Fred Havemeyer, who served as a Southampton Town trustee for more than 10 years, announced this week that he plans to challenge Supervisor Jay Schneiderman for the Democratic line in a September primary. Mr. Schneiderman is an Independence Party member who has been endorsed by the Democrats.

While he left the trustees in 2013, Mr. Havemeyer, a Bridgehampton resident, has not stayed out of Town Hall completely, speaking out in recent years against various planned development districts, including the Bridgehampton Gateway and the Tuckahoe Center. But it is the Hills at Southampton, a pending application for a subdivision and golf course in East Quogue, that led to his decision to run.

He did not screen with the Democrats this spring, but decided to run at the behest of the Long Island Environmental Voters Forum, a group opposed to the Hills. Mr. Havemeyer and the group share the concern that the project, proposed over a sole-source aquifer, would be a danger to the environment. He believes Mr. Schneiderman has postponed making difficult decisions.

“Jay, where are you, my friend?” Mr. Havemeyer said by phone on Tuesday. “You can’t govern by dithering, because what happens is the community is still in turmoil.”

Mr. Schneiderman took exception to that. “I don’t dither. I’m just careful. I do my homework,” he said by phone yesterday. “People who rush things, they unravel later on.”

The town board is awaiting an environmental impact statement, and there are statutory guidelines in place, Mr. Schneiderman said. “Fred wants to take advantage of the fact that I can’t ethically take a position on the Hills until the process concludes, otherwise it would be seen as bias.”

Mr. Schneiderman, a Southampton Village resident who owns residential and commercial property in Montauk, said his three-decade record as a county legislator and East Hampton Town supervisor proves that the environment has been, and will continue to be, his top consideration. In his recent state of the town address, he pledged to promote and protect the town’s natural resources.

“Jay is an outstanding steward of our environment and to suggest otherwise is not warranted,” said Gordon Herr, the chairman of the Southampton Town Democratic Committee.

“He’s a one-issue candidate. He wants to kill the Hills,” Mr. Schneiderman said of Mr. Havemeyer. “I’m not a single-issue candidate. . . . I’ve never just been about the environment,” he said, adding that his focus ranges from affordable housing to public transportation and traffic.

While both men agree that planned development districts — legislation that has been under review for the past year during a moratorium on new P.D.D. applications — need to go, Mr. Havemeyer took a shot at Mr. Schneiderman for not moving more quickly to repeal the law. The supervisor recently proposed a repeal, which is coming up for public hearing at the end of the month.

Again, Mr. Schneiderman said it was important to study the law first. “I make merit-based decisions, not emotional decisions.”

As a trustee, Mr. Havemeyer, a former sportfishing captain and fashion photographer, said he was committed to preserving the waterways, plagued by cyanobacteria, or blue-green algae. But no one is addressing overdevelopment, which is at the root of the problem, he said.

If elected, “I would do a nationwide search to find a really good planner who has experience with this type of situation and sit down and really work on it, really chew on the bone, to find out what we can do to bring Southampton Town back into balance,” he said.

Mr. Havemeyer has to collect 500 signatures to force a primary, which would be held on Sept. 12.

Correction: The primary is Sept. 12, not Sept. 18 as originally reported. 

About 40 friends and parents were in the courtroom last Thursday during the arraignment of a man East Hampton Town police said had hosted a post-prom party for over 50 under-age drinkers, many of them Ross School students.

Arthur W. Bijur, 62, of Amagansett is facing two misdemeanor charges, one for allegedly violating Suffolk County’s social host law, which prohibits adults from knowingly allowing under-age drinking, the other alleging that he did not have a mass gathering permit, as required by town law.

After Mr. Bijur was arraigned by East Hampton Town Justice Steven Tekulsky and released without bail, his friends and supporters in the courtroom stood up and followed him outside.

Once outside, Mr. Bijur’s attorney, Daniel W. Rodgers, called the charges against him nonsense. “Mr. Bijur did everything the right way,” Mr. Rodgers said. That included, he said, sending an email to all the parents of students his son had invited, warning that alcohol would be strictly prohibited.

The alcohol at the party, Mr. Bijur said, was brought in by an uninvited guest, a Ross School boarding student, who was already drunk when he arrived. When Mr. Bijur discovered what was going on and realized that the uninvited guest was dangerously intoxicated, Mr. Rodgers said, he immediately called for an ambulance and ended the party. Mr. Rodgers pointed out that is exactly what the social host law calls for. Mr. Bijur said that was what he did.

The student had a blood alcohol reading in the area of .31 of 1 percent, the number that triggers a trip to the hospital for anyone in custody. The youth was, indeed, taken to the hospital.

Some of the parents who attended Mr. Bijur’s arraignment were motivated by a letter from Bill O’Hearn, head of the Ross upper school. “As a consequence for attending this party where alcohol was available, which is in violation of our drug and alcohol policy as well as our core values,” the letter read, “we are requiring the students who attended the party to take part in a two-day educational forum which will also incorporate service projects specifically designed to address issues around under-age drinking and the choices students make.”

The forum, which took place on Saturday and Sunday, was termed two-day detention by at least one parent.

Bravo’s reality series “Summer House” will be moving from Napeague to Water Mill after it was denied a filming permit in East Hampton Town.

Southampton Town has approved an application for the series to shoot for 40 days this the summer, beginning the weekend of June 23, with a small crew setting up two days before. The filming will continue for 10 weekends, through Labor Day. Filed by Truly Original L.L.C., the application indicates that there will be 35 people, including cast and crew, at each filming session.

“Summer House” follows nine 20 and 30-somethings who live and work in Manhattan, but spend weekends at their share house. They spent last summer at a house that was billed as being in Montauk, though it was really on the harbor side of Napeague.

From the start, the show got the cold shoulder. Several businesses refused to let the show film on their property, and the community seemed to rail against it, comparing it to the “Jersey Shore” reality series on MTV. In fact, much of the public scenes that aired on the show were on beaches and establishments located in Southampton Town or Village.

With Bravo picking up the show for another season and being denied a permit last month in East Hampton, the show looked for digs in the seemingly friendlier Town of Southampton.

However, under a new law passed earlier this year, filming the show, even at the private residence at 1451 Deerfield Road, required a permit if there would be 12 or more people involved in the production. The daily permit fee is $500, with a $250 non-refundable fee, meaning that the show will pay a total of $20,250 to the town, according to Kimberly Ottati, the deputy town clerk.

“Even if they can get away without needing a film permit, which is possible . . . they would still have a problem with the longstanding rental law,” said Supervisor Jay Schneiderman. No more than four unrelated people can rent a house, he said.

“Maybe they will marry everybody and then they will be related, we’ll see,” Mr. Schneiderman added with a laugh.

Described by Nest Seekers as a private compound, the eight-bedroom, 8.5-bathroom house sits on 5.2 acres on Deerfield Road. The property boasts a pool, a tennis court, and a fully furnished basement with an entertainment center, pool table, and kitchenette. It is listed for rent for $130,000 for July 1 through Labor Day, and for sale for about $5 million.

A brawl at the Montauk 7-Eleven over the Memorial Day weekend has led to eight arrests, including two on felony charges of attempted assault with a weapon — a four-foot-long wooden two-by-four — with intent to cause serious injury.

Two groups of men began fighting at about 4:30 in the morning on May 28. A video of the melee, widely disseminated on social media, shows only a part of it, inside the store. It eventually spilled over into the parking lot.

Rick A. McFarland of Springs, 28, was both aggressor and victim, according to East Hampton Town police, who spoke with him after the brawl and charged him about an hour later with misdemeanor criminal mischief for damage done to “merchandise, shelving units, and merchandise stands,” which were knocked down and trampled inside the store. He was also charged with disorderly conduct and harassment, violations, for “throwing punches at numerous persons.”

Mr. McFarland became a victim, according to the charge, when, in the parking lot, Fernando Junior Mateo-Brito picked up the two-by-four and swung it, baseball-style, at his head. He missed, according to the report. Mr. Mateo-Brito, who is short of stature, admitted swinging at Mr. McFarland, according to court papers. He explained his actions by saying, “the black guy who attacked me was almost seven feet tall.”

Moments after he dropped the two-by-four, according to police, who studied videos shot from numerous cameras planted on the ceiling and exterior of the store, Mr. Mateo-Brito also became a target, when an acquaintance of Mr. McFarland’s, Kean M. Mabery, 35, picked up the two-by-four and swung it at Mr. Mateo-Brito’s skull. He too missed his mark. Mr. Mabery, a longtime East Hampton resident, now lives in Mastic.

For police, in the hours and days after the fight, it became a job of matching names to faces, a majority of which were familiar to them. After Mr. McFarland’s arrest, officers picked up Carlos J. Serra Bencosme, 25, of Montauk. He is facing the same charges as Mr. McFarland. Then Demaurys Delossantos of Amagansett, 41, was arrested after questioning, on charges of criminal mischief and disorderly conduct.

On May 30, police charged Courtney R. Gregg, 26, who lives in Springs at the same address as Mr. McFarland, with disorderly conduct. William McFarland of Hampton Bays, 36, Rick McFarland’s brother, was also arrested that day, charged with misdemeanor criminal mischief and disorderly conduct.

That night, police picked up both Mr. Mateo-Brito and his brother Marbin Mateo-Brito, 30, who live in the same house in Montauk. Marbin was charged with disorderly conduct, Fernando with felony attempted assault, misdemeanor criminal mischief, and misdemeanor menacing, and held overnight.

His brother, like all the others arrested up to then, was released with an appearance ticket. Fernando Mateo Brito was arraigned on May 31, and freed after his family posted $5,000 bail.

Then it was Mr. Mabery’s turn. Police contacted him last Thursday night at his Mastic residence and told him he was going to be arrested. He agreed to come to town police headquarters in Wainscott on Friday morning, where he was handcuffed and taken to Justice Court to face the same charges as Fernando Mateo-Brito, except for criminal mischief, indicating he was not involved in the damage to the store.

“I am very disappointed to see you again,” Justice Lisa R. Rana told him. Mr. Mabery has been before her several times on various criminal charges, though with only a single conviction, on a reduced misdemeanor charge. “Now, you’re facing a C felony,” she said.

She set bail of $2,000, which was posted by Mr. Mabery’s father, who had accompanied his son back to East Hampton for the arraignment.

Several of those charged have criminal records. William McFarland has twice served time in state prison, most recently after a 2011 conviction for selling narcotics and attempted assault, felonies. Released in 2015, he is still on parole. He is scheduled for arraignment here on July 6.

Mr. Mabery has been charged with a number of crimes in the past, including grand larceny and possession of stolen property, felonies, but had no charges pending until this incident.

Mr. Serra Bencosme, charged with drunken driving in Montauk in 2014, pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of driving with ability impaired and was sentenced to 200 hours’ community service. He will be arraigned on the new charges on June 22.

Mr. Delossantos was convicted of drunken driving in 2006. Last September, after allegedly leaving the scene of an accident on Napeague while driving one of his fleet of taxis, he was arrested on the same charge. His company, Exclusive Taxi, was one of the biggest cab companies in Montauk at the time. The town’s licensing board has since revoked his right to own and/or operate taxis in East Hampton. Mr. Delossantos is due to go back before the licensing board on June 21, as he attempts to transfer ownership of the company. He will be arraigned on the new charges next Thursday.

Rick McFarland does not have a serious criminal history. He was accused in 2010 of misdemeanor assault, but was found not guilty after a jury trial in East Hampton. He was convicted of disorderly conduct. He will be arraigned on June 22.

Neither of the Mateo-Brito brothers has a criminal record. Marbin Mateo-Brito will be arraigned on June 22, as will Ms. Gregg, who has never been convicted of a crime; her only brushes with the law stem from violation charges of harassment.

As the truncated video of the incident went viral, rumors about the brawl also spread, especially in Montauk. One in particular held that several of the combatants were cab drivers. That does not appear to be true. None of those charged are registered as cabbies, according to the office of the East Hampton Town Clerk.

East Hampton Village’s proposed $21.4 million budget for 2017-18 was put on hold after a public hearing last Thursday so that the village’s share of a new East Hampton Town emergency communications system could be included.

Becky Hansen, the village administrator, told board members that based on a meeting with the Motorola company, the village’s portion looks to be between $1 million and $1.2 million.

“Now that we have a preliminary number,” she said, “we are going to try to incorporate as much of that as we can into the budget” to minimize future borrowing. The proposed budget already includes $200,000 in the capital fund to offset the expense. “As we try to pin down those numbers and get closer to what we think we’re going to be able to appropriate for it . . . it will be in a revised budget for the 16th,” she said.

The police, fire departments and their ambulance services, bus drivers, Highway Department workers, and parks and recreation staff all use the emergency communication system. It had been found to be outdated and inadequate.

The new system will include new consoles for the dispatch center, which is at the firehouse on Cedar Street, backup consoles, and an upgrade of portable radios for police, fire, ambulance, Department of Public Works, and beach personnel.

“It’s a very complex subject, very expensive, but . . . we’re committed to make this work and will certainly own up to our share of the financial obligation,” Mayor Paul F. Rickenbach Jr. said,

Without adding anything for the system, the budget shows a spending increase of $372,508. However, the mayor said increases in revenue and taxes would be minimal. When the proposed budget was unveiled last month, it was estimated that the tax rate would rise by .11 percent, to $28.89 per $100 of assessed value, with property tax revenue to go up by 1.1 percent, or $137,002. The tax rate increase is under the state-mandated tax cap.

The public can submit comments on the budget until Friday, June 16.

Also at the meeting, Steven Ringel, executive director of the East Hampton Chamber of Commerce, thanked the board for its support of the village’s first-ever street fair, on May 20. Some 35 emails received from businesses, residents, and others were overwhelmingly positive, and restaurants and food markets had “a better day than they had expected,” he said. 

Mr. Ringel cited an editorial in last week’s East Hampton Star praising the fair and disagreeing with a suggestion made by some business owners that future fairs be moved farther up Newtown Lane. This year’s location, between Main Street and the entrance to the Reutershan parking lot, “is really the epicenter of the village, and it really is essential that it remain where it is,” Mr. Ringel said.

At the suggestion of some merchants, Mr. Ringel asked the board to consider allowing them more direct involvement in future fairs, possibly by permitting them to have sidewalk sales. “In representing our business owners as the Chamber of Commerce, I would say that might be something we want to consider for next year if it’s done in a classy, responsible way.”

The mayor called the street fair “a home run” that “showed a different side of what our beautiful village is all about . . . we can certainly build on it.”

The second or seasonal home presence in East Hampton is dominant and growing. Consultants hired by the town to study its economic picture report that 63 percent of houses in East Hampton Town belong to second-home owners who, in 2015, paid 72 percent of the property taxes.

“This nonresident population brings its spending power to East Hampton and drives demand for a variety of different products and services,” said Russell Archambault of RKG Associates, an economic, planning, and real estate consulting firm from Virginia, in a report based on the town’s businesses and economy prepared in cooperation with Lisa Liquori of Fine Arts and Science, a planning consultant and former head of the East Hampton Town Planning Department.

The economic report, prepared in conjunction with separate studies of the town’s hamlet centers, suggests that the moneymaking machine in town is powered by the second-home economy, first, and tourism second. Officials hope that the deep dive into demographics, trends, and details will prove a valuable guide to discussion and forthcoming decisions about the future of the town’s commercial areas.

The overall economy of East Hampton, according to the report, outperformed the overall Suffolk economy, with growth from 2009 through 2014 indicating a strong recovery after the 2009-2010 recession. The leading industries are largely seasonal, particularly in Montauk, creating a high demand for labor during the peak season. The report states that the “lack of affordably priced housing is a threat to the seasonal economy.”

The results of the planning process were presented at meetings here from Thursday through Saturday. A separate story on those meetings will appear in next week's paper.

The consultants looked at trends over the last 10 or 15 years, including the age, ethnicity, and household income, among other factors, of year-round as well as seasonal populations. They also analyzed prominent industries identified by town officials — agriculture, fishing, maritime business, and hospitality — and their roles in the town’s economy.

The economic studies covered every area in town, with the exclusion of those in the incorporated Village of Sag Harbor that are within East Hampton Town.

Mr. Archambault did an analysis of retail businesses in the various commercial areas, including their future potential and the extent to which they do or do not serve the town’s residents and the second-home economy. He called tourism, second-home development, and hospitality a “core industry.”

Among the sources used in the analyses were the United States Department of Commerce, the Census, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, and various county and town agencies, including planning departments.

East Hampton Town had a year-round population in 2015 of 22,202 residents, Mr. Archambault said. The town has a “slow-growing, but aging population” with a “high median household income, and growing higher.”

Year-round residents, whose number has increased in recent years, are generating more demand for services and amenities, according to the report. “Meanwhile, the town is seeking strategies to sustain future economic development and at the same time to better balance the flourish of tourism activities and the improvement of quality of life for local residents.”

Though Mr. Archambault concluded that there were no reliable estimates of the seasonal population change, “using information from the county Planning Department and elsewhere regarding the number of hotel rooms, campsites, day-trippers, hotel guests, seasonal guests, and second-home owners, he calculated a peak occupancy during the high season of 73,578 people here during a single overnight period.

From 2000 to 2010 East Hampton had a slow rate of overall population growth, less than 1 percent annually, with a projected continued slowdown, except in Springs, where the population increased by 3.3 percent during the 10-year period. Between 2010 and 2015, the population grew in every hamlet except for Wainscott. Montauk and Sag Harbor Village grew faster than the other hamlets.

And all of the hamlets, except for Springs, saw the number of residents between the ages of 25 and 54 decline between 2000 and 2015. “This is likely to lead to a shrinkage of business activities that primarily serve year-round residents,” according to the report, although “significant growth” in young people under 19 in Springs may provide “opportunities for family-oriented businesses and services.”

On the other hand, the consultant said, a significant increase in people 55 and older could create increased demand for “senior-oriented social services and public amenities.”

At $88,732, the town’s median household income is slightly below the median for Suffolk County. However, the median income here increased between 2000 and 2015, by almost 20 percent. The change, says the report, may be due to an influx of high-income residents and an “outflow of low and middle-income households, rather than an improvement across all income levels.”

Approximately 4,556 of the people who work in East Hampton live in the town, Mr. Archambault found, while 4,806 commute into East Hampton to work, and 5,232 East Hampton residents leave for jobs elsewhere. Approximately 685 residents work in Manhattan, while 224 Manhattan residents work in East Hampton, according to the study.

About 26 percent of the work force is self-employed here, a higher percentage than the 19 percent countywide, creating a “freelance economy, and entrepreneurship.” The top industries throughout the town, as expected, are tied to tourism and second-home development — “retail trade, accommodation and food services, construction, administration/support, and professional services.”

“Construction industry growth has driven recent job growth,” according to the study, and “East Hampton lacks employment in high-skilled professional services.”

In Montauk, the fishing industry “maintained stable growth during the 2005 to 2014 period,” according to the report, indicating “that it is likely to continue to support the growth of Montauk’s economy.” However, the report states “the industry needs support to remain viable.” The ability to process and package fish locally, at a packing house, “could add value to the fishing industry,” the report says.

The maritime industry over all, including sportfishing, sailing, sightseeing, boat charters, and marinas, is key to the economy and “looks positive,” but is tied to the ups and downs of the tourism trade, the report says.

Agricultural production is not a significant part of the town economy, Mr. Archambault found, but could play a bigger role in the future provided “there are changes that stabilize the economics of local farming operations.” However, the town’s 1,470 acres of farmland — 67 percent of which is protected and preserved — has “intrinsic benefits” in preserving the natural landscape on which the tourism and second-home economy depends.

“The economic outlook is strong for the town’s hospitality industry,” the report says, “but challenges from beach erosion, climate change, declining water quality, and home reservations could threaten this industry in the future.” There are 83 motels, resorts, and bed-and-breakfasts in the town, providing 2,523 rooms.

Vacationers’ retail purchases in East Hampton, Mr. Archambault said, exceed those that local households demand, with high sales “closely related to the spending of tourists and seasonal residents” on food and drink, home building, maintenance items, and the like. There is unmet demand by year-round residents for certain kinds of goods, which cause many to shop elsewhere or online. Additional retail businesses could potentially be supported here, the consultant concluded.

As for residential real-estate sales, which bounced back from the last recession, the supply has been keeping up with demand, based on the consultant’s analysis. The total sales value remained relatively stable between 2014 and 2016.

Restaurateurs and their supporters showed up at East Hampton Town Hall en masse last Thursday to protest changes to the town code governing outdoor dining which, they said, were ill-timed and would hurt their businesses.

Many were relieved to learn that a provision in the proposed new code that could have prevented customers from standing, having a drink, or listening to music outside while waiting for a table to dine — if enforced literally — had been eliminated from the proposal.

The code already describes the procedures through which a restaurant may place up to 30 percent of its approved indoor seating outside for alfresco dining, but the revision gave restaurants the ability to put more than 30 percent of their seats outside, with planning board approval.

Nancylynn Thiele, a town attorney, drafted the revised code after conferring with town officials involved in code enforcement. It also included an apparent attempt to rein in the scene at restaurants that offer more than just dining in their outdoor spaces. The proposed new legislation defined an outdoor dining area as a space that “does not allow for a waiting area, a standing area, or an area for the service of beverages (alcoholic or otherwise) prior to being seated for dining, after dining, or an area only to participate in entertainment (music) provided by the restaurant.”

That passage was dropped by the town board even before last Thursday’s hearing, based on negative feedback.

A number of speakers last Thursday took the opportunity to comment nonetheless, telling the town board that changing the rules affecting restaurants, which make most of their yearly income in the summer, just before the season, was unfair. Several said they were disappointed that the board had not consulted with those in the business when seeking to address restaurant issues.

The issue should be presented to the town’s appointed business committee for discussion, Paul Monte, the president of the Montauk Chamber of Commerce suggested, and should be slated for discussion in the fall, after the restaurants’ busy season.

If the town is going to begin enforcing code provisions that have not previously been enforced, he said, business owners should be given notice. “I would just ask that enforcement not come down hard on everybody who’s been doing whatever they’ve been doing for the past couple years,” he said.

The town board, said Supervisor Larry Cantwell, was simply trying to “clarify that there is a set of rules, and [ensure that] everyone understands them, and that we enforce them equally and fairly.”

The town board, said Supervisor Larry Cantwell, was simply trying to “clarify that there is a set of rules, and [ensure that] everyone understands them, and that we enforce them equally and fairly.”

Fair enough, Mr. Monte said, but “the timing is awful.” Mr. Cantwell said that the timing of the discussion was not deliberate and that it was coincidental that the code change was completed and ready for a public hearing just at the start of the summer season.

Lou Cortese, a Montauk resident, underscored the issues. “I’m also a consumer in Montauk,” he said, “and I like going to a restaurant, hanging out, having a drink, sitting outdoors.” But, he said, crowding leads to overloaded septic systems, which have a negative impact on water quality. “The point is that there’s a reason that you can’t just let a restaurant fit as many people as they want into their backyard,” he said. “Let’s try to accommodate the business people, but keep in mind that there’s a reason for these rules. So there has to be a balance.”

As Montauk has witnessed profound change in recent years, characterized by the sale of family-owned businesses to individuals and corporations from out of town, a notable sign of consistency stands firm at the corner of Main Street and South Emery Street.

Fifty years after its opening, John’s Drive-In continues to serve the burgers, fries, milkshakes, and ice cream for which it is known and loved by residents and visitors alike. For the former, stepping inside the restaurant is akin to time travel: The menu is virtually unchanged from those of 10, 20, or 40 years ago, as are the seating and décor.

Another familiar fixture is David Rutkowski, who bought the drive-in in 1985, sold it in 2002, and reacquired it last year. A lifelong local, Mr. Rutkowski and his wife, Maureen, who started working at the restaurant in 1984, looked very happy to be back last week, despite the 100-hour workweeks that summer demands of many of the hamlet’s business owners.

Longtime customers reacted favorably to the sign, posted last year, stating that the restaurant was “under old management.”

“It cuts against what Montauk is,” Mr. Rutkowski said, “because Montauk is ‘new in this, new in that.’ Not that that’s a bad thing, it’s just the way Montauk is trending. You see less and less mom-and-pop places.”

“It’s still pretty much the same,” he said of the restaurant and its menu, “because it’s what people want. You always worry when a place changes hands — you don’t know if it’s going to turn into a froufrou or corporate thing. We’ve added things like wraps, and we have sorbet now, but the bread and butter of the business is still burgers, fries, ice cream. The menu has got a timelessness to it.”

The restaurant was opened in 1967 by John Torr, who had previously owned the hamlet’s I.G.A. and, later, the Crow’s Nest restaurant and hotel. That year, the Rutkowski family moved from East Hampton to Montauk. Mr. Rutkowski’s father, John, worked at another Main Street restaurant, which he bought and renamed Mr. John’s Pancake and Steak House, later shortened to Mr. John’s Pancake House. The family later owned the Montauk Movie, the hamlet’s cinema, which operated for 30 years.

Long before he owned John’s Drive-In, Mr. Rutkowski was a customer, sometimes arriving with teammates from the hamlet’s Little League team after a victory on the nearby field. “Some of my best memories as a kid are coming here after a Little League game,” he said, noting that the tradition continues today.

He closed on the purchase of John’s just before Memorial Day weekend in 1985. “We went to the closing UpIsland, came back, took out the cash register drawers, put in new drawers, and it was mine,” he said.

He and Ms. Rutkowski married in 1998, and the subsequent arrival of their children, Alexandra and John, brought about a reassessment. “I loved doing the work, but I wanted to spend time with my kids when they were young, when the mommy-and-daddy time is key,” he said. “So I sold it to an employee.”

Tom Pontecorvo, who had worked at the drive-in for many years, owned and operated the business until 2016. “It all happened very bang-bang,” Mr. Rutkowski said. “He sent me a text saying he wanted to get out, and I said that’s perfect, I want to get back in. My daughter is a senior in high school; she doesn’t hang out with Dad like she used to. My son was going into eighth grade, so he was hanging out more with his friends.” By March of last year, he was behind the counter once again.

After 17 years’ worth of those 100-hour workweeks, “it felt like retirement,” Mr. Rutkowski said of the span between the 2002 sale and last year’s re-acquisition, “but I was working: I helped my dad run the movie theater. But compared to the hours it takes to run this place, if it wasn’t retirement, it was certainly slowing down.”

There will be scant opportunity to slow down before Labor Day. Downtown Montauk’s very active nightlife, which includes the Memory Motel across Main Street, prompted Mr. Rutkowski to extend weekend hours. Window service is now in effect until 2 a.m., similar to another Main Street mainstay, Pizza Village, which serves revelers even later into the night.

Postmidnight service at John’s is a manifestation of one quite conspicuous sign of change in Montauk, but the Big John burger, chickenwich, hot dogs, and homemade milkshakes demonstrate the adage that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

“People really do look for that nostalgia,” Ms. Rutkowski said. “It’s mom-and-pop-owned; our kids are back here working. They’re the next generation.”

Ride-hailing companies like Uber and Lyft will be able to operate statewide — including here on eastern Long Island — just before the July Fourth weekend following the approval by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo on Monday of a bill passed by state legislators that will speed up the process.

The state budget adopted in April included a law that removed “transportation network companies” from local regulation, in reference to all companies through which riders use an app to summon cars. The State Department of Motor Vehicles will now be responsible for regulation. State legislation usually goes into effect 90 days after approval, but the action by lawmakers this week shortens the period, allowing companies to offer services as of June 29. Mandatory background checks for drivers and ongoing monitoring of compliance with traffic safety regulations will be required.

In East Hampton Town, where because of a business model that considered drivers to be independent contractors, Uber had been unable to continue service after the town adopted taxi-licensing regulations requiring companies to have offices within the town and vehicles used by drivers-for-hire to be owned by licensed companies. The state legislation overrides local rules.

While the state law allowed counties of a certain size, including Suffolk, to opt out of the legislation, potentially blocking ride-hailing services within their borders, Suffolk County Executive Steve Bellone held a press conference on Tuesday to welcome Uber, Lyft, and similar companies to the county.

Being able to use the app-based car service will “afford residents better access to transportation options” and help generate spending by passengers that will bolster the local economy, according to a county press release. 

“Any regulation of Uber or ride-sharing by local towns and villages is pre-empted,” State Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr. said.

  While Southampton Town did not take as strong a stance as East Hampton, officials passed a law before last summer that required drivers for these companies to register with the town, just as other taxi drivers are required to do. The new state law also overrides Southampton’s requirements.

Supervisor Jay Schneiderman said he was a fan of ride-hailing services and saw the benefit they provided, adding that he was in favor of leveling the playing field. In legislation introduced by Councilman Stan Glinka, Southampton Town brought in $150,000 in licensing fees last summer from Uber and Lyft drivers, the supervisor said. James Burke, the town attorney, noted that the new state law will cause a loss in revenue, but said “a fair amount of work” in the office of the town clerk and Police Department had gone into licensing drivers.

Before East Hampton updated its regulations, in 2014, local taxicab operators had complained about competition from an influx of Uber drivers, and some residents had complained about chaotic and unsafe situations during the busy summer season as drivers jockeyed for customers. Some Uber drivers from out of town were also said to be sleeping in their cars overnight.

In June 2015 more than 20 Uber drivers were charged in East Hampton with misdemeanors including not having a town taxi license. Uber suspended service here, but mounted a campaign to have its customers protest the East Hampton regulations. The town maintained its position, with Supervisor Larry Cantwell saying the regulations were necessary to rein in the situation and maintain public safety. “This has never been about East Hampton versus Uber,” he said.

When discussion of the state legislation on ride-hailing began, Mr. Cantwell wrote to the governor saying the vehicle-for-hire industry, including Uber, “profoundly . . . impact[s] our community.” He said the “questionable tactics and actions” of 89 taxi and livery companies operating close to 1,100 licensed vehicles in the town were overwhelming public safety resources, and he cited roadway congestion, limited parking, and “literally fighting over fares.”

The town’s taxicab regulations, the supervisor wrote, were “very successful” and welcomed by the local business community and the public. He asked the governor to allow municipalities to maintain at least a degree of local control.

Even with state regulations in effect, East Hampton will be allowed to require Uber and similar companies to comply with certain restrictions that pertain to all taxicabs here. The town board recently moved to put several pertinent provisions, regarding parking and sleeping overnight in cars, in a section of the town code that will apply.

With Reporting by Taylor K. Vecsey 

Lobsters in lounge chairs, a grizzly bear driving a Tesla, and squirrels eating off a barbecue. 

While this sounds like plausible satire to describe Hamptons summer antics, this storefront window is just a mere glimpse into the fairyland within Stevenson’s Toys in East Hampton. 

Though many toy stores are disappearing with the prevalence of online shopping, the owners of Stevenson’s, Roy and Polly Stevenson, are expanding. After 16 years at the Southampton Village location, the Stevensons turned their vision of opening a second store into a reality. Their new store opened last month at 66 Newtown Lane. 

It was a plan that had always been in the back of their minds, but they first wanted to make sure that the Southampton store did well. When the opportunity presented itself this summer, the decision was not hard; many of their customers live east of Southampton. 

The couple are balancing their time between their eastern and western stores. 

“Roy tries to come to East Hampton every day and Polly and him are here every Saturday and Sunday,” said Illisa Appel-Timmermann, who works at the shop. “They share the love of both locations.”

Until Stevenson’s opened, there was just one other small toy shop in the village, Steph’s Stuff. “There hasn’t been a large-sized toy store here for years and the Stevensons just had this fabulous vision of opening an additional store,” Ms. Appel-Timmermann said.

Though smaller than the Southampton location, the two-floor Stevenson’s in East Hampton has aisles and walls stocked with toys and games from all over the world and dating back to every generation. 

Stevenson’s was founded in 2001 after Mr. Stevenson parted ways with a corporate career and moved his family from Georgia to Southampton. As coincidence would have it, Lillywhite’s toy store, which was a favorite of Mr. Stevenson’s as a boy, was for sale. 

“That store had been there for nearly 100 years,” Mr. Stevenson said. “I thought, ‘How dumb would I be to pass that up? . . . It can’t be that hard to run a toy store.’ ”

While running a toy store may have been more work than Mr. Stevenson originally thought, he and his wife have learned the tricks of the trade. Not only is their selection wide — books, puzzles, trampolines, Nerf guns, pool floats, Ping-Pong tables, mermaid swim tails, and more — but Stevenson’s is a fit for everyone’s budget. 

It has top-notch toys, like a mini electric Tesla that retails for $895, and it also carries a variety of toys that range in price. “It’s not one of those designer toy stores where you feel like you can’t bring your kid in,” said Colleen Moeller, who also works at the shop. “A little girl came in the other day and said, ‘I only have $5,’ and we found some stuff [for her].”