Yet another discussion of a years-in-the-making plan to replace streetlight fixtures in Amagansett’s historic district turned heated at the hamlet’s citizens advisory committee meeting on Monday. The latest iteration of a long-evolving plan has encountering stiff opposition from many in the community.
The plan has expanded from around 50 fixtures spanning Main Street from Indian Wells Highway to Meeting House Lane to as many as 74, positioned from Windmill Lane to the hamlet’s Long Island Rail Road station.
In the spring, a proposal from L.K. McLean Associates, engineers, for around 64 fixtures was presented to the East Hampton Town Board. On Monday, Councilman Tom Flight, the board’s liaison to ACAC, told the committee that the board was “very happy to move forward with the project, but based on the feedback we got from yourselves and others, we put a pause on the project . . . to make sure that we are taking into account the major concerns that are there with this.”
The latest engineering proposal “showed about 70 fixtures, which we know is extreme,” Mr. Flight said. “That was very much heard” by people who attended an Oct. 26 meeting hosted by the advisory committee. “But the question is, what’s the other end of the spectrum? Are there some areas that do need some lighting?”
Residents have raised concerns about uneven lighting coverage and its impact on safety for vehicles and pedestrians. But Mr. Flight said that neither police nor firefighters had voiced safety concerns over the state of lighting in the hamlet’s business district. Motor vehicle accidents are more common in the daytime, he said, and unrelated to lighting.
However, “some people definitely felt that that area, walking from [the Amagansett School] to the train station on the north side, there’s a specifically dark area,” Mr. Flight said. “Some people felt that around the Jitney stop was another area that was lacking lighting.”
Together with the councilman, members of ACAC’s lighting subcommittee were to walk the hamlet’s Main Street last night to flag locations, “just to see if there’s consensus that those are the dark areas,” Mr. Flight said.
“The trees are a critical factor,” he added. “We’re looking at ways we can potentially do increased pruning of the trees to allow more light to come down from the existing fixtures to mitigate the need for new fixtures in some areas.”
Francis Piderit of the committee called the Oct. 26 presentation “very interesting,” but noted that Dan Mongan of the Amagansett Historical Association, a vocal critic of the plan who is not on the committee, “stood up and said, ‘I have a plan,’ which was very interesting. I have a few follow-up questions for Dan based upon that. Can I see the plan?”
Mr. Mongan answered in the affirmative.
“Is there a plan available to review?” Mr. Piderit continued. “Has the task force that has been working so long on this project vetted the plan, or is it just your plan? If the task force has reviewed the plan, does it consider the plan to be a viable option to the approach that the task force seems to be taking? You seem to be the man in the corner standing up and saying, ‘I have a plan,’ but I haven’t seen the plan, and I don’t know who else has seen the plan.”
Addressing Mr. Flight and Rona Klopman, the committee’s chairwoman, Mr. Mongan said he had “offered that to you this week in writing, and I got no response. I’d be happy to share it publicly.”
Both answered that they had not received his email. “Anyway,” Mr. Mongan continued, “I would be happy to participate. I stood up at the meeting. I’ll stand up again.”
Mr. Piderit, raising his voice, said that there was no need to stand. “Just answer the questions,” he demanded.
“I would be happy to participate in the process,” Mr. Mongan said. “I’ve made that offer several times. It has neither been accepted nor even acknowledged.”
Did he have a plan with him, asked Vicki Littman, the committee’s vice chairwoman.
“Come on!” Mr. Piderit exclaimed. “That’s what we’re asking! This is the second meeting where we’re talking about your plan. . . . Please, illuminate us.”
“I don’t know how to illuminate you,” Mr. Mongan replied, “because it all goes through Rona, and Rona’s not answering my emails. Somehow we need to connect the dots.”
Ms. Klopman asked Mr. Mongan if he had brought his plan to the meeting. He had not, he said, “because I didn’t know what was up with you guys not responding to my messages.” Again, he asked if he was invited to participate, “because I’ve made that offer several times.”
He was, Mr. Flight answered.
At the communitywide Oct. 26 meeting, “there was no support for” the L.K. McLean Associates plan, Mr. Mongan said. “There is a significant constituency for no change. There’s a significant constituency for some change. There is zero constituency for the plan on the table.”
After much back-and-forth discussion, Mr. Mongan recalled that on a previous walk along Main Street, “there were five light outs, including a crucial light right over the Jitney stop. . . . You’ve got to put the existing lights on, and then you’ve got to evaluate what the heck you’ve got. It’s very haphazard. I’m very disappointed with the level of professionalism that’s gone into the project so far.”
“I object,” said a clearly exasperated Mr. Piderit. In fact, he said, the working group “has been extremely professional. You may not agree with the outcome, but they have consulted with the community, and they’ve taken the community’s feedback. I disagree that this is an unprofessional operation. They’ve been working at it for years.”
“We spent a lot of time,” Michael Cinque of the committee agreed, addressing Mr. Mongan, “and we had a professional engineer do it. So don’t tell me it’s an unprofessional job. . . . I wish you would’ve jumped in five years, three years ago, not at the ninety-ninth hour.”
“It’s a good thing I did,” Mr. Mongan answered, “because it’s a very unpopular plan.”
“You should have brought the plan tonight if you wanted us to see it,” Ms. Littman said. “We would love to see the plan.”
Mr. Mongan asked if he could describe it. Yes, Ms. Littman said. But Ms. Klopman said no. “This is not the time. We have a big agenda.”
Michael Diesenhaus urged that Mr. Mongan be given an opportunity to describe his plan.
“I am able to offer this hamlet a plan,” Mr. Mongan said, “that I believe could be achieved in the very near future, with strong public support, that is better, cheaper, safer, more attractive.”
“This is where we were at the last meeting!” Mr. Piderit complained. “He spoke at the last meeting . . . he stood up and he said, ‘I have a plan.’ “
Mr. Mongan had the floor, Mr. Diesenhaus said to Ms. Klopman, “and you did not maintain order.”
“You’re not maintaining order, either,” Ms. Klopman said.
“Because there is no order,” Mr. Diesenhaus answered. “You treated someone, who really is trying to participate, very badly.”
Mr. Mongan got up and left the meeting, and the discussion turned to the need for an arborist to ensure that tree roots are not damaged when — or if — new lighting fixtures are installed.
