One year ago, Janet Rojas bought six day-old baby chickens to keep as pets. At the time, Ms. Rojas was a member of her neighborhood homeowners association board at Hands Creek Farm in East Hampton.

    A visit to her sister in California, who was raising chickens, sparked Ms. Rojas’s interest. As she brought up her idea with local friends, she learned of others in East Hampton Town and Village who were also raising chickens.

    In August, a neighbor noticed the chickens in Ms. Rojas’s backyard and inquired to see if they were allowed by the community’s covenants and restrictions. To Ms. Rojas’s surprise, the covenants were clear — no poultry of any kind shall be raised within the community.

    “When they were written 30 years ago, chickens were not considered pets,” Ms. Rojas said last week. “It never occurred to me that they wouldn’t be allowed here.” 

    “Since the first meeting with the board last September, I have maintained that my chickens are pets. Most mornings I spend about 15 minutes between cleaning the coop and checking that they have feed and water. Every couple of weeks I rake out the run to remove feathers, poop, leaves and the remainder of any snacks I have given them [fruit and vegetable rinds, corn cobs, etc.]. All of this goes into the compost pile. I am going to have an amazing garden next year,” said Ms. Rojas.

    According to her blog hcchickens.tumblr.com, Ms. Rojas specifically designed and built her backyard chicken coop to resemble her own house. The community covenants prohibit any kind of coop for the housing of chickens.

    In January, Ms. Rojas resigned from the community’s board of directors over the conflict. 

    She began reaching out to neighboring homeowners for their support to change the community’s 30-year-old covenants and restrictions. 

     Seventy-five percent of property owners at Hands Creek Farm have to agree to make an amendment to the covenant document in order for it to pass. According to Ms. Rojas, fewer than 25 percent of owners responded to her plea, and not all of them agreed with her.

    Numerous e-mails were exchanged between Ms. Rojas, members of the homeowners board, and the board’s attorney. Finally, Ms. Rojas was given a May 1 deadline to decide whether to remove the chickens from her property or face a lawsuit with the homeowners’ association.

    “I agreed to remove them because they threatened to take me to court,” she said.

    Repeated calls to members of the homeowner’s board and the board’s attorney were not returned by press time.

    By June 30, the chickens will be moved to a friend’s property, Ms. Rojas said. “We’re basically going to have joint custody.”

    Last Thursday 11 residents of the Soundview community in Montauk filed a lawsuit in federal court against the town, county, state, and federal governments for causing the erosion that has stolen their property and continues to leave their houses vulnerable to storms.

    The timing of the filing happens to correspond with an informational meeting that the Army Corps, state, and town are holding today at the Montauk Firehouse from 5:30 to 8:30 p.m.

    Although the area had been battered before, the northeast storm that tore through the region on Dec. 26 and 27, 2011, was especially damaging to Soundview. In 2011, residents sought 27 emergency permits to repair bulkheads and otherwise shore up their property. 

    The suit filed last week mirrors one filed in State Supreme Court in January 2011 against the town, county, and state claiming that the plaintiffs sustained $75 million in property damage, a cost that included efforts to repair the damage. The suit was dismissed by State Supreme Court Justice Arthur Pitt because it did not name the Army Corps. He ruled that the agency could be affected by the state court’s decision. Because federal agencies cannot be tried in state courts, the new suit was filed with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan.

    The new action alleges that the Suffolk County Department of Public Works, the State Department of Environmental Conservation, East Hampton Town, and now, the Army Corps of Engineers were responsible for constructing the jetties that define the Montauk Harbor Inlet. According to the Soundview residents, the jetties have caused the downdrift scouring that leaves their houses vulnerable.

    They are asking the court to order the Army Corps and other named agencies to rebuild Soundview beaches and keep them maintained.

    Last year, the Army Corps contracted the North America Landscaping, Construction, and Dredge Company of Maryland to remove dangerous shoals in the inlet caused by drifting sand. Dredged sand was pumped to the west to rebuild eroded beaches.  

    The dredging was successful, but is only considered a stopgap to a chronic problem that began when Lake Montauk was first opened to Block Island Sound in 1927. The shoaling continued even after the town lobbied to have the Army Corps build jetties to stabilize the inlet. The plaintiffs claim the town-owned jetties have interrupted the natural east-to-west flow of sand and caused scouring west of the west jetty while robbing the same area of sand.   

    Last year’s emergency dredging was not connected to the 10-year Montauk Harbor Feasibility Study, begun in 2003, that will be discussed later today. The study’s general purpose is to come up with ways to improve the channel and to greatly reduce the danger to shoreside homeowners posed by storms.

    Three options will be presented. The first option is to leave things as they are. The second “navigational” option would extend the inlet’s channel (the dimensions to be determined) from Block Island Sound south to the yacht basin on the east side of Star Island. It would also provide for a deposition site, an underwater hole or trench located just offshore of the end of the east jetty. The site would collect sand before it can form dangerous shoals in the inlet.

    The third proposal would include the extended channel and the deposition site and would add a series of short groins extending from the beach at Soundview.

    A month ago, the Army Corps asked state and town officials to meet with the Soundview plaintiffs’ legal team to see if the particulars of the Montauk Harbor Feasibility Study could preclude a filing in federal court.

    “We believe we have a good idea what the corps will present, but based on what we understand, it’s grossly insufficient,” Jonathan Sinnreich of Central Islip, the plaintiff’s attorney, said on Tuesday. Mr. Sinnreich said it wasn’t the strategy that was the problem, but rather the inability of the Army Corps to make a commitment. Funding for any approach is contingent on the willingness of Congress to pay for it.

    And, there was another possible rub. According to federal law, beaches rebuilt using sand supplied by dredging projects paid for by taxpayers become public domain, complete with public access to them. Soundview residents have considered their beaches private. “We stongly believe that the replenished beach should remain private. [The erosion] was not natural. It was an action of the government. There might be a solution to that; it’s too early to say,” Mr. Sinnreich said. 

    Brian Frank, East Hampton Town’s chief environmental analyst, said today’s presentation would be handled by the Army Corps, but he and other town officials, as well as state, will be on hand because any fix would necessarily involve state and town participation.

    Mr. Frank said the town had not yet decided which of the Army Corps approaches to support.

    Community members expressed dismay at an East Hampton Town Board work session Tuesday over the board’s recent bickering, and questioned Supervisor Bill Wilkinson’s stance on a proposed departmental reorganization as well as his attitude toward controversial clubs and restaurants in Montauk, his hometown.

    The board, with three Republicans and two Democrats, has splintered on numerous issues during recent discussions.

    “I cannot believe the childish behavior of all five of you,” Mary Ella Moeller said during a public comment period at the start of the meeting. “You behave with disrespect toward each other and your constituents, as well as the people in the audience.”

    “You were elected, and you need to represent all the people in the town in the best possible way,” she scolded. “Forget about petty childish differences and work together, instead of being known as a dysfunctional board.”

    “The public doesn’t deserve this,” Ms. Moeller continued. “We deserve a board that works for the town and does the town business in a respectful way, regardless of the party you belong to.” Some observers applauded.

    “The Town of East Hampton is now under siege — a virtual Dodge City,” Larry Smith of Montauk told the board during his turn at the podium. “We are under — and particularly in Montauk — a clear and present danger to our environment and quality of life. We do not have adequate code enforcement officers to monitor our laws.”

    “I see the town changing dramatically,” said Mark Levy, who said he’s lived in Montauk for 20 years. “In some ways it’s very nice. In some ways it’s like the Jersey Shore.”

    In discussing the proposed reorganization of the Natural Resources and Planning Departments, said Mr. Levy, Mr. Wilkinson had said he wanted to free town planners to focus long range on advancing business development in East Hampton, as well as other goals. “It strikes me that your vision of Montauk is a very different vision,” he told the supervisor, reflecting, he said, “your support of the aggressive business community.”

    “What I hear,” Mr. Levy said, “is ‘ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching.’ One dollar, one vote.”

    Mr. Wilkinson’s viewpoint, he said, “should be part of the reorganization discussion. Then people will understand, really, what you’re trying to accomplish.”

    Mr. Wilkinson remarked that he has lived in Montauk three times longer than Mr. Levy. “So I’d like to not say, ‘Everything old is new again,’ but, ‘Montauk has a long history.’ ”

    He repeated details about clubs such as the Surf Lodge that he has often cited to underscore the longevity of such places in Montauk. “My sister played the organ at Ruschmeyer’s,” the supervisor said of a previous incarnation of another night spot that has disturbed its neighbors.

    “I don’t see why the negative examples then should be used to defend the negative examples now,” Mr. Levy replied. “I’m not anti-business, I’m for good citizens.”

    “What we have done is, we have brought the issues of the business community to the forefront,” Mr. Wilkinson said, adding that he has organized two symposiums to address business owners’ issues. “We have 6 percent of land devoted to commercial use” town-wide, he said. “We have done no major development, in spite of the hype you may have heard, in spite of the hyperbole you may have heard. We have encouraged businesses . . . places like the Ronjo.” That motel, now called the Montauk Beach House, has been a flashpoint of controversy on several scores. But such projects, Mr. Wilkinson said, employ residents and attract clientele who spend money locally.

    “What I see is outside investors coming in,” said Mr. Levy, “not people who will build up Montauk as a community. One of the responsibilities of government is to distinguish between the fly-by-night people who want to make a buck and get out” and others, he said. “The changes that are being proposed are enabling of the bad citizens.”

    Mr. Wilkinson countered by naming the owners of various Montauk bars and restaurants, pointing out their local residences. “So I don’t understand what you are talking about,” he told Mr. Levy.

    The exchange prompted Councilwoman Theresa Quigley to speak out. “I was born and raised here. I am 57 years old. So I have you beat — not that it’s relevant,” she told Mr. Levy. “I’ve seen the changes more than you’ve seen the changes. I am 100 percent for the business owners, but that does not mean I’m not for the residents. But in my mind, the business owners are the residents.”

    “We don’t have the proper zoning in this town. We don’t have the proper planning,” she continued heatedly.

    People have commented, said Ms. Quigley, that the efforts of the town Planning Department over the years helped to preserve East Hampton. “Yeah, they did, but they forgot about the people who want to make a living,” she said. “Of course I don’t want to destroy the town, but I want to make a living. So yes, I’m pro-business, but I’m not pro destroying the town.”

    Mr. Levy said Montauk had reached a “tipping point,” with “so many places, and growing so fast. I think that’s what’s changing the town.”

    Another speaker returned to Ms. Moeller’s theme.  “I’m a Johnny-come-lately,” Joan Lesser said, “so I don’t want to be condemned. What I don’t understand is the adversarial position that is taken — the preconceived notion that when somebody gives you a new idea, that it’s a bad idea.”

    “What I hear is that no matter what people say, it’s a bad idea, and you’re not going to listen. As a taxpayer, that’s very disturbing,” she said. “Why are you so close-minded about these issues?”

    Other speakers urged the board to allow the public to weigh in at a hearing on the changes proposed to the Natural Resources and Planning Departments.  The proposal, backed by Mr. Wilkinson and Ms. Quigley, would shift responsibility for environmental reviews from planning to natural resources, moving several staffers from one department to the other. It would also create a new “natural resource reviews group” and “environmental protection unit,” placing them, as well as the Aquaculture Department and the community preservation fund office, under Natural Resources Department authority.

    A resolution authorizing the change has failed to gain support among other board members, who have called for a more detailed explanation of the new entities and a review of whether town code changes would be required.

    Jeanne Frankl, who heads the town Democratic committee, told the board a hearing would be “an opportunity . . . to dispel the suspicions that it’s just another slap in the face of [the planning director] Marguerite Wolffsohn, and another attempt to undo the planning board’s rigorous review of natural resources” issues.

    Mr. Wilkinson responded that “it’s ironic” that a move by the 2008 town board, all of them Democrats, to shift personnel from Natural Resources to the Planning Department was done without a hearing. “So I don’t understand the great cry for public attention at this point,” he said.

    He said he had vetted the reorganization with John Jilnicki, the town attorney. “Absent of that, I am not going to introduce non-legal competencies to the legal field,” he said.

    Mr. Wilkinson has said the intention is to free the Planning Department to pursue long-range planning initiatives, and Ms. Quigley said Tuesday that it is simply to repopulate the Natural Resources Department, moving staffers whose present jobs logically fall under that umbrella, without changing any duties or job descriptions.

    But, said Councilwoman Sylvia Overby, the proposed resolution states that “as a result of this reorganization, the Planning Department will no longer be responsible for natural resource reviews,” a substantive change.

    “I will just repeat what I said before,” Mr. Wilkinson said, reciting again how staff was shifted in 2008. “So when they move there, it’s fine, but when they move back, it’s not fine, you have to have a public hearing?”    

    “So what?” Ms. Lesser asked. “Just because someone did it wrong doesn’t mean you have to do it again.”

    “It’s the public that is interested,” Larry Smith said. “I just don’t understand why anybody would want to preclude public interest, and public participation in the public process.”

    When Rona Klopman, a Democrat who was in the audience, spoke out, interrupting Ms. Quigley to ask that she let Councilman Peter Van Scoyoc speak, Mr. Wilkinson threatened to move the meeting to a smaller room — the type of space, he said, where the previous, Democratic, administration had held its work sessions before a larger meeting room was provided in the new Town Hall.

    “And this entire audience will be left out,” he said.

An East Hampton man arrested on June 15 on a charge of child sex abuse stemming from an alleged 2004 incident was released yesterday after time ran out on the Suffolk district attorney to get an indictment.

“This is all just a lie. All we can do is stand strong with our faith,” said Mary Soto, a niece of Martin A. Soto, 48, who was arrested by East Hampton Town police and charged with the alleged sexual abuse of a victim who was under 13 at the time.

After being jailed because he was unable to come up with $200,000 bail, Mr. Soto was released yesterday, after the Suffolk district attorney was unable to produce an indictment within the required period following his arrest. An indictment is required within 120 hours after an arrest is made, or, as in Mr. Soto’s case, 144 hours if a weekend is involved.

According to Melissa Aguanno, an assistant Suffolk district attorney, an indictment “is still in process.” The reason for the lack of one was not explained.

The law cited in the arrest, committing a criminal sexual act in the first degree, for which there is no statute of limitations, would indicate that police believe Mr. Soto, allegedly had either oral or anal sexual relations with a child under 13.

Police have released very little information because of the nature of the case and the age of the alleged victim at the time of the incident.

“There was a disclosure made by the victim to a third party,” Detective Lt. Christopher Anderson said Tuesday about the arrest. After learning of the allegations, police opened an investigation, obtaining a statement from the alleged victim, as well as from the third party.

Bail was initially set at $200,000 by East Hampton Town Justice Lisa R. Rana.

Mr. Soto’s family gathered in court on Thursday before his release.

Outside the courtroom, three generations of Mr. Soto’s family gathered around a picnic table under a huge oak tree. Several of them said at one time they had been close to the family of the alleged victim, and believe they know the motivation of the accuser.

“My uncle built a house for them, and this is how they repay them. They want more from my uncle. They want money from him,” said Andy Soto, Mr. Soto’s nephew.

“Everything is going to be fine,” Mary Soto said, her eyes welling with tears. “This is all just a bad dream. It is going to end, soon.”

After several months of interviews and a new administrative model, the Springs School Board annouced on Friday that Dominic Mucci -- the Springs superintendent from 1999 to 2002 -- will be returning to the role as interm superintendent, effective July 2.

In a press release, Kathee Burke Gonzalez, the president of the Springs Board of Education, said, “We are thrilled to have Dominic back serving in the new role of part-time superintendent. Dom is a professional committed to excellence. He brings energy, passion, and a wealth of experience back to Springs. He knows our district and is familiar with the issues we face including the complexities of working under the 2-percent tax levy cap. With Dom’s 12 years of experience as a superintendent, he should prove to be an outstanding mentor for our principal, Eric Casale. The team of Dominic and Eric promises to be a dynamic force at Springs next year.”

Mr. Mucci's role as part-time superintendent is part of an initiative at Springs to create a different administrative model -- one that also includes a full-time assistant principal, who is yet to be named. Mr. Mucci retired from the North Bellmore school district in 2008, then served as superintendent for the Englewood Cliffs school system in New Jersey. He and his wife, Debi Holmes-Mucci, already have a house in Springs.

    State legislation was passed in Albany last week allowing East Hampton Town to sell its 50-percent share of the Poxabogue Golf Center in Sagaponack to Southampton Town, which bought the facility with East Hampton for $6.5 million in 2004.

    Under the public trust doctrine, state authorization is needed for the alienation of parkland — selling off public parks or recreational land.

    Citing a fiscal crisis, East Hampton officials had agreed in October to sell off the town’s interest in the recreational facility for $2.2 million. The town board at the time was split on the decision along party lines, but the Republican majority prevailed.

    Though the sale price was less than the $3.25 million East Hampton spent on its portion of the purchase, Town Supervisor Bill Wilkinson said in proposing the sale that the move would enable the town to make payments of about $180,000 a year for four years on the debt issued to buy the half share, and then to pay the bond off in full, saving $100,000 in interest costs.

    Town Councilman Peter Van Scoyoc said yesterday that the town still owes just over $3 million in principal and interest on the bond issued to buy its share of Poxabogue, so the sale will be “for a net loss, plus the commitment of that amount of community preservation funds.”

    According to the state legislation sponsored by Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr. and Senator Kenneth P. LaValle, the town will be required to spend an amount equal to the sale revenue — $2.2 million — for capital improvements at existing park and recreational facilities, or for the acquisition of new parks or recreational lands.

    The revenue from the sale to Southampton will go into the town’s general fund — the fund that incurred debt to pay for Poxabogue in the first place — but the town intends to use money from the community preservation fund, a dedicated land-purchase account funded with the proceeds of a 2-percent real estate transfer tax, to satisfy the state requirement.

    However, Councilman Van Scoyoc said he supports the sale. “I came to the conclusion that the cost to the town would be greater if we went forward” as an owner of the facility, he said. Though user fees have covered the golf center’s operating costs, Mr. Van Scoyoc said it would “cost a lot more to stay the course” and contine paying off the purchase.

    Market-value price of the 39-acre site, which is in Southampton Town but so close to the East Hampton border that the town was legally allowed to invest in it, had dropped not only because of the overall economic climate but because appraisals setting the initial purchase price were based on the potential for the property’s development. It had been slated for an 18-lot residential subdivision before the towns resolved to buy it.

    “It’s interesting in some ways, because basically the asset is diminished because it’s now parkland,” Mr. Van Scoyoc said.

    The original purchase, he said, achieved the goal of avoiding development of the site, which was a “plus.” However, he added, “What did we get for our expenditure? Reduced fees for people who use the course. I think this is the better route to go, divesting.” But, he said, “It would be nice if we got more out of our involvement.”

    The legislation authorizing the sale also requires the Town of Southampton to continue to provide access to Poxabogue to East Hampton residents. It does not address concerns raised by some residents at a hearing on the sale about whether East Hamptoners will continue to be offered residents’ discounted fees. However, town officials have said that fees will be part of the agreement, for an initial term of five years, with options to extend the agreement upon the towns’ mutual consent.

    Councilman Van Scoyoc suggested that East Hampton officials should try to assure reduced fees for the town’s residents for a lengthier term. “Ultimately financing the sale for Southampton, it would be nice to have a little quid pro quo for that,” he said.

    A portion of the revenue in East Hampton’s 2012 budget relies on the proceeds from the Poxabogue sale. In comments on the proposed budget before it was adopted, the New York State Comptroller expressed concern about assuming revenues from a sale for which contracts had not yet been signed.

    Zachary Cohen, a Democrat who tried to unseat Mr. Wilkinson in the 2011 election, also questioned the move during a budget hearing last year. He said that a “good general rule of municipal finance” is that one-time income, such as money from the sale of assets, should not be used as general operating revenue. Because that particular revenue source will not exist in the future, he said in a letter to the board, “it builds a tax increase into the next year’s budget equal to the amount of revenue recorded.”

     Southampton Town will use its community preservation fund to buy East Hampton’s half of the site, thus protecting it from future sale or development.

    The sale of public land and the state law regarding “alienation of parkland” is one of the central issues in a lawsuit against East Hampton Town over a proposed sale of the Fort Pond House property in Montauk, another action approved only by the Republican majority.

    When the board majority resolved in 2010 to put the four-acre waterfront property on the market for $2 million, numerous community members objected, citing the use of the house and grounds by various groups, including the Third House Nature Center and the Montauk Boy Scouts.

    The nature center, along with the Concerned Citizens of Montauk and several individuals, sued, saying the property qualifies as a public park and the sale should have been subject to state legislative approval.

    State Supreme Court Justice William B. Rebolini has twice ruled against motions by the town to dismiss the suit, and the case is proceeding.

    Even though town officials had said the site was never considered a park, Judge Rebolini said that the petitioners had “set forth sufficient allegations . . . supported by sworn statements, that the premises may have been dedicated as parkland by implication,” and cited several court cases.

    The lawsuit also alleges that in adopting the resolution authorizing the property sale, the town board violated the state Open Meetings Law regarding executive sessions, or meetings held out of the public eye, and the judge wrote in his decision that “the petitioners have properly pled a failure by the town board to conduct said executive session pursuant to a majority vote taken in an open meeting, and to show that publicity would substantially affect the value of the property” — the only instance, according to the law, when a property sale or purchase may be discussed in executive session.

    Over 40 people attended Friday’s meeting of the East Hampton Village Zoning Board of Appeals, but not many were able to speak, as experts hired by the Maidstone Club to vet its decision to improve its golf course irrigation took up the time discussing the groundwater situation.

    Andrew Goldstein, the board chairman, told the crowd, which slowly dissipated as the meeting surpassed the two-hour mark, that the board would look over the written materials submitted by the experts and meet again to discuss the application in two weeks. In addition to the planned construction of two wells, a pump station, and an irrigation pond, a third well was not included on the application, so it needs to be re-noticed.

    In the meantime Brian Blum, a certified professional geologist with Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, addressed the board. Mr. Blum is an expert in groundwater management.

    “For every square mile out here,” he said, “the aquifer recharges at about a million gallons a day.” The average rainfall is around 45 inches a year, he explained, and “about half that water percolates right into the ground.”

    He called the Long Island aquifer that serves East Hampton “extraordinarily prolific.”

    The concern, as voiced by neighbors and others, is that the amount of water drawn from the proposed wells will affect Hook Pond.

    “If we pumped for an entire day,” Mr. Blum said, “we would take around 360,000 gallons, which is a reasonable maximum of what the club would use in a day. Hypothetically, if we shut the pond off, and drew directly from the pond, it translates to less than two-tenths of an inch of water.”

    “But it’s not from the pond,” he continued. “We’re 1,000 feet away, 45 feet below ground surface.”

    A permit from the State Department of Environmental Conservation allows the Maidstone Club to use up to 25 million gallons of water a year. The amount used has been 9.2 million gallons.

    “But it’s a worse-case scenario,” Mr. Blum explained. “I don’t think they’re going to pump 25 million gallons a year, but that’s what the permit allows, so that’s what we’re looking at.”

    Stuart Z. Cohen, an expert on the effects of nutrient runoff in groundwater, presented a pie chart showing that in the four-mile radius of the watershed where the Maidstone Club is based, only 10 percent of runoff comes from the golf course. “Most of it comes from septic, home lawns, animal and pet waste,” he said.

    He also observed that if the grass were healthier, from better irrigation, the density of the turf would increase and therefore there would be less sedimentary runoff.

    Mr. Goldstein said the board was treating the application as a Type 1 action in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act, which means that the proposed actions may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. “It’s also adjacent to Dunemere Lane, which is part of the East Hampton Historical District,” Mr. Goldstein said. The club had been pursuing the application as an unlisted action.

    Linda James, a neighbor who has lived on Hook Pond for 45 years, issued a letter to the zoning board.

    “For those preservationists in our community dedicated to the conservation of East End natural resources, of which Hook Pond is one of the most visible treasures, these technical reports provide a collective baseline for future monitoring of the Pond,” Ms. James wrote. “But the fact that these reports are being used to justify expanding a golf course’s high technology watering system or mollifying a community’s concern about how its public water is being used should certainly raise a red flag for those charged — by Chapter 163 in the East Hampton Village Code on freshwater wetlands — to ‘preserve, protect and conserve the wetlands located within the corporate bounds.’ ”

    Ms. James asked that the board require a full environmental impact statement from the applicant.

    The Maidstone Club is seeking a freshwater wetlands variance for a new irrigation system for its 27-hole golf course. At the last meeting when the application was discussed, in May, Mr. Goldstein said he anticipated a “somewhat lengthy process.”

    A proposed reorganization that would place four branches of town government under the supervision of one new Environmental Protection Department led by Kim Shaw, the recently appointed director of natural resources, failed to pass muster at a meeting of the East Hampton Town Board last Thursday night, when Supervisor Bill Wilkinson brought it up for a vote.

    The measure, which appeared on the agenda just hours before the meeting  without the board’s having discussed it in public, was supported by Councilwoman Theresa Quigley, a Republican who is Mr. Wilkinson’s deputy supervisor, but was voted down by the Democratic board members, Sylvia Overby and Peter Van Scoyoc.

    Councilman Dominick Stanzione, elected with Mr. Wilkinson and Ms. Quigley on the Republican slate, was not present for the vote, but said on Tuesday that “it’s an important reform” which he would support, though not before further review of the details.

    The four agencies involved are the Aquaculture Department, the community preservation fund office, and a to-be-created “environmental protection unit” and “natural resource reviews group.” The proposal, which would shift responsibility for “natural resource reviews” from the Planning Department and transfer several planning staffers into the new units, made waves, particularly among Democrats who feared it was a move by its two Republican supporters to weaken environmental protections. Mr. Wilkinson and Ms. Quigley have often characterized the process of obtaining approvals for development as onerous.

    Pressed for details of the proposal last Thursday night, the supervisor said the Planning Department would be asked to focus on long-range planning issues, and that its staff would continue to include Marguerite Wolffsohn, the director, JoAnn Pahwul, the assistant director, Brian Frank, the chief environmental analyst, Eric Schantz, a planner, one aide, two clerk-typists, and a secretary.

    The proposed resolution states that placing “the activities of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources, Aquaculture, and Community Preservation” under Ms. Shaw’s leadership would allow “environmental issues, one of the town’s top priorities, to be addressed in a focused, cohesive and comprehensive manner.”

    Three Planning Department staffers, Joel Halsey, Lisa D’Andrea, and Tyler Borsack, would be reassigned to the “natural resource reviews group,” under Ms. Shaw. “As a result of this reorganization,” the resolution says, “the Planning Department will no longer be responsible for natural resource reviews.”

    The “environmental protection unit” would include Mark Abramson, a senior environmental analyst, and a senior clerk typist.  

    The Aquaculture and Land Acquisition and Management Departments, with staff intact, would also go under Ms. Shaw’s umbrella, according to the proposal. Bill Taylor, whose title is waterways management specialist, would be transferred to the Harbors and Docks Department, reporting to Ed Michels, the senior harbormaster.

    “Other than that, nothing’s changing,” Councilwoman Quigley said on Tuesday. “There’s no proposal that anybody’s job duties change. There’s nobody terminated. The proposition is moving three people who do natural resources, into Natural Resources.”

    The lack of prior public discussion has raised fears, particularly among Democrats, that the reorganization was less about increasing efficiency and more about weakening environmental protections.

    At last Thursday’s meeting Betty Mazur, a member of the East Hampton Democratic Committee, stood up “to express my dismay,” she said, that “this resolution to consider major environmental reorganization and restructuring of the town’s environmental agencies, including the Planning Department, was not discussed in public.”

    “This is such an important issue for this town,” she said. “It harkens back to other attempts to do major restructuring of this vital area of the town’s planning and protection, that it makes me a little nervous that the board is presenting such a resolution tonight with the expectation, I assume, to vote on it without the proper public discussion and information.”

    “I cannot stress enough that . . . the restructuring of our planning and zoning departments, and environmental protection, should be discussed in public,” Deb Foster, a former town board member, said. “This might be a great idea, but our history here has been fraught with disaster.” She recalled when, in 1983, a Republican-controlled  town board abolished the Planning Department. “Frankly, there has been a history of some members of this board, of conflict with the Planning Department. We want to hear discussion as to why this is going on, and how it will go on,” Ms. Foster said.

    “There have been discussions,” Mr. Wilkinson said. “Publicly?” Ms. Foster asked. “No, not publicly,” said Mr. Wilkinson, citing his “35 years of organization expertise.”

    “You’re not in a corporation anymore,” Ms. Foster responded. “You’re a public servant.”

    “Don’t tell me what I am,” the supervisor replied. “This thing has been discussed internally since January,” he continued. “I am not going to recommend that every organizational change be exposed to a public hearing; I’m not going to do that.”

    Councilman Van Scoyoc acknowledged that the board had discussed the changes to personnel assignments in executive sessions, but Ms. Foster asserted that, according to the state Sunshine Law, “executive session is not for reorganization; it is for individual performance.”

    “It is if there are names involved, and they are yet to be released,” said Mr. Wilkinson.

    Job Potter, another former Democratic board member, also weighed in on the issue. “Clearly . . . individual people, when their names are being used and their job performance is being discussed, that deserves to be in executive session.”

    But, the former councilman said, “I think that any discussion of creating new departments or merging departments is clearly not executive session material, and that if new departments are being created or bundled together, it really does deserve an open discussion.”

    “Could you just explain what’s going on?” he asked.

    In comments that evening, and at the board’s work session on Tuesday, Mr. Wilkinson and Ms. Quigley cast the measure as primarily a reorganization of the Natural Resources Department under its new leader, after the retirement of its longtime director Larry Penny. All the board members have expressed great confidence in Ms. Shaw.

    “We wanted to ensure that two things be accomplished,” Mr. Wilkinson said last Thursday. “That we retain the viability and vitality of our aquifers. We always push natural resources.”

    “We wanted to do, at the same time, ‘one-stop shopping’ for natural resources. . . . So we started trying to figure out what was under that umbrella. At the same time, I wanted to have the Planning Department take a different focus. I wanted the Planning Department to start planning. I wanted the Planning Department to look 5 and 10 years out for this town. We’ve done a wonderful job in planning for land acquisition and land management, but I wanted us to start looking at short-term . . . and on to 15 years of strategic planning.”

    Planning efforts should focus, the supervisor said, on infrastructure, septic-waste management, cell towers, and solar energy, as well as “things like highway — how many miles of highway can we bring into the system [and] whether it has to do with recreational fields or whatever.”

    “We haven’t done that,” he said.  “The [comprehensive] plan is one thing, but we really have to look at legitimate tight plans, long-range plans.”

    “There are a number of aspects to this reorganization that I support,” Mr. Van Scoyoc said last Thursday, but also a “couple of problems. But by and large I think that the move is a positive one.”

    One issue, he said, is the “inherent conflict” of having an agency whose decisions could affect a property’s value under the same arm as an agency that might seek to purchase such properties using the community preservation fund.

    “I think we should do everything we can to not have the appearance of impropriety,” Councilwoman Sylvia Overby said when Mr. Van Scoyoc raised the same issue on Tuesday. But Ms. Quigley and Mr. Wilkinson said they saw no problem. “I don’t see the conflict,” Ms. Quigley told Mr. Van Scoyoc. “Why don’t we keep every single person separate from everyone else? Then we’ll never have an appearance of conflict.”

    Ms. Overby also said Tuesday that, while she might not disagree with some of the shifts proposed, certain responsibilities  are ascribed to the Planning Department by the town code, and that revising those assignments would require a public hearing before changing the code.

    The duties of the new proposed “environmental protection unit,” and the “environmental resources review group,” should be defined, Ms. Overby added.

    As they had last Thursday, Mr. Wilkinson and Ms. Quigley cited less far-reaching changes made by the prior, Democratic administration, that assigned some of the Natural Resources Department’s duties to the Planning Department, and shifted staffers from one department to the other.

    After a Coast Guard inspection today and a county vote on Tuesday, the Peconic Jitney passenger ferry will be able to hit the harbor for 100 days. Many voices of opposition were heard yet again at the final hearing on the matter Tuesday night, but the Sag Harbor Village Board voted 4 to 1 in favor of issuing a temporary special permit for passenger ferry travel from Long Wharf to Greenport.

    The ferry service is planned to begin on or about June 28, with seven round trips a day Sunday through Wednesday and nine from Thursday through Saturday for a price of $11 one way and $20 round trip. Fares for children 13 and younger will be $6 one way, $11 round trip, according to Geoff  Lynch, the president of Hampton Jitney and of the newly formed and separate entity Peconic Jitney. Mr. Lynch, a Sag Harbor resident, will use his family-owned company’s money for the trial run.

    “We don’t have a chance to make a red cent,” he announced at Tuesday’s hearing. “It has to do with transit on the East End — not just Sag Harbor, all five towns.” Mr. Lynch explained that he saw the trial period as an opportunity to enhance transportation, as outlined in a portion of a transportation study by Sustainable East End Development Strategies, for the long-term benefit of the region. He said bicycles would be welcomed on the boats for no additional charge.

    “If we can come up with a long-term plan that alleviates traffic, every person in the village will win,” Mr. Lynch said.

    Also approved despite opposition of neighbors was the lease of a parking lot from Pierson High School for Peconic Jitney to use for a shuttle for those who drive to the village to take the ferry. The lease was Mr. Lynch’s response to an outcry about the already disastrous parking situation in the village during the summer. The Sag Harbor School Board will receive $20,000 for the use of the lot when school is not in session.

    Some residents said they were concerned about “unacceptable” effects on Sag Harbor and its quality of life and didn’t see sufficient benefits. Fears cited included the safety of children sailing, parking, pollution, overcrowded streets, and a decrease in property values.

    But Bruce Stafford, a village board member, could see benefits, one of them being access to Greenport’s many family-friendly activities, such as a skate park and a carousel. “I have a 12-year old,” he said. “We can walk downtown, hop on the boat, and have a great day.” He also said that, despite the mostly negative comments at the hearings, he has heard a lot of positive ones from people on the street.

    The board reassured those in attendance that when the trial period is over, a permanent application would require a much more substantial review, which would involve the Harbor Committee, the village’s planning and zoning boards, and the architectural review board.

    Mr. Lynch estimated a maximum passenger count of 350 people per day, which he called “not an overwhelming number.” The boat holds 53 people. As a guide, Hampton Jitney buses usually operate at 40 to 50-percent occupancy, he said. “I don’t think 175 will have cars. I can handle most of those cars if I do my job of marketing it that way.”

    Mr. Lynch also spoke of plans for expansion to other ports, such as Orient, New Suffolk, and Montauk, “if this looks like it has potential.”

    “This boat goes away after September,” he said, and for the service to continue, investors or public-sector grants would be required, as would more boats.

    Jim Ryan, the owner of Response Marine and “employee number-one” at Peconic Jitney, explained nautical details for the board, for example the fact that the boat will come in even with the bulkhead at high tide, thus not disrupting any scenic vistas. It has its own gangplank for passengers to board.

    “Four cleats are the only footprint,” Mr. Ryan said, along with a sign showing hours of operation and fees. He said the ferry would not travel at more than five knots near the harbor. “We don’t want to disturb people,” whether they are fishing, anchored, or sailing. He said those in the shellfish industry had been assured their traps would not be disturbed.

    Opponents, however, also complained Tuesday about the buses that the new enterprise is to run in a loop, in conjunction with the ferry schedule, to and from Bridgehampton and East Hampton.

    Mr. Lynch countered that the county’s S92 transit bus is the “best deal in the Hamptons” and said he would prefer that passengers take advantage of its 16 daily runs to East Hampton, Sag Harbor, and Bridgehampton. “Anybody can get on for $2.25.”

    Jeff Peters of the Harbor Committee, the sole member of that body who believes the ferry plan is not consistent with the village’s Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan, spoke as a resident of Main Street and questioned the fee of $12,000 for the use of Long Wharf. “It is going to cost more than that. It’s common sense,” he said, pounding the podium.

    On Monday at a Harbor Committee meeting, Mr. Peters said he was concerned about the disruption of activities at the north end of Long Wharf. “We don’t know how it will displace the fishermen and visitors to the wharf,” he said.

    “I really want to try this for the summer and see how it works,” Mayor Brian Gilbride said Tuesday night. “If it does work out, or it doesn’t work out, I want to have as much information as we can to study this. This provides the data, that’s the real story.”

    “I think it’s worth a try,” Mr. Lynch said. “I am willing to take the loss to do the research and do a study for the East End.”

    Chet Basher, a 70-year-old Special Forces Vietnam veteran and longtime summer resident of Louse Point Road in Springs, is riding his bicycle across America to support the Wounded Warrior Project.

    Mr. Basher, who owns a residential construction and remodeling company in Sparta, N.J., took up cycling about 15 years ago. Before his current trek, his longest cycling trip was about 700 miles through the Rocky Mountains.

Mr. Basher began the cross-country journey on May 12 in Los Angeles, with a group called Cross Roads Cycling. They expect to cover 3,415 miles before finishing in Boston on Friday, June 29.

    The 23 cyclists in the group stop each night to rest at a motel or hotel. A support team transports their gear and can pick up an ill or injured rider.

Mr. Basher’s son, Devon, said from New Jersey this week that his father was “the oldest one on the ride, and he sounds pretty good.” Chet Basher was in Ohio at the time. “I’m probably going to meet him in Vermont,” his son said.   

The elder Mr. Basher has participated in Wounded Warrior Project activities for years, said his son. He has “donated his time and had people stay at his house; he’s driven folks around from one place to another. He’s done lots of things to help.”

The Wounded Warrior Project, originally formed to provide basic necessities such as clean clothes and shaving gear to wounded veterans returning from combat, continues to grow. The program now offers academic and job training support, advice on benefits, stress recovery support, adaptive sports programs, and more.

Mr. Basher’s journey can be followed online at ChetBikeUSAforWoundedWarrior.blogspot.com.