Southampton Town

On Clearing for Solar Panels

The Southampton Town Board held off on approving an amendment to its energy code that would allow more clearing for ground-mounted solar energy systems. A change to the amendment prevented the board from taking action after its most recent public hearing, on Tuesday. The board is expected to approve the changes in the coming month.

Ground-mounted solar panels with at least a 5,000-kilowatt output that take up no more than 4,500 square feet would be exempt from the total clearing currently under the proposal. Homeowners could clear up to 2 percent more to make way for such a system. The recommendation came from the town’s sustainability committee. The change the board is making pertains to allowing electrical equipment outside a house if it is not feasible to place it inside.

Suffolk County

Committee on Ticks Is Revived

The Suffolk County Legislature agreed on Sept. 7 to re-establish its tick control advisory committee in connection with the newly created Tick Research and Management Program. A few months ago, Legislator Bridget Fleming was successful in including funding in the 2017-19 capital budget for tick surveillance and management, calling tick diseases a public health crisis.

The committee will be made up of 16 members, mainly representatives of health-related organizations or designees of public agencies, Legislator Fleming said. They will meet three to four times a year to review tick control methods and management options.

The committee was established by then-legislator Jay Schneiderman in 2014. Legislation at the time called for the committee to be disbanded after completion of a 2015 vector control report. Ms. Fleming said it became clear that the county’s arthropod-borne disease laboratory found the committee helpful and wanted it re-established. 

“Tick-borne illness . . . deters locals and tourists alike from enjoying our world-class parks and natural resources,” Ms. Fleming said in a statement. The surveillance and management program, she said, “is to develop a plan to control the tick population in Suffolk County efficiently and effectively, and to serve as a national model for addressing this public health crisis.”

The venture capitalist Fred Wilson and his wife, Joanne Wilson, are planning a family compound on Seabreeze Lane in Amagansett and to do so want to tear down a house they received permission to build there in 2010. A permit from the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals was, and would be, required because of the proximity of dunes and wetlands.

The Wilsons bought a house at 15 Seabreeze Lane in 2000 for $1.47 million, and, in 2012, two years after receiving their permit, replaced it with a larger one with Z.B.A. approval. On Aug. 30, Joel Halsey of Lighthouse Land Planning, representing the couple at a public hearing, explained their new plans.

They recently purchased an adjoining property where they intend to put up a house with several bedrooms for their three grown children and their families, he said. Doing so would mean they need fewer than the seven existing bedrooms at 15 Seabreeze Lane. Instead, they would like four bedrooms and meeting and theater rooms. “It is more expensive to retrofit the old house than to build a new one,” Mr. Halsey said.

The Z.B.A. gave the proposal its stamp of approval. “It is an aggressive project,” Roy Dalene said. He and David Lys expressed concern about drainage and water runoff from the new house, however, and the board agreed the town engineer should look into the matter. The board saw no reason, however, not to grant approval. The Wilsons will be able to demolish a house and build a new one for the second time in six years.

Not all applications that night were greeted positively. Joseph Eschenberg owns a house at 1919 Montauk Highway, at the intersection of the highway and Napeague Meadow Way. He has asked the board for retroactive approval of a 100-square-foot hot tub and a 330-square-foot deck, as well as fencing, which he built without permits. Several variances would be needed to legalize the additions.

The property is extremely constrained, Mr. Lys pointed out. Besides being at an intersection, the Long Island Rail Road tracks are directly to the north. Mr. Dalene noted that a 2010 survey of the property did not show a hot tub.

John Whelan, chairman, said the board had to look at the application as if it were an entirely new proposal. “If this was a new application, I would not approve the hot tub,” he said.

The board voted 4 to 0 to deny the application, with the board’s new member, Theresa Berger, abstaining. Later in the meeting the board tabled several applications to allow her to study them. Another applicant seeking variances for structures built without permits met much the same fate. Michael Scaraglino owns property at 189 Old Stone Highway in Springs, where he added a 489-square-foot first floor deck, enlarged the second floor deck, and added a pergola.

Cate Rogers started the discussion by pointing out that wetlands connected with Accabonac Harbor are to the north. “The applicant has to make his case for how this occurred,” she said. Further, she said, the lumber used for decking was treated with alkaline copper quaternary, a preservative that is environmentally damaging. She called for the board to “deny all aspects of this project.” The board did so, by the same 4-to-0 vote.

Members of an autonomous citizens’ committee on airport noise, including a number of those who served on a town board-appointed similar group that the town later disbanded, visited East Hampton Airport on Friday evening to observe and videotape its operations at the start of the busy Labor Day weekend.

In a statement after the visit, members asserted that they had seen unsafe practices: “Cautioned by the airport manager to remain behind the terminal’s public patio railing for safety reasons, the committee was then surprised to observe two small boys run out onto the tarmac, unescorted, to greet their father, who had emerged from a helicopter.  The committee also observed that, while some helicopters relocated away from the terminal to refuel, others were refueled near the terminal where they had discharged passengers.”

“We went to watch operations and congestion, but were astonished at the safety lapses we saw,” said David Gruber, a committee member, in the release. “And those were just the ones we could easily observe from the small patio in a short span of time. It looks to me that no one in town government, up to and including the supervisor, has any idea where the town’s responsibilities regarding the airport and airport safety begin or end.” 

The group also claimed that its view of airfield operations was deliberately blocked by fuel trucks owned by Sound Aircraft Services, one of the fixed-base operators that leases space at the airport. Three fuel trucks lined up to park in front of the terminal patio from which the committee was observing, members said, and air passengers were then “forced to walk through a narrow space between the fuel trucks and the patio for access to the terminal, creating a totally unsafe condition.”

Asked to comment on safety procedures at the airport, Supervisor Larry Cantwell said in an email only that “fuel trucks should not be parked in this location.” Jemille Charlton, the airport manager, and Councilwoman Kathee Burke-Gonzalez, who is the town board’s airport liaison, did not respond by press time.

The new airport noise committee was formed several weeks ago in response to frustration over continued aircraft noise, despite airport use restrictions in effect for the first time this summer. The new committee’s members, who had worked with town officials to examine and address airport noise issues, have expressed frustration with the course taken by the town, which has resulted, they say, in “the lack of meaningful noise mitigation.” They have also questioned the legal advice offered by the town’s airport counsel.

A second newly formed committee, also founded by frustrated anti-noise advocates, called Say No to KHTO (the airport’s aviation title) is advocating for closing the airport.

A public hearing to examine water contamination and assess the effectiveness and implementation of laws and policies intended to protect water quality and public health will be held by the New York State Assembly’s and Senate’s committees on health and environmental conservation on Monday at 11 a.m. in the Long Island Legislative Auditorium at the William H. Rogers Building in Smithtown. The hearing was called as contamination across the state has highlighted the need for review.

Anyone who wants to present pertinent testimony has been asked to complete and return a reply form by tomorrow. The form can be downloaded at assembly.state.ny.us/write/upload/publichearing/20160812.pdf. Return information is on the form.

Oral testimony will be limited to 10 minutes, and all testimony will be under oath. In preparing the order of witnesses, the committees will attempt to accommodate individual requests to speak at particular times in view of special circumstances. These requests should be made on the reply form or comunicated to committee staff as early as possible.

Fifteen copies of any prepared testimony should be submitted at the hearing registration desk. The committees have also asked for advance receipt of prepared statements.

The East Hampton Democrats opened headquarters for the campaign for Hillary Clinton, nominee for president, and Anna Throne-Holst, nominee to represent New York’s First Congressional District, on Saturday at 53 the Circle in East Hampton.

East Hampton Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell endorsed both candidates at the grand opening of the headquarters. “I have had many personal contacts with Hillary Clinton, who is not only the best qualified person we have had running for president but exceptionally warm and caring,” he said. He called Ms. Throne-Holst, a former Southampton Town supervisor, “a leader in our local issues and a pioneer on water preservation. She will be a wonderful representative for us in Congress.”

“It is great to see the enthusiasm of East Hampton voters and volunteers for our campaign,” Ms. Throne-Holst said. She called her opponent, Representative Lee Zeldin, “Tea Party down the line” and urged a strong “get-out-the-vote” effort to defeat him in the Nov. 8 election. Mr. Zeldin is seeking his second term in the House of Representatives.

The campaign office is open from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and four evenings per week.

The “never-ending saga of Driftwood Shores,” as the clerk of the East Hampton Town Trustees put it, was once again a topic at that body’s meeting on Monday.

In June, several residents of the private development in Springs complained to the trustees that the owners of the last developed lot there were prohibiting use of the beach in front of their property. The new neighbors, Kenneth and Judith Reiss, answered that their deed extends to the mean high-water mark, and said they were suffering hostility and harassment from their neighbors for asserting their ownership.

The trustees, who own and manage many of the town’s beaches, bottomlands, and waterways on behalf of the public, asked all concerned to settle the matter amicably, but also agreed to spend $1,800 on a title search to determine ownership of the beach in question.

Last month, Richard Whalen, the trustees’ attorney, informed the board that the earliest deed found by Fidelity National Title was a handwritten document from 1884 that supports the Reisses’ claim. However, he told the Reisses that the trustees make no claim to the beach “unless some new information comes to light.” At the same meeting, Thomas Fahey, a Driftwood Shores resident, told the trustees he had engaged someone to research the matter, implying the existence of earlier deeds. The trustees told him he was free to pursue the matter.

On Monday, Mr. Whalen told the trustees of continuing “friction” in the Driftwood Shores community and at least one occasion in which police were called. Residents, he said, told police that ownership of the beach is in dispute, and that the trustees may own it. The Reisses, he said, have asked that the trustees “at least put on the record the results of our title search.”

Mr. Whalen’s report led to more friction, this time among the trustees. Francis Bock, the clerk, said that residents complaining about the Reisses’ assertion of ownership were misrepresenting the trustees’ position. “They’re giving the police misinformation,” he said. “The Reisses are asking for something in writing so that if the police are up there, they understand that this is not a trustee issue . . . If it comes to harassment, they should be protected.”

“Hold on,” said Jim Grimes. “If, at some later point, some deed or document surfaces that changes this, I don’t really think it’s our job to either reinforce the Reisses’ position or dispute the Driftwood Shores position.”

The title report, Mr. Whalen said, is public information, and some trustees reminded their colleagues that the Reisses were given a copy.

Pat Mansir agreed with Mr. Bock that the couple is being harassed, but Mr. Grimes was unmoved. “I’m always reluctant,” he said, “to provide any individual with some self-serving document that they can use to basically cram down their neighbors’ throat.” It is a civil matter, he said. “As soon as we inform the Police Department, we’ve chosen a position.”

Mr. Grimes reminded his colleagues that when the issue was initially presented to them, Mr. Whalen told the residents that if they could show uninterrupted use of the beach for more than 10 years, they might have the right to a prescriptive easement, which Mr. Whalen said would not be resolved without litigation. “I think it is time that we’re not involved in this,” Mr. Grimes said.

Mr. Bock complained that, in passively supporting Mr. Fahey’s independent search, “we were manipulated to make it appear that we are not really accepting the results of that title search.” Mr. Grimes disagreed.

Mr. Whalen said he could ask the town attorney’s office to inform the police that “at the moment, based on the evidence we have right now . . . we don’t have a claim to that beach.”

In other news from the meeting, Rick Drew told his colleagues that a subcommittee would hold an organizational meeting with the trustees’ harbor management committee on Wednesday. That committee had been another source of friction among the trustees in recent months, following a discussion of its potential restructuring. Mr. Drew suggested that, in addition to field observation and reporting, the committee’s duties might expand to incorporate environmental issues and interact with officials in Montauk and Sag Harbor.

Preparations for the trustees’ annual Largest Clam Contest, set for Oct. 2 at their headquarters in Amagansett, are underway. The trustees voted to authorize expenditures of up to $3,500 for the event, which includes free shellfish and clam chowder as well as competitions for the largest clam dug from each of four town waterways and the best clam chowder. The trustees have welcomed donations of prizes for the event, which also serves to educate the public as to the trustees’ role in the town’s governance and the work of the town’s shellfish hatchery.

Based on the recommendation of an East Hampton Town committee on affordable housing, the town board is considering legalizing the creation of apartments in detached structures on residential properties, such as garages.

Proposed changes to an existing law that allows homeowners to build an affordable apartment, which must be rented to a year-round tenant, onto a residence, with rents adhering to a town-imposed standard, will be the subject of a hearing at Town Hall tonight at 6:30. The change would maintain a limit of 20 permitted affordable accessory apartments within each of the town’s school districts, but would allow them to be created in outbuildings on properties of a half-acre or more, provided those buildings meet the setbacks from neighboring property lines that are imposed for principal structures.

Another change to the law, which currently requires homeowners to live on site in the principal dwelling, would allow them to occupy the apartment instead and rent the larger space.

The proposed changes to the law are designed, according to town documents, to “provide a greater opportunity to create a limited number of affordable accessory apartments within detached accessory structures, as there continues to be a demonstrated need for moderate income rental housing in the Town of East Hampton.”

The center of Amagansett, and how it will look in the future, is in the spotlight as East Hampton Town moves forward with a plan to expand the hamlet’s municipal parking lot.

The town board will hold a hearing tonight at 6:30 on the purchase of two parcels adjacent to the lot to expand it to the east, but questions remain about 30 acres of farmland north of the lot and extending to the east and west, which is owned by the Bistrian family.

The announcement last week that the family wants to begin developing the land has a number of residents concerned. It comes after years of their unsuccessful attempts to sell the land to the town, and includes a demand that the town make good on a 1970 agreement to create a public road extending from the parking lot north, in an L-shape, to Windmill Lane. The road would create access to two landlocked lots.

An online petition begun by a group of Windmill Lane neighbors, titled Save Our Farmland Amagansett, has been posted on gopetition.com. It calls on both town officials and the Bistrian family to come to terms on a plan to buy and preserve the farmland acreage. Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell and the town board should “disallow the housing development and associated road,” it says, and asks that Scott Wilson, the town’s director of land acquisitions and management, “use all possible means” to secure the land. It also asks the Bistrian family, “as longstanding members of the community, to ensure their legacy as protectors of the town’s character for posterity by coming to terms with the town.”

Besides signing the petition, it asks those who are concerned to attend a Sept. 12 meeting of the Amagansett Citizens Advisory Committee.

Creating house lots and a road into them on the farmland will, according to the petition, “negatively impact the character of the town [by] disrupting the scenic vista”; destroy plant and animal habitats, forcing deer onto nearby property, roads, and the railroad tracks; threaten groundwater; “significantly increase traffic” on surrounding roads, and “increase the number of potential summer rentals and associated problems with mega-mansions right on top of the village.”

Scott Crowe, who bought property several years ago on Windmill Lane, which abuts the former Bistrian land deeded to the town for the unbuilt access road, said last week that the group is “not trying to antagonize any particular party . . . it’s just about balancing. A lot of people in the community are concerned about it.”

With a date of Oct. 10 outlined in the Bistrian lawyers’ letter to the town for installation of the road — and a promise that the family will install it themselves if the town does not — “I’m afraid that they’re going to show up with bulldozers,” Mr. Crowe said.

When two sides — a landowner and the town, as potential purchaser — differ greatly on the value of a parcel, as is apparently the case here, there is often little wiggle room for negotiation. Mr. Wilson explained this week that the town

cannot make an offer, even on a highly desirable piece of land, that exceeds its appraised value to any significant extent. That could open the municipality up to accusations of impropriety, he said, and bring trouble from the Internal Revenue Service and other agencies that set parameters for the appropriate use of public funds.

Expenditures from East Hampton’s community preservation fund, which could be used to make the farmland purchase, are audited yearly, and the files on every purchase, after completion, are public documents open to investigation.

When land is “appraised for X, and they want X times that,” said Mr. Wilson, it becomes something of a stalemate. Appraisers consider a number of factors when setting land value, he said, but always endeavor to pinpoint the value of acreage at its “highest and best use.”

The Bistrian land is zoned for two-acre residential lots. How many lots the acreage north of Main Street could yield depends upon their configuration and the applicability of such zoning regulations as a required 70-percent set-aside of prime farmland, minimum lot sizes, or space needed for setbacks, road access, and the like. 

Besides a parcel’s ultimate yield, appraisers factor in the cost of subdivision, if necessary; of improvements, such as roads and utilities; of real estate market variables such as the market’s rate of appreciation, and of the time it could take to get to the point of sales. Those factors, considered differently by different appraisers, could result in widely varying appraisals.

The two parcels the town is considering buying for parking are owned by Herbert E. Field and Thomas F. Field. A half-acre plot zoned for commercial use has a selling price of $1.1. million and a two-acre section of a slightly larger lot has a price tag of $1.8 million. Their addresses are 263 Montauk Highway and 22 Main Street, respectively.

As the two-acre parcel includes farmland, only 30 percent of it may be used for parking; the remainder will be preserved. Accordingly, the town would pay for 30 percent of its cost from capital funds and use community preservation fund money for the remaining 70 percent.

Nineteen people were charged with violations of the town code when The East Hampton Town Code Enforcement Department, working with the Building Department, fire marshals, and town police, executed a search warrant at 13 Beech Hollow Court in Montauk at 6 a.m. According to Michael Sendlenski, the town attorney, 18 people were found staying in the house, which apparently had nine bedrooms. The homeowner was also charged.

The raid was the result of an investigation of an alleged share house and dangerous overcrowding, which spanned most of the summer. Alina Gersham, who leased the house for the season from Thomas Mahl of Montauk, was at the house at time of the raid. Mr. Mahl reportedly bought the house in 2006 for $1.65 million.

Ms. Gersham "was renting out rooms, parts of rooms, the illegally converted basement, and even the pool house . . . to 17 occupants for as much as $1,800 for a weekend per room," according to a town press release. She allegedly created six additional bedrooms, illegally converting the basement, among other spaces, into rooms that were firetraps, with no egress in case of emergency, and no smoke detectors, according to the release. The pool house was also allegedly converted into bedrooms illegally.

The town became aware of the apparent violations earlier this summer after police were called in response to a noise complaint. They issued summonses for noise violations as well as overcrowding. "They previously tried to legalize the basement, but the town said, 'No,' Mr. Sendlenski said, due to the dangerous conditions. Ms. Gersham, allegedly with the permission of Mr. Mahl, continued to rent out the rooms after the summonses were issued.

Each of the residents of the house on Saturday is facing charges under the town code on the use of single family residences. Ms. Gersham and Mr. Mahl, on the other hand, are facing "many dozens" of charges, quite a few of which are criminal misdemeanors, according to Mr. Sendlenski. The number of charges each is facing could top 100, he said.

Mr. Mahl, who was living at his house at 16 Gates Avenue in Montauk, told authorities he was not aware of what was happening on Beech Hollow Road. It is the second time in a year that one of his properties has been cited as an illegal share house. Kimberly Geise, then 46, who, like Ms. Gersham, rented the Gates Avenue house for the season, pleaded guilty in October to seven charges stemming from the sale of shares on AirBNB and Craigslist. "The homeowner, Tom Mahl, told investigators that he was unaware of what was going on," The Star said in reporting the charges. At the time, Mr. Sendlenski said homeowners are not generally charged the first time around. By phone on Saturday, he reiterated that point. "The second time around, the owner is culpable," he said. He added that the investigation was ongoing.

In the press release, the charges were described as "rental registry violations that provide that the landlord notify the town Building Department when the number of tenants change and when new rental periods begin and end." Other charges include the sale of shares, no smoke detectors, construction without a permit, no certificate of occupancy, improper egress for bedrooms in the basement, conversion of the house from single to multifamily use, and alleged violations with respect to the pool house and basement.

All 19 charged will be arraigned in East Hampton Town Justice Court on Sept. 26.

"As we start this busy holiday weekend, all of our public safety staff, especially the Code Enforcement Department who lead this investigation, deserve commendation for all their hard work and vigilance in protecting our community," Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell said in a statement. "Our town will not tolerate violations of our town code, especially those sections designed to protect the health, safety, and welfare of our single-family neighborhoods and community at large."

Southampton Town is taking steps to improve pedestrian safety along Montauk Highway in Bridgehampton, but a $700,000 state grant earmarked for crosswalk improvements and lighting enhancements is not as readily available as initially thought.

Frank Zappone, the deputy supervisor, told the Bridgehampton Citizens Advisory Committee on Monday night that the town discovered last week that it would have to come up with nearly $1 million up front in order to use the money being offered through the state. This came as a surprise to the community group, which had been working with state officials to get the funding in the wake of the death of Anna Pump, a chef and restaurant owner who was killed while crossing Montauk Highway in the hamlet in October.

In June, Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr. obtained $500,000 and State Senator Kenneth P. LaValle $200,000 through the state and municipal facilities program. As it turns out, it is a 25-percent matching grant, which means the town will have to come up with $175,000. It is also a reimbursable grant, so the town will have to come up with all of the money up front, and the state is slow to pay money back, Mr. Zappone said.

It is a “significant investment in a road that doesn’t really belong to us,” he said, referring to the fact that Montauk Highway is a state road. Still, the figure is not insurmountable, he said, adding that the town board would have to make a policy decision — borrow the money or take it from the fund balance.

In the meantime, the town board approved a resolution on Tuesday night for requests for proposals for planning and engineering of traffic safety improvements in Bridgehampton. The town has not yet seen an analysis from the State Department of Transportation on that score, though it had been promised one.

The timeline is going to be short, with proposals due back by Oct. 5, Mr. Zappone said. The engineering will not be paid for with money from the state grants, he said.

Meanwhile, following complaints over the past few months about the lack of law enforcement on Main Street in Bridgehampton, Southampton Town police ramped up efforts over the weekend and promised the citizens committee this week that enforcement will continue.

Capt. Lawrence Schurek told the group that he had sent the department’s community response unit to the hamlet for a few hours on Saturday and Sunday to focus on distracted drivers and jaywalkers.

He reported that officers wrote 35 summonses and made three arrests during that time. One of those arrests turned into a large drug bust after a driver was stopped for talking on his cellphone. (That story can be found in the police pages this week.)

Twenty-six of the violations issued were to drivers talking on cellphones without hands-free devices, the captain said. Two tickets were given to pedestrians who failed to use a crosswalk.

“I told them to take it easy on that,” the captain said, adding that he prefers to give warnings in the early stages of jaywalking enforcement. Two people, however, got “a little confrontational” with the officers.

Over all, Captain Schurek said, he was impressed with the number of tickets written.

“You see, it’s worth it,” said Pamela Harwood, the president of the C.A.C.

Captain Schurek agreed and said he hoped that word of increased enforcement would spread and that drivers and pedestrians would use caution.

“It’s not going to happen overnight,” he said. “I wish I could have an officer on Main Street 24-7. It’s just not an option.”

Ms. Harwood, saying she had heard the number 145 in relation to town police, asked if that was the number of officers in the department. Captain Schurek smiled and told her that there were 94 officers in the department, which covers 145 square miles. One officer is assigned to Bridgehampton, but also covers the area from the Princess Diner in Water Mill east to Sagaponack.

A lively discussion ensued as to whether the hamlet is receiving a fair number of police services. Though a figure could not be confirmed, members discussed the amount of taxes being paid from Bridgehampton properties into the $22 million police budget.

Mr. Zappone said it was not a fair analysis. “It doesn’t serve the community well nor does it serve the Police Department well to try to say X number of dollars equals Y number of services,” he said. “To equate the number of dollars put into the budget to the kind of police service you get makes sense on paper, but in terms of delivering the service that you really need, that the community deserves to have, that’s not the analysis we should bring to the table.”

Instead, he said, the town should look at what the needs of the community are, what the resources are, and how to match them.

“That’s double talk,” Peter Wilson, a member of the C.A.C., said.

Jenice Delano, who said she doesn’t necessarily want more of a police presence, also disagreed with Mr. Zappone. “It seems to me if we’re contributing $4 million or even $10 million out of a $20 million budget that ought to count for something.”

The alternative is for Bridgehampton to become an incorporated village, like Sagaponack, which contracts with the town for police services and has one officer patrolling the area around the clock in the summer.

Mr. Zappone said policing is a townwide issue that needs to be balanced. “We have people in the Riverside community who pay much less in taxes than you do,” he said of the hamlet in the western portion of the town that has a crime problem. “Should they get less policing using the same logic?”

While the group did not agree on the method to figure out the number of police officers Bridgehampton needs, all members agreed the area is being underserved. Captain Schurek said increased enforcement will continue while the town looks at the issue further.