The East Hampton Town Trustees are holding firm in their opposition to the town board’s proposed ban on the consumption of alcoholic beverages within 2,500 feet in either direction from the road ends at Indian Wells and Atlantic Avenue Beaches, Amagansett.

At their meeting on Tuesday night, the trustees distributed a letter to that effect, directed to Supervisor Larry Cantwell and the board members. The letter did, however, acknowledge “the concerns expressed by bathers at Indian Wells Beach,” which many residents say has been marked, in recent years, by large crowds of intoxicated young adults and the behavior that often results, including public urination, litter, and noise.

Instead, the trustees offered, via a section of the code addressing peace and good order, “a posting at the road end of Indian Wells Highway to advise of a prohibition on open alcohol within 500 feet east and west of said road end,” between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. on weekends and federal holidays from the Thursday before Memorial Day to Sept. 15.

The trustees said police — “an officer or officers” — should be stationed at the beach during the hours of prohibition as well, and “any and all other existing regulations pertaining to disorderly conduct should be posted.”

Their offer applies only to Indian Wells Beach, although the town board has indicated that both beaches should be addressed.

Beachgoers’ accounts of “exceedingly poor behavior,” the letter read, is challenged by other reports that “the behavior is not as prevalent as reported.” The trustees noted their fear of setting a precedent for yet more beach restrictions. “Others wonder,” the letter read, “why the newsworthy boisterous and unruly conduct resulting from the excessive noise, crowds and alcohol in Montauk,” where the trustees do not have jurisdiction, “has not been adequately addressed prior to initiating more regulations on the beach.”

The debate continued at the meeting, with Rona Klopman and Diana Walker, both of Amagansett, and Sue Avedon of East Hampton arguing for an alcohol ban. Stuart Vorpahl, a former trustee, and Ira Barocas, who ran unsuccessfully for the trustee board last year, spoke against it.

“A lot of people with kids don’t want to go to Indian Wells Beach,” Ms. Klopman said.

“But it did get better,” said Stephanie Forsberg, a trustee, referring to last year’s town-implemented stepped-up enforcement and changes to the parking lot. 

“I would be agreeable to this, with enforcement,” Deborah Klughers, a trustee, said. “Just don’t make another law and add on to the five that aren’t being enforced.”

But, said Mr. Barocas, “we are penalizing the many for the actions of a few.”

In other business, Ms. Forsberg told her colleagues that water-quality sampling performed in conjunction with Christopher Gobler of Stony Brook University has resumed. Mr. Gobler, she said, has requested permission to add a new sampling method called solid phase absorption toxin tracking, or SPATT. SPATT is a method for monitoring toxic algal blooms and shellfish contamination employing adsorption of biotoxins onto porous synthetic resin-filled sachets, which are then extracted and analyzed. Mr. Gobler recommended Three Mile Harbor for the sampling, Ms. Forsberg said.

Mr. Gobler has also proposed testing shellfish, in addition to the water, for toxins, and has asked to take 12 blue mussels per week from an appropriate waterway during the sampling program. He has obtained a State Department of Environmental Conservation permit, Ms. Forsberg said, but sought the trustees’ approval. The trustees endorsed the plan.

Amagansett may finally get the public restrooms some residents have sought for more than a decade.

At a meeting of the hamlet’s citizens advisory committee on Monday, East Hampton Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell, the town board’s liaison to the committee, showed a blueprint of the parking lot on the north side of Main Street, and suggested a restroom location near the lot’s center adjacent to a vegetated island as opposed to in the southwest corner, as had originally been proposed.

“I’m going to pursue getting it designed,” he said. “The goal will be to get a new bathroom built before next summer. That assumes we move as quickly as we can.”

Mr. Cantwell asked the committee which location was preferable, and what members wanted the structure to look like, distributing images of prefabricated restrooms, a less-expensive option than one built by the town. “I’m not comfortable with any of those,” he said of the prefabricated designs. “We’re in a historic district. We talk about our pride of Amagansett. It’s going to cost more, but it is going to be substantial.”

Tina Piette, whose law office is adjacent to the parking lot, said that situating the restroom in the middle of the lot might be unsafe for pedestrians, while the southwest corner is directly accessible via the alley adjacent to Indian Wells Tavern and the sidewalk lining the lot’s entrance and southern perimeter. Mr. Cantwell said that property owners near the original proposed location had objected to its placement there.

At least four parking spaces would be lost to the restroom, Mr. Cantwell said. But, “This parking lot can simply be re-striped and you can add somewhere between 20 and 30 parking spaces without increasing the paving at all.” Fortunately, he said, the parking spaces are very wide and the lanes surrounding them are “huge, compared to most parking lots.” A re-striping, he said, was “something that should be done.”

The committee will hold elections next month, and members moved to nominate its officers. Tom Field nominated Kieran Brew, the chairman, to continue in that role. Michael Diesenhaus, the committee’s vice chairman, was nominated by Kristine Gaudy to remain in that position.

Jim MacMillan then nominated Rona Klopman for chairwoman. Ms. Klopman is a former chairwoman of the committee. Jeanne Frankl nominated Susan Bratton for secretary, a position she currently holds, but Britton Bistrian moved that nominations for secretary be left open, as Ms. Bratton was not present.

The committee also discussed at length the town’s proposed ban on alcohol at Indian Wells and Atlantic Avenue Beaches during lifeguard-protected hours. Mr. Cantwell said that he was waiting for input from the East Hampton Town Trustees, who met on Tuesday, before the town board would consider the issue.

He referred to an “upgrade” at Indian Wells Beach that included renovated restrooms, which he said are on track to be completed around Memorial Day, new signs, increased parking that will be created by re-striping the lot, moving the attended booth farther from the lot, and moving the sidewalk to the east side of Indian Wells Highway to add spaces on its west side.

The town board’s original proposal was for an alcohol ban to extend 2,500 feet east and west of the lifeguard-protected area, he said, while the trustees have considered a 500-foot span in both directions. No hearing has been scheduled, he said, “but it’s possible that will happen before the full beach season starts.”

Adopting the prohibition on a trial basis, said Mr. Diesenhaus, might break the pattern of hundreds-strong gatherings of young adults, many of them drinking excessively. “Everything comes in cycles,” he said. “Nothing is the ‘in’ place to be forever. If they find out this summer that there’s no liquor. . . .”

The town board’s preference, Mr. Cantwell said, was to put the ban in place at both Indian Wells and Atlantic Avenue Beaches, which the trustees have opposed. “The feeling is those are very close together and could probably shift the potential problem from one location to another.” In discussing the issue with Chief Michael Sarlo of the Town Police Department, he said, the board felt that, “if you’re going to do it at one you need to do it at two, and we’ll see what happens over the course of the summer.”

Betty Mazur moved that the committee vote to support, on a one-year trial basis, a ban during lifeguard-protected hours at the two beaches. Committee members, with one abstention, voted in favor of the motion.

    Taxi drivers in East Hampton Town will be fingerprinted and checked for criminal convictions under a new law passed last Thursday.

    Before being issued a town taxi license, drivers and principals in taxi companies will be vetted by state and town officials.

    Should an applicant have a prior conviction, following a review by the state Criminal Justice Services division, a decision will be made by the town clerk, town attorneys, and town police as to whether a license should be issued. State law prohibits unfair discrimination against previously convicted offenders, specifying that a license or employment may only be denied if there is a “direct relationship” between the criminal offense and the specific license or job, or where approval of a license would “involve an unreasonable risk to property or to the safety or welfare of specific individuals or the general public.”

    Several criteria, outlined in state law, will be considered, among them the time elapsed since the criminal offense, its seriousness, and the age of the applicant at the time it occurred. Information regarding a previous offender’s “rehabilitation and good conduct” will also be considered. Those denied licenses will be able to appeal to the town’s Licensing Review Board.

    The requirement for annual fingerprinting can be waived by the town clerk.

    The town board held a hearing on the law on May 1. The board also amended the town code to include a taxi office among the “home occupations” allowed in a residence. A home-based taxi operation may not include dispatching, storage, repair, washing, or maintenance of taxis.

    A second code change allows a taxi office — again without taxi parking or dispatching — to be part of an office complex without being considered an additional use of the site under the zoning code.

East Hampton Town

Complaints Online

    Complaints to the East Hampton Town Ordinance Enforcement Department, regarding, for example, possible town code violations from overcrowded housing to illegal summer rentals, litter, or businesses operating in residential zones, may now be lodged online through the town’s website at www.ehamptonny.gov.

    An online complaint form can be found there under “Ordinance Enforcement” on the right-hand side. Those sending complaints will receive written confirmations, and town officers will investigate. They will also be notified of determinations. The online system went live on Tuesday.

    Complaints may also still be lodged by calling code enforcement, the fire marshals office, or the town Building Department, or by visiting them at 300 Pantigo Place.

    Noise complaints must be filed with the Police Department.    

Renewable Energy Goals

    East Hampton Town has set a goal of meeting 100 percent of the community’s electricity needs with renewable energy sources by 2020, the first town in New York State to do so.

    The unanimous vote by the town board on Tuesday also calls for meeting energy consumption in other energy sectors (heating and transportation) with renewable sources by 2030. The goals reflect those of numerous municipalities across the nation and worldwide, a number of which have been achieved, Frank Dalene said on Tuesday. He chairs the town energy and sustainability committee.

    In response to several renewable energy programs sponsored by the Long Island Power Authority and PSEG Long Island, the town has already selected a number of proposals from solar developers for large-scale solar farms on town-owned land.

Filming Fees Up

    With a vote last Thursday, the East Hampton Town Board increased the fees for permits for filming for the first time since 2007.

    According to the resolution offered by Councilwoman Kathee Burke-Gonzalez, productions involving between 6 and 15 people per day will pay $250 for a daily permit; those with 16 to 50 people, $500 a day; those with 51 to 100 people, $1,000 a day, and filming involving more than 100 people will be subject to a $1,500-a-day fee.

    The increases were prompted by a film crew that sought a permit to film a Showtime TV series for the second year. During board discussion, a resident had said East Hampton’s fees were well below those paid by the industry in other areas.

Bus Club Proposed

    A new transportation service proposed between East End hamlets, using two revamped school buses, prompted some questions by the East Hampton Town Board, which heard from one of the business’s founders, Derek Kleinow, on Tuesday.

    Mr. Kleinow described the system as a “social club,” which would offer rides between shopping areas, restaurants, and night spots to members, along with refreshments aboard the buses, and a chance to meet other members. As a social club offering an amenity rather than a transportation service, he said, the business would not be subject to certain regulations applied to other bus companies.

    Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell, while applauding the idea of a service that might reduce traffic and provide an alternative for those who might otherwise drive after drinking, asked Mr. Kleinow to provide written documentation of the legality of the proposal. Mr. Cantwell also voiced concern about buses stopping at places like Montauk’s Surf Lodge, for instance, where there are often traffic tie-ups.    J.P.

New York State

Business Group Endorses Wind Farm

    The Association for a Better Long Island, a trade group serving real estate and business interests, has written to Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo endorsing a proposed 200-megawatt wind farm, to be situated in the Atlantic some 30 miles east of Montauk.

    The association’s members control $15 billion worth of commercial, industrial, residential, and retail real estate, representing the largest energy consumers on Long Island, according to a release.

    Desmond Ryan, the group’s executive director, told the governor that members believe renewable energy should be a sizable component of the state’s energy generation. “Job growth, stabilized rates, and one more alternative to fossil-fuel commodity prices make it easy for our business leaders to endorse this proposal,” he wrote.

    Deepwater Wind, a Rhode Island company, has proposed to build Deepwater ONE, an offshore wind farm that will not be visible from any point on Long Island.

    A consultant’s assertion that East Hampton Town has nothing to gain by fixing and reopening its scavenger waste treatment plant, which has been offline since 2012 and used solely as a transfer station, went unchallenged at a hearing held by the town board last week.

    Few members of the public spoke at the hearing, where Pio Lombardo of Lombardo Associates reviewed the report he had already delivered to the board. His extensive examination of the facility included a look at operating procedures, permit and regulatory issues, the septage waste that is delivered and waste treatment alternatives, and a financial analysis.

    The town could realize $40,000 to $50,000 a month in “easy savings,” by closing the plant, he said last week. There is “little to no value” in keeping it open, he said.

    Most East Hampton septic waste carters are already depositing their loads at other facilities upIsland, he said. Dumping fees do not cover the town’s costs, and keeping the facility open would require the town to subsidize the transfer station to the tune of “at least a half million dollars a year,” Mr. Lombardo said.

    The consultant, and speakers from the audience, suggested that money could be put to better use on water-quality protection initiatives such as, perhaps, providing financial incentives for individual property owners to upgrade below-par septic systems.

    It makes “economic sense” to close the plant and to direct the savings toward other aspects of a comprehensive septic waste management plan, said Dominick Stanzione, a former town councilman, who advocated hiring Mr. Lombardo and the development of such a plan.

    Speaking for Concerned Citizens of Montauk, Jeremy Samuelson, its executive director, also advocated directing funds toward water quality projects.

    About two-thirds of the septic waste being dealt with at the plant, Mr. Lombardo said, is pumped out of failing septic systems. By maintaining the status quo, he said, “the town is, really, encouraging failing septic systems not to be repaired.”

    A look at some examples of restaurants, for instance, that have to have their septic systems routinely pumped, showed that the establishments would make out better, financially, if they took the money spent on pump-outs and used it to upgrade their septics instead.

    “In many areas,” he said, “excessive pumping is considered a health hazard and is illegal.”

    Arthur Malman, the head of the town’s budget and finance advisory committee, agreed with Mr. Lombardo’s analysis. The committee, he said, had told previous town officials in 2008, 2009, and 2010 that the waste plant was in disrepair and not operating properly but the reports, he said, “were just ignored.”

    “To us it makes no sense to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to provide a place where one truck can move waste to another truck,” Mr. Malman said.

    Margaret Turner, the executive director of the East Hampton Business Alliance, urged the board to address the issue of septic waste “comprehensively” and to look into “sewage treatment systems that are appropriate for East Hampton Town.”

    “The need to update failing systems and save our water should trump everything,” she said.

    Mr. Lombardo’s analysis of the plant is just the first part of a more comprehensive study that will include recommendations regarding septic system upgrades and other overall water quality projects, said Supervisor Larry Cantwell.

    Mr. Cantwell said that he would support shutting down the transfer station, though perhaps not until after the summer. If a private company expressed interest in continuing to run the transfer station at no cost to the town, he would consider that option, he said.

East Hampton Town

Push for Airport Noise Complaints

With the summer season under way at East Hampton Airport, the Quiet Skies Coalition issued a press release this week urging “aircraft-noise-affected residents” to log complaints by calling the aircraft noise complaint line at 800-476-4817, or posting complaints online at plane­noise.com/khto.

After reviewing a report recently issued to the East Hampton Town Board by a business and finance advisory committee subgroup that analyzed the airport finances, Quiet Skies applauded the work of the group, which determined that the airport could be maintained and operated without Federal Aviation Administration money.

The determination, Kathleen Cunningham, the Quiet Skies Coalition director, said in the release, will “pave the way for the town board to act on its intention to reduce the impacts of aircraft on the community by limiting access to East Hampton Airport,” once a set of obligations to the F.A.A., which come with accepting federal money, expires at the end of the year. The Quiet Skies Coalition, she said, “has long supported the safe operation of [East Hampton Airport], but not at the expense of the noise-affected.”

Suffolk County

Water Pollution Video Contest

Suffolk County is sponsoring a contest to select a TV spot and a short video that would educate the public about nitrogen pollution and the ways that individuals can help improve water quality.

In announcing a Reclaim Our Water initiative and SepticSmart program, County Executive Steve Bellone called an increase of nitrogen pollution in ground and surface waters from septic systems and cesspool pollution “alarming,” and said it is “leading toward an ecological collapse.” He said “immediate and decisive action” is needed.

Videos should be one to three minutes long, and TV spots, 30 or 60 seconds. Suggested topics include ways to reduce polluted runoff into ground and surface waters, new septic waste processing technologies, the importance of wetlands, and marine debris prevention. Six winning videos and three “honorable mention” entries will be chosen to be featured on the county website and screened at the Cinema Arts Centre in Huntington in September during a SepticSmart week. The creators will receive prizes.

Entries must be submitted by Aug. 1. Complete information is available on the county website, on a “CrapSHOOT video contest” page.    

New York State

C.P.F. Revenues Spike

Peconic Bay Region Community Preservation Fund revenues for the first quarter of the year are up almost 13 percent over last year.

The 2-percent tax on most real estate transfers, approved in 1999 by the voters in five East End towns to establish a pool of money for open space, farmland, and historic preservation, generated more than $29 million in the first four months of 2014, on 2,446 transactions, and $7.8 million in April alone, Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr. reported in a press release. Last year, there were 2,767 real estate transactions subject to the tax in the first quarter of the year.

In East Hampton, first-quarter 2014 revenues were $7.9 million, compared to $7.3 million during the same period last year. Since its inception, the transfer tax has generated more than $914 million for preservation in the region. Mr. Thiele noted in his release that last year was the second-largest year for C.P.F. revenues, exceeded only by 2007.

Federal

Seek Copter Route Re-Up

A requirement that helicopters flying between New York City and the East End follow an over-water route off Long Island’s north shore is due to expire in August, but state elected officials are lobbying for the rule, put into place by the Federal Aviation Administration two years ago, to be made permanent.

The mandatory route was established for a trial period to address increasing complaints by Long Island residents about helicopter noise.

On Tuesday, Senator Charles E. Schumer and Representative Tim Bishop urged Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx and F.A.A. Administrator Michael Huerta to not only establish the mandatory route permanently, but also to expand it to require helicopters to follow a total over-water route, and to go around Orient Point and Shelter Island when landing at South Fork airports. They also suggested modifications designed to have helicopters avoid a few problem areas on Nassau County’s north shore.    

Cyril’s Fish House, the popular roadside restaurant on the Napeague stretch, received the okay to open for the season last Thursday, when acting Su­preme Court Justice Joseph Farneti lifted a temporary restraining order that would have required the restaurant to operate in conformance to its layout in the mid-1980s, when the establishment was much smaller.

According to Justice Farneti, speaking in New York State Supreme Court in Riverhead, the owners of the restaurant had remedied conditions that had posed “imminent danger” to the public and that first caused him to issue the restraining order on April 12. However, he also fast-tracked East Hampton Town’s lawsuit against the restaurant for operating an illegally expanded business, setting a June 9 date for a hearing.

On May 20, Tom Preiato, the town’s chief building inspector, lifted a stop work order that applied to work being done on a front brick patio and a dry bar. In January, the patio had been pulled up and the bar moved to allow for the removal of two 2,000-gallon underground gasoline storage tanks dating back many years to when the spot was a gas station. Mr. Preiato said at the time that the owners had not obtained permits for any of the work and halted it.

On May 21, Mr. Preiato said he had lifted the order with the understanding that the bricks would be replaced by clean local gravel. He also said that the owners had obtained the needed permits for the removal of the tanks.

The bricks have been moved from the front area, and there is now a level surface of gravel where the front patio had been.

Cyril’s was open last weekend and as crowded as ever, many of its patrons no doubt unaware of the legal issues that could have kept the hotspot shuttered.

Garages that contain apartments have drawn the attention of the East Hampton Village Zoning Board of Appeals in recent years and continued to do so on Friday when a hearing on one was postponed and another was granted approval.

The hearing on an application from the chief executive officer of Starbucks to legalize an accessory structure containing a garage and an apartment, which has nearly doubled from its original size, will resume at the board’s next meeting, on June 13. But its adjournment did not stop attorneys from lobbying the board to look favorably on the application and a neighbor from asking that it be denied.

Elizabeth and Julien Eisenstein of 10 Georgica Road, however, received approval to replace part of the foundation of a 1,018-square-foot, two-story garage that contains an apartment. It is sinking on one side and will be lifted onto a new foundation. Although the structure is a second residence on a single lot, it is legal because it predates the recent village code prohibition on such structures. The applicant had submitted an affidavit from a lifelong East Hampton resident, Frank Tillinghast, stating that he had visited the apartment more than 65 years ago.

Howard Schultz, of Starbucks, and his wife, Sheri Kersch-Schultz, own four-plus acres at 14 Gracie Lane. A prior owner had received zoning board approval to construct a 650-square-foot garage and caretaker’s apartment there in 1986. When the Schultzes bought the property in 1995, they obtained a certificate of occupancy that described the accessory structure the same way as in 1986. The building now measures 1,022 square feet and includes four bedrooms, three bathrooms, and a half-bath.

In March, Leonard Ackerman, the Schultzes’ attorney, told the board the earlier certificate of occupancy had been ratified by the building inspector in 1995, which, he said, demonstrated an understanding that there were no code violations involved. He reiterated that opinion on Friday. He also argued that the previous owner’s 1986 request for a variance had been unnecessary because the property was larger than four acres, allowing a secondary dwelling under the village code at the time. (The village rescinded that provision last year.)

In 2012, when the Schultzes sought to add two bedrooms and two bathrooms to their main house, the building inspector noted that the accessory structure did not match the last C. of O. The zoning board granted the request on the condition that the accessory structure be reduced to its original 650 square feet, a condition to which the applicant agreed. Mr. Schultz now promises to reduce the number of bedrooms and bathrooms to two each if the Z.B.A. allows them to keep the excess square footage.

Mr. Ackerman told board members that if the application were denied, “we, of course, have the right to go to another appellate entity . . . the Supreme Court in Riverhead, and ask them for the relief.”

Brian Matthews, representing Donald Kostin, a neighbor who owns 73 Lily Pond Lane, said the application contained nothing that would allow the board to even entertain the request, much less grant it, calling it “rife with faulty factual premises and irrelevant legal discussions.”

“They continually overlook the fact that in 1986 specific square footages were given,” Mr. Matthews said, referring to numerous attorneys who have argued on the Schultzes’ behalf. Mr. Matthews noted that the village had rescinded the provision allowing secondary structures on certain properties before the Schultzes filed their present application. Mr. Ackerman’s memorandum, he said, “contains absolutely no discussion of that controlling fact at all. I think that’s pretty telling.” The application to legalize the structure, he said, isn’t permitted under the village code, “and it’s not permitted to be modified by any vehicles that they put in front of you.”

In other action, the board granted an adjournment, until June 27, of a hearing on an application from Loida Lewis, concerning her property at 165 Lily Pond Lane. She seeks permits and variances to allow the reconstruction and expansion of a pre-existing one-story cottage as an addition to the main house there. She also seeks the continued existence of a 650-square-foot game room with half-bath that was converted from a garage and 400 square feet of decking and stairs.

A unanimous vote by the East Hampton Town Board last Thursday to buy 19 acres of Amagansett land along Montauk Highway and preserve it for agriculture and recreation drew kudos and congratulations from members of the audience, several of whom spoke at a hearing on the $10.1 million purchase prior to the vote. The money will come from the town’s community preservation fund.

“It’s a dream come true for me that you have a chance to preserve the acreage,” said Joan Tulp, an Amagansett resident. “I urge you to make sure that it stays the beautiful, countrified space that it always has been.”

“It was almost snapped from us by 555,” she said, referring to the efforts by a Connecticut developer, Putnam Bridge, to create a 79-unit housing development there, known as 555 for the property’s address on Montauk Highway.

Putnam Bridge had asked the previous town board to create a new senior citizens housing district and rezone the land, in order to achieve its goals. 

“I come here very relaxed tonight,” said Rona Klopman, contrasting the meeting to others at which the 555 development was proposed and when a large outdoor concert had been approved there, but later canceled due to poor ticket sales. “I am very happy to see the courage that this board has to put this land up for preservation,” she said.

“Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes,” said Diana Walker.

“Fantastic,” said Susan Bratton.

“Brilliant. Kudos. Wonderful,” Betty Mazur said.

Elaine Jones, a nearby property owner, also supported the purchase but warned about use of the property. “We don’t want flea markets there,” she told the board. “You have to be very careful about what’s happening at these farmers markets.”

Putnam Bridge will retain a 4.5-acre lot with highway frontage, which is adjacent in the rear to the two lots that make up the 19 acres. That property is zoned for affordable housing, and a plan making use of the site for that purpose is reportedly under discussion.

Putnam Bridge purchased the three lots for $10.3 million in 2012. The company paid $9.2 million for the two lots being sold to the town.

The town board also voted last Thursday to purchase 3.5 acres on Napeague Harbor Road from the Bistrian Land Corporation for open space, using $1.1 million from the preservation fund.

Speakers at a hearing last Thursday on proposed regulations on chain stores in East Hampton Town were largely in favor of the idea, but some counseled caution and urged the town board to notify individual commercial property owners and give them another chance to weigh in.

“I don’t read the little print on these newspapers,” said Michael Cinque, the owner of Amagansett Wines and Spirits and several Main Street buildings in that hamlet. “Slow this down,” he said. “You should be contacting the people who are affected.”

Under the proposed legislation, businesses deemed “formula stores” would be allowed only in central business districts under a special permit issued by the planning board. They could not, however, be sited within a mile of any historic district’s boundaries, or within a half-mile of a designated historic site.

Additional restrictions, such as 2,500-square-foot size limit, and the inability to use standardized decor or corporate logos, would be imposed under the law, if approved.

In an overview of the draft legislation, Marguerite Wolffsohn, the town planning director, said that its goals include maintaining community character and “diverse and vibrant commercial areas.” 

There are central business zones in Wainscott, downtown Montauk and the Montauk harbor area, on North Main Street in East Hampton, and in Amagansett.

There are historic districts or sites within the boundaries outlined in the law in Amagansett, East Hampton, and Montauk, Ms. Wolffsohn said.

According to the draft law, formula businesses would be defined as a retail store, restaurant, bar, or takeout shop that is “under common ownership or is a franchise,” and is one of 10 or more of such businesses worldwide.

Two or more of five attributes — a standardized menu or standardized array of merchandise, with half or more coming from a single distributor; the use of a trademark word, phrase, symbol, or design, on products or as part of store design; a standardized color scheme inside and outside the establishment; standardized interior decor, and the use of a standardized uniform by employees — would also have to apply for a business to fall into the definition.

“The brand is us, it’s East Hampton Town. We are unique; they are not,” said Diana Walker. She referred to a telephone poll conducted in the last weeks in which leading questions were asked. “I would like to propose . . . that the formula store pollsters with their scare tactics — ‘You won’t be able to buy milk’ — be outed,” she said.

“I think it’s a little draconian,” Bonnie Krupinski said of the proposed law. “In doing so we’re really banning all the stores. We certainly need some of these formula-type businesses to maintain the community. We need to look at the economic impact,” she told the board. “I think you’re banning too much.” Under the draft law, she said, restaurants such as the Palm and the East Hampton Grill could be precluded.

“There’s a strange movement going on in America, that corporations have the same rights as individuals,” said Larry Mayer. “I don’t believe they do.” East Hampton’s real estate values are “some of the highest in the world,” he said, “because we don’t have that squalor.”

“Change that works for the common good is not draconian at all,” Larry Smith said later on. “This particular legislation is a bellwether of what this town would be like in a very few years. This is in our hands; it is our responsibility to do it.”

Elaine Jones said that the law would not ban formula stores but simply subject them to particular planning board scrutiny. “I don’t want to look like Riverhead or Southampton,” she said. “I love to go shopping there, but I don’t want East Hampton or Amagansett to look like that.”

Other speakers supported the law because they believe it would help protect locally owned businesses.

“Local stores . . . they sustain our community. They create more jobs here; they keep the money here,” Rona Klopman said.

“The formula stores can pay these really, really high rents, and they’re really going to squeeze the local businesses out,” Sue Avedon said. There is a “very long list” of other communities where similar laws have been enacted, she said.

Maintaining community character is tied in with the economy, said Susan Bratton. “If we allow our town to be sold to the highest bidders, the formula stores, so that the character and the charm are no longer there, it hurts the long-term property values, everyone’s property values. Because no one wants to go to Atlantic City.”

“The spirit is good,” said Freddy Friedler, a property manager for the Amagansett Square shopping area. “But at the same time I feel that it needs to be looked at more thoroughly. We shouldn’t be too narrow-minded and limited about what a formula store is, because it could end up hurting the community as well. Take a good, hard look at the way the legislation is going to be written,” he told the board.

In a memo to the town board, the planning board also suggested that the law, as proposed, “may be too restrictive.” The board agreed with the concept of the law but recommended that it be modified. No suggestions for how that should be done were provided.

Theresa Codispoti, a senior real estate representative for 7-Eleven, read a statement on behalf of the corporation’s regional development director, Ken Barnes. She urged the board to use enforcement of existing zoning laws to achieve desired ends rather than enact the new law.

“The Town of East Hampton already has some of the most restrictive zoning laws in the entire nation,” she said. Her company, she said, is “flexible on store design,” and its goals are “seamlessly weaving into the fabric of the community.”

“People who don’t live here do not understand how important our history and heritage are to us,” Alissa Meyer said. “The control of businesses that come into our town must remain within control of our town.”

Noting that Montauk’s 7-Eleven is the top-grossing 7-Eleven store nationwide, Debra Foster asked, “You don’t think other chains are going to come in?” In addition, she said, East Hampton is “the place for a write-off if you also have a place in Palm Beach.”

“Our local people don’t have a chance,” she said.

On behalf of the East Hampton Business Alliance, Margaret Turner, its executive director, urged the board to complete the planning studies of the various hamlets that are called for in the comprehensive plan, as well as a business needs study also prescribed in the plan, before acting.

“Until the town knows what the town wants and what the town needs, and what local business could handle, legislation like this should not be passed,” she said.

She questioned aspects of the draft law. Prohibiting formula stores in all but central business zones provides only a “very limited area” for such stores, she said. If the concern is chain stores’ appearance, “isn’t that why we have an architectural review board?” she asked. And, she said, the distance requirement from historic areas or sites “seems arbitrary.”

The board should keep in mind, Ms. Turner said, that franchise stores are “individually owned, and often by locals.”

Averill Geus disagreed. She said formula stores are “built, stocked, and run not by the . . . community in which they were built,” but by “some honcho. We already have formula mansions; we certainly don’t need formula stores.”

“The town’s authority to enact this legislation is not perfectly clear,” said Tina Piette, another business property owner. State legislation to clarify a municipality’s rights regarding formula store regulation, sponsored by Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr., is still pending, she said. “I can only assume that this is a race to the law to keep the proposed 7-Eleven from opening in Amagansett.” She said the board should be better informed about the number of properties a new law would affect, and hear from those affected, before acting.

John Broderick addressed that notion. “All legislation is motivated by events or situations,” he said.

Jeanne Frankl warned about the potential impact of delaying action on the proposed law, which, she said, usually means someone considering doing something that would be curtailed “rushes to get in under the line.”

If a new business study reveals that the law should be modified, that could be done, she said. “But in the meantime, we should not let the formula stores take over our town.”