With a pledge to revitalize his party and end single-party rule, Amos Goodman was elected chairman of the East Hampton Town Republican Committee on Feb. 7. Mr. Goodman, who lives in Springs, succeeds Reg Cornelia, who stepped down from the position last week. 

Mr. Goodman, who is 34 and runs a corporate advisory firm focused on aerospace and defense industries, takes the helm of the Republican Committee after a disappointing campaign in which its candidates for supervisor and town board were defeated by wide margins and just two of its nine candidates for town trustee prevailed in the November election. He pledged to lead an aggressive and sustained strategy to revitalize the party, hold elected officials accountable, and provide voters and taxpayers with alternatives to what a press release described as “the increasingly rudderless single-party control of the town.”

The Republicans will have an opportunity to field such an alternative in November, when David Lys, who was appointed to the town board last month to fill the seat vacated by Councilman Peter Van Scoyoc, who was elected supervisor, will stand for election. Representative Lee Zeldin, a Republican serving New York’s First Congressional District, is also up for re-election this year, as is Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat. 

“It’s critical that we keep the focus local,” Mr. Goodman, who ran unsuccessfully for Suffolk County legislator in 2015 and for the Republican Committee’s chairmanship the following year, said on Monday. “In the national political climate, passions are certainly high on both sides, and there’s a real risk that there isn’t accountability at the local level.” 

His goal over the next year, he said, is to “rebuild the infrastructure of the committee, moving forward on that at a pretty aggressive clip, and to figure out how are we going to get people, especially if all the predictions and polling about a huge Democratic wave this November come to pass, to support our candidate for town board.” 

If the Republicans are to succeed, voters who will not cast a ballot for Mr. Zeldin must nonetheless vote for the party’s candidate for town board, he said. “Certainly, it’s going to be challenging,” he said, predicting that East Hampton’s Democrats will make the campaign a referendum on President Trump. “An effort to make everything national is cynical,” he said. “We have issues at home. This is not the local offshoot of the Trump campaign.”

“I’m trying to create a certain discipline and focus that people may have a variety of opinions,” he said. “I know that on our committee, even in the executive ranks, people have very different views. Some voted for Trump, some didn’t. Some like the guy, some would espouse opinions that’d sound like anybody from the other party. That’s good, that’s the symptom of a big-tent, inclusive party that I think is the party of youth, innovation — at least it should and could be, and I think it will be.” 

Mr. Goodman acknowledged the uphill climb he and the Republicans face in a town in which voter registration heavily favors Democrats. “One of the, maybe, perverse benefits of taking over now is that there’s really not that much further we can fall,” he said. “It’s all up from here. . . . The fundamental independent spirit of most of the electorate is still there. We welcome a variety of people, and will be pulling into the committee people from all sorts of backgrounds and political views. We may not always see eye to eye . . . but if we can keep the focus on things we’re supposed to be focused on, namely the Town of East Hampton, I think there’s a chance we can do some interesting stuff. If I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t have taken this on.” 

Mr. Cornelia praised his successor in a release last week. “Amos is smart and savvy, and I’m confident he will lead us ably and effectively,” he said. “His passion and energy are exactly what we need going forward.”

As a deadline looms for the submission of applications to federal and state agencies, Deepwater Wind, the Rhode Island company seeking to construct a 15-turbine wind farm approximately 36 miles east of Montauk, is facing headwinds from commercial fishermen and their representatives, who are concerned that the installation could disrupt the industry and threaten marine life, habitats, or migration patterns. 

The East Hampton Town Trustees harbor management committee held a nearly four-hour meeting on Friday night, at which two consulting scientists for Deepwater Wind presented data from an ongoing study of the Block Island Wind Farm, a five-turbine installation that began operating in December 2016, and at which Gary Cobb, who ran unsuccessfully for town trustee in November and acts as a representative of inshore fishermen, spoke.

The scientists called concerns that electromagnetic frequencies from the proposed South Fork Wind Farm’s transmission cable would impact human or marine life unfounded. 

Fishermen, who apparently are unconvinced, have urged the trustees, who have jurisdiction over many of the town’s beaches and waterways, to deny an easement over the ocean beach in Wainscott where Deepwater Wind has proposed landing the transmission cable. A Deepwater Wind official suggested on Friday that the company would seek a landing on state property on Napeague if the trustees were not agreeable to Beach Lane, Wainscott.

At the trustees meeting on Monday, Mr. Cobb read a summary of a position statement. Saying that fishermen were economic stakeholders in the town’s near-shore fisheries as well as utility ratepayers, he read: “We stand unanimously opposed to the project.” The need for additional energy sources to meet current or foreseeable future demand is “highly questionable,” he said. Deepwater Wind, he charged, has not adhered to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s best management practices with respect to development and implementation of a local fisheries communication and outreach plan. 

Further, Mr. Cobb said, Deepwater Wind has not provided data that would alleviate concerns about the potential impact of the transmission cable. He referred to William Bailey, a consultant who had presented data on the electromagnetic field emanating from the proposed South Fork Wind Farm’s transmission cable, as a pseudoscientist. 

Instead of offshore wind, Mr. Cobb argued, rooftop solar, battery storage, LED lighting, and “smart” thermostats are effective means of generating electricity and reducing demand that would not threaten the ocean and those that make their living on it. It would be irresponsible for any governing body to support “any environmentally invasive project that was based on questionable need,” Mr. Cobb concluded. He also said it was indefensible given what he claimed was Deepwater Wind’s failure to provide site or project-specific data critical to assessing the project’s potential impacts on the marine environment. 

“We don’t know enough about this yet,” he told the trustees. “The precautionary principle should be adhered to,” he said. “Without a baseline of data, how do you even prove impact to the fishery. . . . Maybe it won’t have any impact at all, but you need to be able to say that with at least some assurance.”

Deepwater Wind officials have repeatedly and emphatically stated that the South Fork Wind Farm would pose no threat to marine life or to fishermen, and that its ongoing, six-year study of the Block Island Wind Farm has demonstrated no detrimental impacts to date. 

To the question of need, Clint Plummer, Deepwater Wind’s vice president of development, said yesterday that the Long Island Power Authority “has been very clear about the need, not for new power islandwide” but for “certain areas where it is very difficult to deliver power to,” referring to the South Fork and western Nassau County. “In 2015 and 2016, LIPA ran two competitive solicitations,” he said. “In the case of the South Fork, it found the most cost-effective solution was the portfolio that included Deepwater Wind and battery storage.”

Deepwater Wind adheres to the best practices, according to Aileen Kenney, the company’s vice president of permitting and environmental affairs, who pointed to a Jan. 10 forum in Montauk and the April 2017 posting for a Long Island fisheries representative.

“We continue to build upon our experiences at Block Island Wind Farm and develop a successful, worthwhile program based on BOEM’s best practices,” she said.

Rick Drew, the deputy clerk of the trustees and member of its harbor management committee, has voiced increasing frustration with what he considers insufficient data from Deepwater Wind. On Monday, he said it was clear “that there was a lot of information missing from the presentation” on Friday night. “I thank the Deepwater Wind team for bringing scientists, but clearly . . . there are some pretty big holes to fill” before the trustees and fishermen are satisfied. The committee intends to make a recommendation about whether to support the wind farm, but Deepwater Wind must provide more information, he said. 

Mr. Plummer said the process was complicated, but that as people learn more they will become more comfortable with it. “We’re building a new industry,” he said yesterday, “and going through a lot of new processes that have never been done for projects like this before. In a typical process you would have a fully engineered project, they would then bring a full slate of plans and environmental review to a board that has some jurisdiction, and that board would then review it and make a decision based on the merits.” 

Deepwater Wind has engaged with the community well in advance of submitting permit applications, “because we want feedback from the community and think it results in a better project,” Mr. Plummer said. The company’s request to the town and trustees for easements to route the transmission cable to a LIPA substation in East Hampton “is not a final request,” he said, but “we need to know we have all of our municipal real estate rights established” in order to proceed. “This is a request to be able to start a process,” he said. 

In other news at the meeting, the trustees called an executive session to debate the selection of a new attorney, emerging with Chris Carillo as their choice. Richard Whalen has represented them for the last two years and had informed them that he would step down at the end of last year.

Meanwhile, Francis Bock, the trustees’ clerk, told his colleagues that the State Department of Environmental Conservation has issued a 10-year permit to dredge the south inlet of Georgica Pond, a project intended to improve circulation. An application to the Army Corps of Engineers is pending, Mr. Bock said, and was posted for public comment last Thursday. The public comment period will conclude next Thursday. “Hopefully, we will receive their permit forthwith,” he said.

Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr. and Senator Kenneth P. LaValle introduced state legislation last Thursday that would require the Long Island Power Authority’s board of trustees “to protect the economic interests of its ratepayers and the service area” when proposing rate increases. An amended Long Island Power Authority Rate Reform Act also would prohibit LIPA from increasing rates to offset revenue losses due to ratepayer energy conservation efforts. 

In 2015, LIPA’s board approved the largest rate increase in the utility’s history. The three-year increase, implemented between 2016 and 2018, resulted in a cumulative 7.3-percent increase in the delivery portion of LIPA bills and raised more than $287 million in new revenue. 

Under current law, LIPA trustees are limited in what they can consider in a rate case. An appropriate consideration is whether State Department of Public Service recommendations are consistent with sound fiscal operating practices, existing contractual obligations, and safe and adequate service. 

The proposed legislation would modify the LIPA Reform Act by directing the utility to consider the economic impact of a rate increase, in addition to the criteria already enumerated in the statute.

“In 2015, the flaws in the LIPA Reform Act saddled ratepayers with a three-year increase, the largest in LIPA history,” Mr. Thiele said in a statement. “LIPA trustees implored us to fix the law. We should do so now before LIPA and PSEG-Long Island can ask for another rate increase.”

Under federal tax legislation, “Long Islanders are already facing a significant economic loss which will cost residents billions in taxes due to lost income tax deductions,” Mr. Thiele said.

“At the same time, utility companies could see a windfall in tax reductions. Ratepayers and taxpayers are the same people. It is imperative that the LIPA Reform Act be amended so that LIPA considers the economic impact of electric rate increases. In addition, Long Islanders are successfully working hard to reduce energy consumption. They should get the financial benefit of the efforts to conserve and not be punished with higher rates,” Mr. Thiele’s statement read.

The telecommunications giant AT&T has launched a federal lawsuit against the Town of East Hampton, as well as its planning and architectural review boards and its Building Department, after being denied site plan approval for a proposal to install flat antenna panels on the lattice windmill at Iacono Farm on Long Lane in East Hampton. The suit, which was filed Jan. 12, contends that the town broke federal law when the planning board voted to deny the application.

The plaintiff, nominally, in the case is Cingular Wireless, which is wholly owned by AT&T. The case has been assigned to Senior United States District Judge Leonard D. Wexler, seated in the federal courthouse in Central Islip. 

According to the complaint, prepared by Andrew B. Joseph of Drinker, Biddle, & Reath of Manhattan, the planning board violated a section of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 when it voted to deny the site plan and a permit for the project late last year. The complaint quotes from that section of the 1996 act, which reads, “Any decision by a state or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless facilities shall be in writing, and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record.” 

No one disputes that the decision was given in writing, in December, but AT&T does question the substantiality of the town’s supporting evidence. The company also argues that site plan denial would constitute a denial of cellphone service to customers, and that such a denial would be illegal under New York State law. 

“Under New York law,” the complaint reads, “a public utility providing telecommunications services seeking approval of a proposed facility need only establish that there are gaps in service, that the location of the proposed facility will remedy those gaps, and that the facility presents a minimal intrusion on the community.”

The complaint revisits a point that was bought up to the planning board on multiple occasions by the AT&T representative for the site plan process, John Huber of Nielson, Huber & Coughlin, during the two public hearings and eight work sessions between April 22, 2015, and Oct. 25, 2017, at which the application was discussed: “There currently exists an irregularly shaped [cellphone] service gap in the Town,” the complaint reads, “within an area extending from east of Osborne Lane, to west of Stephen Hand’s Path, and from north of Route 27 to north of Grape Harbor Lane.” 

The suit states that the 1996 law passed by Congress covering telecommunications “prohibits denial of an application for a personal wireless facility where denial of that application would prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.” It also raises the point that even 911 calls placed in the Northwest Woods dead zone often do not go through.

Count one of the complaint concludes, “The record does not contain substantial evidence supporting denial of the application under New York State law.”

The planning board was sharply divided over the proposal from the moment it first came before them in April of 2015. The board and the Planning Department made several suggestions to Mr. Huber about how to improve the proposal. For example, there were originally supposed to be 12 flat antenna panels placed on the wind tower. The number was later decreased to nine. AT&T agreed to attach the antennas flush to the tower, and to paint the panels whatever color the board wanted, to make them less obtrusive to the eye. Mr. Huber provided the board with illustrations of what the tower would look like with the antenna panels attached.

The town’s architectural review board rejected the proposal for aesthetic reasons.

The planning board’s vote to deny site plan approval, as well as a permit for the project, was decided by a 4-3 vote. One of the key reasons the four voted to reject the proposal was explained in the written determination, dated Dec. 13, 2017, which said that there was an alternate site available for the project at a onetime brush dump on Old Northwest Road. 

The planning board and the town’s Planning Department rejected a study by an expert provided by AT&T that found the alternate site wanting. In the planning board determination written by the board’s attorney, John Jilnicki, he acknowledges that antennas at the alternate site would not provide the same coverage as those at Iacono Farm: “The coverage map for the brush dump site provides greater coverage to the immediate area surrounding the subject parcel than what currently exists, although not at an ideal level.” AT&T’s lawsuit responds, “The alternate ‘brush dump’ facility would not provide reliable services, including 911,” for those in the area lacking coverage. Mr. Jilnicki, however, wrote that a monopole at the brush dump site could be taller than the 95 feet off the ground proposed at the Iacono Farm site, which could help overcome that deficiency. 

The suit asks the court to reverse the board’s decision and direct the town to grant any and all permits and variances needed for the project to go forward. 

A summons ordering the town to respond to the suit was served on Jan.  17, according to documents on file at the United States Eastern District of New York Court website. 

The town attorney’s office does not comment on open court matters.

A 5,888-square-foot barn on an over-10-acre piece of farmland owned by the Peconic Land Trust on Town Lane and Abraham’s Path in Amagansett was the subject of a public hearing by the East Hampton Town Planning Board on Jan. 10, although it is the focus of litigation against the Suffolk County Farmland Committee, which gave the trust approval to build the barn in 2016. 

The East Hampton Town Building Department, which issued a building permit for the barn on Aug. 15, 2016, had issued a stop work order that November, just before the barn was completed, saying it would not be able to provide the trust with a certificate of occupancy until it obtained site plan approval from the planning board. The barn had sat, unused, ever since, although the trust applied to the board for site plan approval on March 23, 2017. The Jan. 10 hearing was to be one of the final steps in the process.

The property is part of a much larger farmland tract donated originally by Deborah Ann Light that includes Quail Hill Farm. The county gave the parcel to the Peconic Land Trust and then bought the development rights from the trust for $6 million. The trust leases the land to small farmers, with Balsam Farms and its popular farm stand on the southwest corner of the property and Amber Waves in the vicinity. 

The delay in site plan approval was prompted by a December 2016 lawsuit launched by a neighbor, Fouad Chartouni, who brought suit following a September 2016 decision by New York State Supreme Court Justice Thomas F. Whelan in a lawsuit by the Long Island Pine Barrens Society against the county. That decision, which is being appealed, included a ruling that the purchase of development rights by the county precludes the construction of barns, greenhouses, and other farm structures. 

Even were such construction eventually deemed legal, however, Mr. Chartouni objects to the barn’s location, holding that it is too close to his property.

 At the Jan. 10 site plan hearing, Linda Margolin of Margolin Besunder, who represented Mr. Chartouni, launched several complaints about the location of the barn, saying a much better site was behind an existing Balsam farm stand and arguing that the surveys presented to the board were not of the required scale for site plans. She also told the board that she was the attorney who brought the suit against the county’s approval of the barn on behalf of Mr. Chartouni, calling its approval “arbitrary and capricious.”

Dina DeLuca Chartouni, Mr. Chartouni’s wife, was among those who spoke at the hearing. She said that she and her husband were extremely supportive of farmers, but that the barn looms over her property and gleams in the sun.

Eric Schantz of the East Hampton Town Planning Department, who had told the board in an initial assessment of the barn’s location that it was well screened from the road, said at the hearing that in fact it did appear visible from the Chartouni residence. 

Scott Chaskey, the director of the nearby Quail Hill Farm, told the board it was essential for farmers to store equipment indoors, rather than letting tractors and equipment rust.

“A barn has been needed for 15 years,” he said. He had started Quail Hill Farm with a single hand tiller, he said, and it now owns six tractors, which sit outside in the rain and snow. The location of the barn, he said, was its “logical place.” 

Among farmers at the hearing, Gregg Kessler also spoke in favor of the barn, saying Mr. Chartouni would object to any location, while an Amagansett man, Alexander Peters, said the land trust had used “Gestapo-like tactics” in getting the barn built, because there had been no community participation. 

Rick Whalen, the attorney representing the trust, said the board could consider approving the site plan despite the lawsuit by Mr. Chartouni. If that decision were to go against the land trust, the barn would have to come down, he said, but he argued that should not affect the planning board’s decision. John Jilnicki, attorney for the board, seemed to agree with that point of view. 

Mr. Whalen continued his argument in favor of site plan approval by telling the board that the placement of the barn had been carefully chosen, was well screened, and had been placed where the soil is not as suitable for farming as other areas on the property. He called Ms. Margolin’s comments about the scale used in the surveys “nonsense.” 

The hearing was closed by the five members considering the matter. Ian Calder-Piedmonte, a partner at Balsam Farms, had recused himself, and the board is minus a seventh member since Diana Weir’s term expired at the end of 2017.

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo has called for a procurement of at least 800 megawatts of offshore wind power between two solicitations to be issued this year and next. The goal, unveiled on Tuesday as part of the governor’s 2018 State of the State agenda, is intended to result in enough emission-free renewable energy to power 400,000 residences.

The New York Clean Energy Jobs and Climate Agenda, officially known as the 20th proposal of the 2018 State of the State master plan, builds on the 2017 State of the State, which established the target of up to 2.4 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030. That is the nation’s largest commitment to offshore wind power, and aims to position New York as the leading offshore wind market. 

The solicitations for 800 megawatts of offshore wind power are the first in a schedule to meet the 2030 target and are intended to create competition among developers to build offshore wind installations. 

The governor is also directing the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority to invest $15 million in clean energy work force development and infrastructure advancement to train workers for jobs in fields including offshore wind construction, installation, operation, maintenance, design, and associated infrastructure. The authority has also been directed to work with Empire State Development and other state agencies on other offshore wind projects.

Joseph Martens, the executive director of the New York Offshore Wind Alliance and a former commissioner of the State Department of Environmental Conservation, applauded the move. “Governor Cuomo clearly demonstrated that he is going to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to renewable energy, generally, and offshore wind specifically,” he said in a statement issued on Tuesday. “His proposal today hits the trifecta: a commitment to procure at least 800 megawatts of offshore wind over the next two years, a $15 million investment in clean energy work force training and development including offshore wind, and identification of the most promising public and private offshore wind port infrastructure investments.”

“These initiatives are bold, smart, and will help ensure that New York becomes the hub of this new United States clean energy industry,” Mr. Martens said.

The offices of tax receivers around the country were crowded this week with residents seeking to prepay property taxes before recently passed limits on deductions take effect, and offices on the South Fork were no different.

The new federal tax law will limit the deduction on state, local, and property taxes to $10,000. But those who partially or fully prepay their 2017-2018 property taxes before Jan. 1 may claim the full deduction on their 2017 tax returns, a circumstance that sent many, checkbooks in hand, hurrying to Town Hall.

In light of the surge of Suffolk County residents prepaying taxes, County Executive Steve Bellone announced yesterday that the county would augment the clerical staff at the tax receiver’s office. 

“In recent days, tax receivers across Long Island have experienced a significantly higher volume of constituent questions and requests from taxpayers who seek to prepay their next year’s property taxes ahead of the upcoming changes in the federal tax code,” Mr. Bellone said in a press release. “This has also resulted in higher traffic to offices and, in certain circumstances, led various town offices to extend office hours.”

East Hampton Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell said yesterday that the town is seeing “many more people paying their full taxes for next year, as opposed to their partial payment.” Many are using the town’s online payment system, he said, which is “receiving extraordinary activity.” 

The tax receiver’s office is busy, he said, but is “handling the volume.”

On Tuesday, Theresa Kiernan, the tax receiver for Southampton Town, announced extended hours for her office. Though Southampton Town Hall will close early, at noon tomorrow, for the New Year’s Eve holiday, the tax receiver’s office will remain open until 4 p.m. to accept tax payments. 

  “We’ve seen a surge in people looking to pay for the full 2017-18 tax year,” Ms. Kiernan said in a press release. “Each day since the bills went out, we’ve seen two extra trays of mail, and the line is out the door.”

  In East Hampton, new tax bills were mailed out on Dec. 15, and payments — in person, by mail, or online — have been accepted since that day. The tax receiver’s office, at 300 Pantigo Place, is open until 4 p.m. today and until noon tomorrow. However, Becky Rahn, the East Hampton Town tax receiver, said yesterday that payments left through the  office mail slot would be logged in over the weekend. Payments postmarked before Jan. 1 or made online before that date will also count toward the 2017 deduction.

According to county law, the first installment of property taxes is due by Jan. 10, and the second half by May 31.

However, as Ms. Kiernan noted in her release, “many have been racing to pay as much as possible by the end of the year so they can include the higher amounts on income tax returns for 2017.” Southampton Town tax bills may also be paid online, through that town’s website.

The tax payments being collected cover the period from Dec. 1, 2017, through Nov. 30, 2018; payments for the following fiscal year, 2018-19, are not being accepted, according to the East Hampton Town website. 

The tax receiver’s page of the website provides links to the final property tax roll for this year, as well as other information, including how to sign up and pay taxes online using credit card or electronic checks. 

The town collects taxes earmarked not only for town funds but also for the county and for school districts, fire and library districts, and lighting, water, and special use districts. 

The opportunity to pay taxes before the new tax law sets in does not apply to East Hampton Village, because of its fiscal year, Becky Molinaro, the village administrator, said this week. 

Mr. Bellone said he is making the extra workers available to towns due to the “extraordinary circumstances” and in the spirit of a shared-services collaboration recently forged between the county and local municipalities. “We are all in this together, and I will make available on an as-needed basis our county staff to support the efforts of our local towns as they respond to the influx of residents,” the county executive said in his press release. There will be no cost to the towns for the extra staff.

Amagansett’s perennial parking problems will get some relief. In a plan being prepared by town officials, the commercial district parking lot would be expanded to an adjacent parcel and the existing lot reconfigured.

East Hampton Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell and the rest of the town board on Tuesday directed a consultant working on parking issues to also draw up plans for adding a timed-ticket system like the one used in East Hampton Village.

The town bought the roughly 2.5-acre site of the proposed parking expansion from the Field family for $2.9 million in 2016. Under farmland preservation regulations, only 30 percent of the property can be used for parking. Under the proposal, the addition would accommodate 43 vehicles and be used for long-term parking.

A gain of 10 parking spots in the main lot would result from the redesign; three of those would be for handicapped parking.

Mr. Cantwell said that a ticket system would enhance the ability of traffic-control officers to enforce time limits in both the existing and new lots. As it is now, a haphazard mix of short and long-term spaces makes it difficult to ensure that spots are not occupied  longer than allowed. It should be possible to make the necessary changes to the town code by March, Mr. Cantwell said, with construction completed by Memorial Day.

New, dark skies-compliant lighting would be added to the parking lot, as well.

It was Montauk night at an East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals hearing on Tuesday as members considered an application for cellphone antennas on the six-story fire control tower at the Montauk Lighthouse and learned that a septic system expert has been discussing a possible treatment plant at the Montauk Shores Condominium with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. 

The lighthouse, one of the four oldest in the country, was commissioned by President George Washington. The area surrounding it is zoned for parks and conservation and dotted with historical structures. Joseph Gaviola, a member of the Montauk Historical Society’s lighthouse committee, which maintains the area without public funding, represented it at the meeting, along with Dick White.

The application before the board was from AT&T, which wants to mount nine flat, or panel, antennas on three of the four sides of the control tower, along with a global positioning system device on its roof. However, antennas are prohibited in parks and conservation districts.

Mr. Gaviola explained the need for the antennas, saying cellphone signals are weak or nonexistent for the 100,000 people who visit the lighthouse grounds each year, as well as for mariners between Montauk Point and Block Island. AT&T would pay the society for using the tower, which, Mr. Gaviola said, “is good money for us.” However, Mr. Gaviola assured the board that “it is not our intent to dot the fire tower with antennas.” 

John Huber, an attorney for AT&T, paraded a string of experts before the board. They said the paint on the flat antennas would match the exterior of the building and that the antennas would have no environmental impact. 

Still, Eric Schantz, a senior town planner, pointed out that the code not only prohibits antennas in park and conservation districts but also includes open spaces, historically and culturally significant resources, historical sites, and areas of statewide significance as places where their installation should be avoided.  

John Whelan, the board’s chairman, asked if another cellphone company would be able to rely on AT&T’s equipment if it, too, wanted an antenna on the tower. The answer was no, Mr. Huber said, because each company has its own frequency. If Verizon came along, for example, it would have to install its own equipment. The only exception is 911, for which all antennas pick up calls. 

Theresa Berger, a member of the Z.B.A. who is a Montauk resident, recused herself, leaving four members to decide the application’s fate. Mr. Huber told members that if they approved the application, AT&T would return to the town planning board, where the site plan process had already begun. Mr. Schantz said the planning board had indicated support for the proposal.

The possibility that a sewage treatment plant would be built at Montauk Shores Condominium sometime soon was reported in connection with an application for a permit and variances from wetland setbacks for a new trailer there.

Lisa D’Andrea, a senior town planner, told the board that “the Montauk Shores Condominium sanitary system . . . was designed to handle a flow rate up to 26,534 gallons per day.” In reality, she said, according to Planning Department calculations, the daily flow rate in summer for the 198 units there is over 43,000. As a result, the Building Department has stopped issuing building permits there. 

It was reported at the hearing, however, that James Graham, the condominiums’ president, had said during its biannual meeting on Labor Day weekend that he and Bryan Grogan, a specialist in septic systems, were nearing a final design for a treatment plant. 

Thomas Wandzilak, whose family has owned a trailer (unit 826) on East End Drive for about 60 years, was at the hearing as he is applying for a permit and variances from wetland setbacks at the condominiums to replace an aging 500-square-foot trailer with a 925-square-foot trailer, along with a shed and deck. He said that, if approved, he understood he would not be able to immediately obtain a building permit.

The East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals gave NextEra Energy Resources unanimous approval for what, in effect, will be a giant rechargeable battery near the train tracks in Montauk on Tuesday night, settling a controversy, at least for now, while in another Montauk matter discussed that night, it asked Farrell Building Company to reduce the size of a proposed house. 

The 4,154-square-foot electrical storage facility is to be on North Shore Road, an extension of Second House Road. just south of the train tracks. It will draw power from the electrical grid at off-peak hours, then release power back into the grid at times of high demand. 

Numerous setback variances were needed, for the most part because the less than half-acre site has an odd triangular shape. PSEG Long Island owns the property immediately to the east, and has said it will move its power substation, which is now on Industrial Road — essentially in Fort Pond — there. 

A public hearing was held on the electrical storage facility in July, but the Z.B.A. had to wait until the Planning Department determined that the plan was consistent with the town’s Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan. 

Theresa Berger led the Z.B.A. discussion Tuesday. She reported that the noise mitigation and screening requested by the planning board that the applicant had agreed to, and that the proposed structures are consistent with the industrial aspect of the area. In addition, while the facility is just outside a Federal Emergency Management Agency flood zone, the plans submitted by NextEra Energy Resources call for the structures to be more than 10 feet above ground, which would be required if the property were in a FEMA flood zone. 

Ross Groffman, the executive director of NextEra Energy Resources, who attended the meeting, noted afterward the energy storage facility on Cove Hollow Road in East Hampton had already been approved and could be up and running as early as next summer. 

The approval by the zoning board means that the East Hampton Town planning board can take up the aplicant’s site plan at a meeting next month.

The Z.B.A. was split on the Farrell Building Company proposal for a property where Caswell Road hooks into Agnew Avenue. It had planned an eight-bedroom, 4,627-square-foot house with a swimming pool. Ms. Berger found fault with the proposal, calling it out of character for the neighborhood. She also read extensively from a memo the board had received from Lisa D’Andrea of the Planning Department, which warned that the property has extremely poor drainage and that most of the surface runoff and wastewater would eventually run north into Lake Montauk, already a troubled body of water. 

Roy Dalene and David Lys agreed, while John Whelan and Cate Rogers did not. They argued that while the house would be in the Ditch Plain neighborhood with much smaller structures, it technically is located in the “Seven Sisters” historical district of houses designed by Stanford White, with one behind the property, on DeForest Road. But the opponents carried the day.