be the subject of a public hearing by the end of the month.
