In terms of the long haul, the United States Army Corps of Engineers’ meager offer of a temporary fix for Montauk’s threatened downtown oceanfront could be a blessing in disguise.

    As some observers have pointed out for years, Montauk’s commercial center is not economically important enough to compete with cities like New York and Miami for an adequate share of federal erosion mitigation money. Instead, the oceanfront there is likely to continue picking up the funding scraps, forcing local officials, business leaders, and residents to begin, finally, to admit to the inescapable reality that the town is on its own and will not see Washington rushing in to save the day.

    Representatives of the Army Corps were in East Hampton Town Hall with state officials and others last week to describe the federal offer: a $6 million sandbagging project intended to bolster at-risk structures along a 3,100-foot section of the beach. To put that sum in perspective, Senator Charles E. Schumer is backing a call for $21 million from the Federal Emergency Management Agency for generators at a single hospital in West Islip. From the numbers, it is pretty easy to see how Montauk ranks.

    Beyond the Army Corps’ immediate plan, it dangled the possibility of additional funding when the Fire Island to Montauk Point Reformulation Study finally moves out of the planning stage — if ever. As we see it, waiting on such a vague promise would be foolish. Instead, given the assumption that vast piles of federal cash are not going to be forthcoming, East Hampton Town officials must begin to speak frankly about the dwindling options.

    One thing is clear: Montauk’s first row of hotels and residences along the beach from South Emery Street to about South Essex Street — on about 10 privately owned parcels in all — would not withstand a direct hit by a hurricane that was even moderately powerful. As dramatic as 2012’s Sandy was, its winds did not reach hurricane speeds on eastern Long Island, and its stormwater surge was considerably below others recorded on the South Fork historically.

    Making matters even more ominous, almost no natural, protective dune remains in downtown Montauk. This means that over-washes from even routine storms could reach several blocks of the commercial district. A so-called 100-year storm along the lines of the 1938 Hurricane would liquefy the first row of structures, turning their remaining fragments into battering rams that would then lay waste to the rest of downtown as they rode in on  raging water. To get a sense of how bad it could be, consider that in the aftermath of ’38, high windrows of splinted walls and roofs, furniture, cars, and the occasional human body were found piled up along the shore of Shinnecock Bay. The houses along Dune Road from which it all had come were entirely swept away.

    Readers and policy-makers should picture, too, that when downtown Montauk was laid out in the 1920s by the developer Carl Fisher, a road, South Edgewater Avenue, was plotted in front of the now-threatened motels and condos, between them and the sea. Although the road still appears on official maps, where it was to have been is now underwater. If this does not illustrate that the structures there are simply in the wrong place and that time has caught up with them, we cannot say what does.

    It appears that the town now should concede a localized defeat. No one, neither the Army Corps, nor the Town of East Hampton, nor oceanfront property owners, will be able to hold back the Atlantic Ocean. A separate tax district like the one created in Southampton to fund a $25 million sand-pumping project is one possibility. However, in the long term, it probably would be more cost-effective to offer buyouts to the 10 affected property owners or come up with a creative scheme of publicly-aided relocation.

    The bottom line is that the town must preserve the beaches for all its residents and visitors. That means rethinking what structures must be saved and at what cost. The process should begin now.

    Suffolk Executive Steve Bellone was to have visited the East End yesterday and you would have thought the president was coming from the advance fanfare. Advisories to the press from his Hauppauge office arrived on Monday afternoon, then the phone calls started, then we had Tuesday follow-ups.

    According to a preliminary schedule provided by Mr. Bellone’s staff, he was to have met with representatives of the five East End towns, had an interview at WLNG radio, and visited with the Montauk Chamber of Commerce and taken a turn around the Lake Montauk docks before heading to Southampton for a farm tour. It all sounds like a nice enough way to spend a day, but when the county executive’s rare visit is pitched as big news it kind of proves that the East End is an afterthought.

    Considering that the East End has what amounts to Suffolk’s only internationally known region, the Hamptons, one might think that it would have more clout than to merit very infrequent appearances by its top elected leader. However, with only a small fraction of the county’s total population, and just 2 of the Legislature’s 18 members, it has been all too easy to overlook.

    For decades, Suffolk’s municipal orphans on the North and South Forks, as well as in Riverhead, have mumbled about seceding from the county and forming their own alliance. Going back to the 1960s, the sense has been that the needs and outlook of the five East End towns are different from that of the west of Suffolk, and that a new entity, tentatively called Peconic County, might be advantageous.

    Taking over county functions, such as courts, jails, and health services, would no doubt be exceedingly complicated and expensive. Still a 1996 nonbinding referendum seeking support for secession was approved at the polls by a stunning 71-percent margin. It is interesting to remember that in the mid-’90s, Larry Cantwell, now East Hampton Town supervisor, was the chairman of the Peconic County Now advocacy group.

    Then, as presumably today, both Suffolk and state officials were not keen on the prospect. State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver has not allowed movement on the separatist undertaking, fearing, it has been speculated, a wave of similar bids statewide. Chances for a Peconic County appear limited as well by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s avowed interest in reducing, not increasing, the number of municipalities in the state.

    Interest in going separate ways might be lessened if the county executive visited more often. But until that day, the idea of a Peconic County will live on.

    East Hampton Town Hall was crowded last Thursday for a hearing on a proposed law that would strictly limit how and where so-called formula stores can be opened. In general, blocking the homogenization of the town’s commercial strips will be important to maintaining the area’s desirability among second-home owners and tourists. However, several aspects of the proposal should be looked at closely before going further.

    In short, the law would ban chains and franchises with 10 or more worldwide branches except in central business zones. They would be prohibited in portions of those zones that are designated as historic districts, within a mile of a historic district, and within a half mile of a historic landmark. Even where they would be allowed, formula retailers would be subject to tough limitations.

    It is in these limits that the proposal appears to have gone too far. Perhaps the most extreme provision is limiting formula stores to no more than 2,500 square feet of floor area. This would appear to unfairly benefit all other retail businesses, which under present law can be up to six times as large.

    This arbitrary square-foot maximum might have the unintended consequence of preventing the kind of stores residents might actually want here, for example, a Whole Foods or Trader Joe’s market, unless a specific exemption were made. Furthermore, it is almost certain that this substantial impediment would be challenged in court, as might restrictions on how interior space is decorated.

    There is also reason for concern that the wording of the proposal might turn out to block or limit the size of locally owned shops that are part of large distribution chains or use nationally recognized logos or uniforms. These might include some supermarkets, hardware stores, and paint suppliers, among others.

    It should be noted that fast food restaurants are already subject to permit standards, including that their design must conform to the “traditional and indigenous style” of East Hampton architecture. Drive-through windows are controlled in such a way as to make them nearly impossible to get through the permitting process.

    These rules could be a model for more equitable formula store regulation. The East Hampton Town Board is to be commended for attempting to make sure that new retail development meets the overall goal of keeping the town unique, but more work needs to be done.

    East Hampton Town officials have been working during the past few months on revising the way large assemblies are regulated. It is an important undertaking, and the time is now to get a handle on these before the summer’s high season.

    At one level, the effort is intended to bring the diffuse references in the town code about parties, benefits, and similar events into a single chapter. This would make it easier for the public to understand the law and help provide clarity for officials dealing with approving permits or clamping down on violations. Looked at a different way, the suggested changes to the code could significantly rein in for-profit gatherings that are regularly held outdoors at some restaurants and bars.

    John Jilnicki, a town attorney, presented his draft at a town board meeting earlier this month, and it appears the board is moving in the right direction. The most straightforward suggestion in the draft is that gatherings of between 50 and 100 people on private property be eligible for a fast-track permit from the town clerk. Party permits for 101 to 249 participants could be considered by an existing committee including town board members. When a resolution of the full town board were required, applications could be due as far out as 60 days before party time. An existing set of fees to cover traffic control and other town costs would be reviewed. In general, permit applications could require much more detail than required now and the identification of responsible individuals.

    A key provision is about commercial properties. Depending on how a proposed new law develops it could mean that outdoor activities at bars and restaurants would be reviewed by the town board and subject to the strictest permit standards. Demonstrating just how tough they may be willing to be, there could be no sale of goods or services at any event unless it was for a bona fide charity.

    Mr. Jilnicki’s draft suggests that large gatherings such as music performances or movies be allowed on commercial sites by permit only, with assurances that parking areas not be used by attendees and that no fee be charged. The law would bring some relief to neighbors of those bars and restaurants, mostly in Montauk, that have improperly taken over lawns or parking lots as good-weather annexes. Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell has said this was something the town lawyers should make a priority. It is high time that the town tackle the troublesome outdoor expansion of pre-existing businesses, and it appears that the revisions of the mass gathering law will present an opportunity to do so.

    Gazing from our office windows onto Main Street this week, we watched with a mild degree of curiosity as two men in a white, official-looking pickup truck pulled up and began unloading things. It soon became apparent that they were installing a tall sign right smack in front of the East Hampton Library’s main entrance. On closer examination, we saw that the sign announced Home, Sweet Home Museum was ahead and to the left, helpful perhaps, but. . . . And it turned out that the sign was joined by two more breaking the same press-stopping news nearby.

    It is an irony that in this age of online information and global positioning systems on nearly every dashboard someone in some office somewhere thought it wise to clutter up the cultural and historical heart of East Hampton Village in this way. Main Street here is a state road, and New York long ago had proved itself tone deaf to the way we like things out here. This is further proof. Taking down the signs would seem the thing to do. We, and our visitors, will be just fine without them leading the way.

    East Hampton Town’s effort to avoid commercial homogenization is to take a step forward this evening at a Town Hall hearing to gauge public opinion on strict new rules governing so-called formula stores. It is a worthy cause.

    Having seen the soul bled out of East Hampton Village as scores of seasonal trophy shops moved in, town officials hope to do something to protect local and small-scale retailers from rent escalation and to help outlying business districts avoid looking like most of the rest of the country’s. The goal is to help places like  Main Street, Amagansett, remain unique and intriguing to visitors, and keep jobs and profits in the community. 

    If approved, the law would ban chain stores in and within a mile of the town’s four historic districts and within a half-mile radius of officially designated historic structures, such as the new Town Hall, the Selah Lester farm on Three Mile Harbor Road, and the Miss Amelia Cottage in Amagansett. Looking at the details, there appears to be reason to expand these definitions to allow, for example, the protection of Montauk’s dock and downtown areas, and to do something about the blighted Route 27 strip in Wainscott.

    Other cities and towns have adopted such measures. San Francisco is considered a leader in rules that make it tough for corporations to open storefronts in some neighborhoods. Nantucket banned downtown chain stores in 2006. Sonoma, Calif., has been working on its own limits. In East Hampton’s proposed version of the law, chains with 10 or more stores worldwide would require permits and would be subject to detailed scrutiny and public comment before a permit were granted.

    In most cases under current practice in East Hampton Town, prospective businesses only need a building permit if the property and planned uses meet zoning requirements. In the village, this has contributed to a gradual emptying of locally owned shops as rents skyrocketed. What was once a vibrant Main Street and Newtown Lane are now somewhat grim off-season and have become an impersonal mall of interest to day-trippers in summer, which is largely bypassed by residents. As a result, those business owners not backed by deep, corporate budgets have had to look elsewhere, pushing storefronts and offices to the edges — and in some cases illegally — into neighborhoods where people live.

    Low-paying sales jobs are the norm now, with wages and even the dollars for trade services, such as construction, lighting, and cleaning, being spent out of town. Many of the costs remain for locals to bear, however, such as maintaining roads and sidewalks and providing emergency and police services.

    East Hampton Village may be too far gone to save now, barring an unexpected spasm of conscience among the area’s landlords. But it is appropriate for town officials to see what can be done before it’s too late. And while the town proposal will undoubtedly meet with some resistance and may be in need of adjustment, its goals of encouraging businesses to serve the needs of the year-round population, and blocking creeping sameness, are unimpeachable.

    An Amagansett development scheme that was met with vehement and nearly unanimous opposition appears headed toward a more than satisfactory solution. A hearing is to be held in Town Hall this evening about whether to use just over $10 million from the community preservation fund to buy the so-called 555 property on Montauk Highway, where a luxury village of some 79 apartments and houses had been planned for those 55 and older. Though specific ideas about how the land will be used are in the formative stage, its preservation for open space and, with any luck, farming, deserve support.

    It is worth reflecting back on what might have been. During the former town board’s tenure, the landowner, a Connecticut company, sought an entirely new zoning designation that would have allowed high-density housing to be sold at market rates at the site. A draft law that would have made this possible foundered after a public outcry and was also roundly rejected by the Suffolk Planning Commission. After a mostly new town board took over in January, the proposal was dropped for good.

    The public will be heard tonight on whether the town should buy the most-visible portion of the 555 site while a smaller parcel to the west, for which affordable housing is a possibility, would remain in the developer’s control. While $10 million might sound like a whole lot of money for 19 acres, it is not entirely out of line given recent prices, such as a recent $18.75 million deal for a single Wainscott parcel. Then, too, had the development been approved, it might have brought the developer 10 times as much in sales.

    As tonight approached, we heard rumblings that the town would be better off paying somewhat less by purchasing only what are known as the development rights on the property. However, as has been increasingly seen, such arrangements preclude public access to preserved acreage, and in the case of farmland, generally come with  no assurance that the land will actually see a plow. A full, fee simple deal would be in the community’s best interest.

    As to the property’s future, agriculture should be the first preference if the soil is suitable or could be restored. In addition, East Hampton actually has few places where large charity events can be held on public sites. The former 555 property has successfully hosted the Wounded Warrior Rock the Farm benefit, which should be allowed to continue. There are other options that could be explored, including a farmers market or riding facility. The first step is to approve the deal with the property owners.

    One of the sacrosanct principles of East Hampton Town zoning is that no one gets more than one house per property. That is unless one happens to have a large parcel of land and an even larger bank account.

    At an April 1 town zoning board hearing, representatives of Jeff T. Blau, who runs the multinational real estate firm Related Companies, sought to overturn the one-lot, one-house tradition on a Wainscott parcel he bought two years ago for $18.5 million. After voting to grant the request unanimously on Tuesday, the Z.B.A. runs the risk of dealing a major blow to the town’s zoning code.

    Town law carefully sets out limits on what can and cannot be done on residential properties, and with good reason. Banned uses include slaughterhouses and wrecking yards, and, material to this discussion, more than one single-family house per parcel. The one-house rule should apply fairly and evenly across the economic spectrum, and you can assume that even your run-of-the-mill millionaire would have been laughed out of Town Hall had he or she pursued a similar scheme.

    Mr. Blau’s successful request was simple at its core: He plans to build a second house on a parcel where only one is permitted. Rejection should also have been simple. However, during the Z.B.A. hearing, his lawyer offered a smokescreen of reasons why the board should give in, including that the plan would save a Topping family farmhouse already there. But because the original house is not visible from the adjacent Five Rod Highway, a narrow town trustee road, and because no promise to allow visitor access to it is being made, saving it as is serves only the most minimal public purpose.

    Mr. Blau will now build a new, far larger house there and several additional structures, including the renovated Topping house, but he did not want to subdivide the property for reasons that were not convincing. It appears that the reason his request reached the zoning board in the first place was a go-ahead some time ago from then-town attorney John Jilnicki, whose opinion was not put in writing - something that ought to be explained.

    Nor did Mr. Blau want to add his new, larger house on to the farmhouse, as would be his right. In return for being allowed to have two houses, Mr. Blau has offered easements, or perpetual protection, of portions of the property, but these fail to address the key question of an additional house on the site and imply the unblinking acceptance by the Z.B.A. of an improper quid pro quo.

    The town’s Planning Department, in its analysis of the application, did not appear to agree with Mr. Blau’s representatives that subdividing the land would be impossible. Indeed, the department dismissed this argument as moot, to use its word. It issued what can be read as a neutral opinion on the two-house question, and it urged the Z.B.A. to look closely at whether the request met the standards for granting variances. We believe they did not look closely enough.

    Mr. Blau cannot have reasonably claimed that being held to a single house on one lot would have been a genuine hardship. Any alleged difficulties from his situation should have been considered self-created and grounds for denial. New York State law requires that applications for variances must be rejected when they fail to meet these tests and a reasonable alternative - in this case, a legal, if difficult to obtain, subdivision - is available. East Hampton Town officials need to proceed extremely cautiously when it comes to granting such variances.

    Expect a wave now of similar requests from other wealthy property owners eager to build their own dream Hamptons compounds. Unfortunately, the zoning board heaped praise and its okay on an application that was improperly handed to it in the first place. We hope that in the future the members uphold tradition and reject more unjustified assaults on one of the town’s most basic zoning rules.

    An effort to respond to coastal erosion and flooding in low-lying areas here took a step forward recently when East Hampton Town made exploratory buyout offers to property owners. This is an important development that responds to the increasing threat to the waterfront and the concomitant certainty of losing public beaches if seawalls and other permanent structures are allowed.

    Hurricane Sandy can be credited with spurring interest at the federal and state level in long-term thinking. In terms of timing, the possibility of grant money from outside town has coincided with a change of leadership away from a rocks-first mentality. The new outlook better responds to climate change, sea level rise, and the simple effect of time along the shore.

    A change in the state law that established the Peconic Bay Region Community Preservation Fund means that the money can now be used to buy erosion and flood-prone properties. Similarly, a program administered by the United States Department of Agriculture could provide the cash to buy threatened house lots at pre-Sandy prices and remove all their structures. In a trial effort, letters intended to gauge interest in participation went to about 120 owners at Lazy Point, Amagansett.

    Right now, available federal money is limited to about $100 million, and there is considerable competition for preservation fund cash for other types of purchases. Nonetheless, removing houses from the most troubled spots is likely to happen, if somewhat modestly at first.

    Over all, the program is a good start. For decades, the experts have said that the only rational policy is one of retreat. Officials at nearly every level appear to be taking that message to heart. In the long run, the community will be better served by a managed and well-considered step back from the shore.

    That East Hampton is divided into two camps these days — those who want to live here and those who simply want to make a buck — is worthy of particular concern as summer approaches. Finding a balance between them is what makes the job of those in Town Hall and the village’s Beecher House so tough. It is up to them to make decisions about the direction of the community and to keep in check those of a more, shall we say, extractive mind-set.

    Montauk has become the front line in this fight. As the hamlet has grown more popular, so too have the pressures on officials to find that elusive balance. Recent history and the scale of wealth among some here make that even more difficult. In an astonishing passage in a recent New York Times profile of Michael Walrath, the 38-year-old tech millionaire and owner of the Montauk Surf Lodge, he was described as having “befriended” then-East Hampton Town Supervisor Bill Wilkinson and, by implication, was able to use that relationship to resolve the bar and restaurant’s numerous code violations with a $100,000 settlement in town court.

    The article went on to describe how Mr. Walrath “reduced capacity” at the Surf Lodge from 1,500 customers on some nights to 500. By any measure, 500 people is still too many by more than half for the Surf Lodge’s sensitive site on the edge of Fort Pond in a residential area. Of course, the Surf Lodge is hardly the only gathering place that’s gotten too big.

    Plenty of residents have wondered how the Montauk Beach House was allowed to expand, becoming a club and music venue hosting hundreds of people without providing more than a scrap of off-street parking. Ruschmeyer’s Inn is another hopping nightspot, while Solé East’s bands and D.J.s provide an unwelcome nighttime beat in the old Shepherd’s Neck neighborhood.

    Cyril’s Fish House on Napeague has been allowed to operate a bar with hundreds of patrons spilling onto the state Montauk Highway right-of-way. Only a short distance from Town Hall, vehicles of summer patrons at Bostwick’s Chowder House regularly overflow into no-parking zones. Meanwhile, an avoidable turf war between the East Hampton Town Trustees and the town board may prevent a solution for Indian Wells Beach in Amagansett, which has taken on a Florida spring-break atmosphere on high-season weekends to the dismay of regulars. We’re probably forgetting a few, too.

    None of these enterprises adequately compensates the community for the disturbances they cause. The jobs they create are generally seasonal and much of the money flows out of town as quickly as it flows in. They also create long-term risks to real estate values and rental rates. Officials are definitely trying to improve things. In East Hampton Village, serious consideration is being given to new rules on mechanized noise. The town board is taking a hard look at large, outdoor parties and other events.

    Going into summer 2014, the yardstick with which to measure policy is to ask: Who benefits and who pays?

    Officials must keep in mind that East Hampton is not dominated by the resort and nightlife sections of its economy. Residents, renters, and second-home owners keep this place going. Operations that flout local laws and diminish the attractiveness of this area for those who really pay the bills should be strongly discouraged.