A Southampton Town Board proposal on how the town’s citizens advisory committees operate drew harsh criticism from the Bridgehampton Citizens Advisory Committee at a meeting Monday night. The committees, appointed volunteers who represent the hamlets, have frequently opposed development projects.  

The proposed new rules are intended to limit the committees to commenting on matters before the town board rather than on land use issues before the planning board and the zoning board of appeals.

 “The board doesn’t interfere with the other boards, so it doesn’t make sense for the C.A.C.s to weigh in as a body, as individuals sure, but not as a body,” said Jay Schneiderman, the Southampton Town supervisor, at the board’s Nov. 1 meeting. Mr. Schneiderman also said C.A.C.s should avoid partisan politics. Committee members should be “advising the town board, not deciding who should be on it,” he said. 

But Pamela Harwood, the Bridgehampton committee chairwoman, said the consensus among members of C.A.C.s throughout town was that the proposal seemed to be a form of retribution for the opposition the groups have mounted against projects such as the expansion of T.J. Maxx, a chain store, at Bridgehampton Commons. “Since there have been so many overdevelopment issues and the citizens have been so vocal, many people see this as an attempt to stifle our feedback,” she said. “This does feel like a total shutdown,” Nancy Walter-Yvertes, another C.A.C. member, said.

The proposal lays out guidelines on everything from the number of members appointed to the advisory committees to the way their meetings should be conducted. 

Tommy John Schiavoni, a town board member who attended Monday’s Bridgehampton C.A.C. meeting, said that since the groups are an extension of the town board, it was a legal and ethical question whether they should be allowed to exert influence on officials making land-use decisions. 

“If we’re not encouraged to comment directly on planning and zoning cases that are before these boards, I think you can kiss the C.A.C.s goodbye,” said Peter Wilson, another longtime member. “Frankly, 99 percent of the reason people get involved in these things is because of what is going on in terms of development.”

Ms. Harwood said the town board had not included any of the committee chairs in the process of writing the new rules and that the proposal would leave the groups without clear purpose. “Everybody agrees that the big stuff going on in Southampton Town is all about zoning and planning and development and, minus that, what are we going to give feedback about?” she asked. 

The conversation then turned to whether it might be better for the Bridgehampton C.A.C. to reorganize as a civic association, which would mean it no longer had ties to or oversight by government and would therefore be able to advocate freely. 

“As a civic group, we’ll be able to raise money, and have lawyers show up to speak at every single town meeting, is that really what you want?” Peter Feder asked Mr. Schiavoni, who turned the question around and asked if that was what the Bridgehampton C.A.C. wanted. Mr. Feder replied, “If you’re going to limit what we can comment on and how we can interact then I would say, ‘What do we have to lose?’ ”

A town board vote on the proposal had been scheduled for Nov. 13, but it was pushed to Dec. 11 after Marlene Haresign, a member of the Water Mill C.A.C., also objected to being prevented from weighing in on land use. “We’ve never had anyone challenge the fact that we review site plans and offer concerns,” she said. “We’ve done it for 20 years and no one’s ever questioned it.”

Julie Lofstad, the board member who sponsored the proposal, said the intent was not to silence citizens groups or inhibit their participation. She promised that even if the new rules were put in place she would make sure the C.A.C.s continued to receive site plans and pertinent information from the planning and zoning boards.

Despite objections from farmers to a proposed law on the installation of eight-foot-high deer fences, which they said would be burdensome, the Sagaponack Village Board passed the measure without revision last week.

The village code had stated that deer fences were allowed only on properties in agriculture production; the new law defines agricultural production as a commercial enterprise and among other provisions, it requires applicants to demonstrate that an economic loss would occur without fencing.

The installation also would have to protect the “visual and scenic resources of the village.” It contains a sunset clause requiring such fences to be removed on agricultural land that has remained fallow for two years.

The building plan for the subdivision of one of the most visible of the South Fork’s remaining farmland vistas, a 41-acre parcel on Montauk Highway in Sagaponack, will be given a public hearing on Dec. 10.

Kenneth Schwenk and his family, who own the parcel, have been meeting with the Sagaponack Village Board to refine the details of the project they call Meadowmere since early this year. Mr. Schwenk is seeking to develop nine house lots clustered in the southwest corner of a property that will also contain nearly 27 acres of agricultural reserve. Eight of the lots will be approximately 53,000 square feet, one will be more than 56,000 square feet, and Mr. Schwenk’s existing house and accessory structures will remain on its 55,000-square-foot lot at the north end of the parcel. The map also features a proposed road that will provide access to the new houses from Montauk Highway.

“The board and applicant have hashed out what each would be comfortable with, and now they are looking for input from the public,” Rhodi Winchell, the Sagaponack Village clerk, said on Monday. 

Since the property is located just 500 feet west of the East Hampton border at Town Line Road, state law mandated that Sagaponack give the town the opportunity to weigh in on the development. In a March 9 memo to the town’s planning board, Marguerite Wolffsohn, the planning director, described the site as not only one of the most visible, but also one of the most “important farmland vistas on the South Fork.” She recommended against creating a new curb cut on Montauk Highway for a road, and suggested that Sagaponack seek to protect at least 80 percent of the farmland. 

At a March 14 meeting of the East Hampton Town Planning Board, Job Potter, the chairman, called the proposal an “ugly subdivision of farmland” and the board urged the village to find ways — including using community preservation fund money — to protect the property.

Sagaponack Village Mayor Donald Louchheim broached the idea of having Southampton Town purchase some or all of the development rights to the parcel during a board meeting on April 9, but Mr. Schwenk said he was not interested in selling them.

As it stands, the map allocates 65 percent of the property for farmland, but that includes a 50,000 square-foot building envelope that will be used for agricultural accessory structures to be constructed on the east side of the existing homestead. The Sagaponack board members designated that placement in order to minimize the impact of the structures on the vista. The existing house, they reasoned, would keep the new buildings out of view from those traveling east on Montauk Highway, and a deep slope in the land would keep the structures largely out of sight from those traveling west. The board has set a 28-foot height limit on the structures, said Ms. Winchell, and before construction can begin within the envelope, Mr. Schwenk would have to return to the board for site plan approval. 

Ms. Winchell said she would be notifying both East Hampton Town and county officials about the revised site map. On Tuesday, Ms. Wolffsohn said she had not yet received the notification or the updated map, but she anticipated that the town’s planning board would once again offer an assessment. 

After the public has its say, Ms. Winchell said, the village planner will present the board with a preapplication report on the project, which the board will need to adopt for it to move forward. If the report is adopted, Mr. Schwenk will then have one year to file a preliminary application for the subdivision.

As East Hampton Town moves rapidly toward code changes that would make it more difficult for hotels to add bars and restaurants, at least one town councilman is suggesting that the proposal, which could be voted on as early as tonight, does not go far enough. Since an Oct. 11 hearing on the code change, the town board has received many messages of support and pleas for it to do more. On the other hand, some owners of resort properties, as well as the Montauk Chamber of Commerce, have expressed alarm. 

Responding to years of complaints about hotels and modest restaurants drawing crowds far in excess of their overnight guest capacity, particularly in Montauk, town attorneys began drafting new rules earlier this year. The amendments proposed would ask some hotel owners looking to expand to provide parking spaces on their own property commensurate with their current capacity and for half of their expected occupancy, whether indoors or out.

Though some of East Hampton Town’s hotels and motels are on land zoned for resorts, a considerable number are not, having been established prior to zoning regulation. Some of these businesses fall into a legal gray zone in which, technically, they are not supposed to grow, but in practice have found plenty of wiggle room within the town code; others are zoned correctly, but have created problems nonetheless.

Estimates vary about how many places that now offer accommodations one night at a time would be affected. A town-commissioned study said the total was fewer than 30; members of the town business advisory concluded that the number was as high as 65, East Hampton Town Councilwoman Sylvia Overby said during a board meeting in Montauk on Tuesday.

The new rules would allow hotels and clubs to have a small area set aside for items guests use, such as toiletries, as well as “signature or logo” items such as hats, T-shirts, or coffee mugs. The tougher parking requirement were intended to limit additional dangers to drivers and pedestrians or anything that would “otherwise negatively impact town highways and the community as a whole” if a bar, tavern, or restaurant was added.

The amendments would also limit the size of any additional services, whether indoors or out, to no more than a third of the existing operations’ functional square footage. At present, some former motels, such as the Montauk Beach House, Surf Lodge, and Ruschmeyer’s Inn in Montauk, have devoted large swaths of their grounds to outdoor concerts, D.J.s, and general revelry.

Paul Monte, whose family at one time owned Gurney’s Inn, worried in an email to Montauk Chamber of Commerce members that the change could “become a slippery slope resulting in the loss of significant grandfathered rights from all types of businesses and a great loss in commercial properties’ value.”

Now under corporate ownership, Gurney’s Montauk Resort and Spa, has opened a club on what it calls “our 2,000-foot private beach” with hundreds of beach chairs and umbrellas and 16 king-sized daybeds, all available for daily rental, with bar and food service and live music, in front of its main building. Day charges are in the $750 range.

During the Tuesday meeting, Councilman Jeff Bragman said he was in favor of the parking proposal but he was not sure it would work as intended. Nevertheless, he said, “It’s a good start, better than doing nothing.” 

From his perspective, Mr. Bragman wondered if town law should be amended to strike new restaurants and bars from the list of what is allowed at hotels. “I don’t see them in any way a benefit to the community. It is worth considering taking a stronger stance,” he said. When the zoning code was adopted, that level of service was never intended, he said.

“There are lots of letters from residents saying don’t let them do it,” he said. “They’re scared. I don’t think Montauk needs any more of this.”

Councilwoman Sylvia Overby, who had brought up the proposed parking requirements at the meeting, responded. “This law was to make sure that you could accommodate people at your motel.” That, she said, was reasonable.

“This is not something that we should just ban, but we should be careful that the expansion should not hurt local businesses,” Town Supervisor Peter Van Scoyoc said. He added that such amenities for overnight guests were desirable, but that the town needed to add a degree of control.

Ms. Overby took up Mr. Van Scoyoc’s observation about competition with existing eateries. “We need to also support local businesses by not spreading out with the more restaurants. We do need to consider the other businesses that are downtown as well. We should make sure that they can survive,” she said.

In Mr. Bragman’s view, the traditional, small motels in Montauk are a boon to restaurants nearby. “I don’t think we have an obligation to let these little motels change into something else. I think we might go a little further,” he said.

At this point Michael Sendlenski, the town attorney, spoke up to say it was not legally possible to limit a hotel’s bar or restaurants to people staying there. “I think that’s a danger,” Mr. Bragman said.

A potential loophole pointed out on Tuesday by Mr. Bragman was that the town planning board would be able to waive or reduce the strict parking calculations on a case-by-case basis.

Concerns have been heightened recently with reports that the Atlantic Terrace hotel had been sold and that the new Journey East Hampton hotel on Pantigo Road in East Hampton had obtained a State Liquor Authority license for an outdoor poolside bar for up to 200 patrons. Similar worries have circulated about the Hero Beach Club, which has been tangling with the town over its plans for a bar. A single investment company, Bridgeton Holdings, owns equity in all three establishments.

During the Oct. 11 hearing, Montauk residents had pressed the board to do something about summer noise, traffic, drugs, and fights that create a sense of chaos. The proposal would mean that businesses seeking to expand or add amenities would have to meet current parking requirements before getting approvals for anything new. A large quantity of letters and emails supporting the new limits poured into Town Hall subsequently.

“I want to tell Montauk, ‘We’re listening to you,’ ” Mr. Bragman said.

Access to the easternmost point in New York State, at least close to sea level, will be curtailed for two years beginning in May for a project to shore up the bluff under the Montauk Lighthouse. 

Earlier estimates for the $24 million undertaking were that it would take 18 months to complete.

The work is to involve the complete reconstruction of an 840-foot-long boulder revetment that now wraps around the Point but is considered to be failing. Much of the existing stone would be reused in a design that would extend about 40 feet farther seaward, at a more gentle angle, to better diminish wave impacts.

The public will be prevented from entering the area from Turtle Cove around the Point, all the way to a surfcasting spot known to aficionados as Scott’s. Footpaths will allow surfers, anglers, and others to access the cobble beach to the west and on the north side.

Those with something to say about the project would need to weigh in soon, however; written comments are due at the New York Department of Environmental Conservation office in Stony Brook by Nov. 28, ahead of a fast-track schedule to final approvals.

During a meeting at the Montauk Firehouse on Tuesday evening that was not broadly promoted on the East End, Frank Verga of the United States Army Corps of Engineers said that he expected the required State Conservation Department permit would be issued by Dec. 18 and bidding from contractors sought soon after that. Construction could begin in May.

Montauk, and particularly the area surrounding the Point, is beloved among surfcasters. In online fishing forums, some dare not speak its name, referring to it only as “M” or, in some instances, Mecca.

“There isn’t a day that goes by in fishing season that somebody doesn't call and ask, ‘Hey, what’s going on at the Point?’ ” Harvey Bennett, the owner of the Tackle Shop in Amagansett, said yesterday. 

Anglers from all over the United States and overseas come to target striped bass there. “They come here to fish the Point. That’s it,” Mr. Bennett said. “It is much bigger than people realize.”

In the long run, it was an open question in Mr. Bennett’s mind whether the new and improved revetment would affect the fishing there. “It's a proven fact hat you can catch big bass off the Point in July,” he said. Whether that would change once the work is completed was unknowable, in his opinion.

The portion of the existing revetment, or sea wall, that has been described by the Army Corps of Engineers as inadequate is about two thirds of the total length of the stone fortifications there. Over the years, Greg Donohue and the Montauk Historical Society, which owns the property, have extended the rock bulwark to about 1,300 feet in length, including a stone viewpoint and seating area to the south of the lighthouse, which will remain.

In the Army Corps of Engineers redesign of the critical forward-facing section, new stone blocks of about 30,000 pounds apiece would be placed on top of a layer of smaller material. Surrounding that, a sloping “apron” would extend downward and be partially buried in the seabed.

The work would be conducted in sequence, beginning with a 20-foot-wide flat “bench,” or road-like platform, about 10 feet above sea level, from which heavy equipment would install the stone apron. The bench would remain once construction was done and a second would be built about 10 feet higher than that, giving the revetment a step-like profile to better protect the bluff, Mr. Verga said. Without it, the corps and historical society believe, the lighthouse would eventually tumble into the sea.

For Eugene Alper of East Hampton, one of the few members of the public at Tuesday's meeting, the lower of the stone benches on the new revetment was a safety concern. Because visitors to the Point would be tempted to walk out on it, he suggested, there was an increased risk that someone could be swept off by a wave. “You're putting this much farther out into the ocean,” he said.

“Sensible fishermen are not going to go out there,” Mr. Donohue said.

“I’ve seen out-of-town fishermen there and I saw them get knocked on their asses by a wave,” Mr. Alper answered.

Mr. Verga said that any insurance claims or lawsuit awards would be the responsibility of the Montauk Historical Society.

The contractor would be allowed to work seven days a week, around the clock.

If possible, a 150-ton concrete observation bunker now on the beach in Turtle Cove would be saved and reinstalled elsewhere on the lighthouse property, Mr. Donohue said on Tuesday. “That's the dream, anyway,” he said.

The waters around the Point are popular with surfers, too. The break that, potentially, would be most directly affected would be the one known as Alamo, which is surfable during larger swells. The Army Corps of Engineers has said that its computer model of the project showed that the sea wall would have no impact in what it determined to be the “takeoff zone,” about 450 feet offshore. However, depending on the swell direction, surfers often drop in on a fast, left-hand peak much closer to the shore than that.

The plan has been formally in the works since a conceptual approval in 2005, the Army Corps of Engineers representative, Mr. Verga, said on Tuesday. Public comments were solicited the following year and in 2017.

Partial funding came from a 2013 Congressional appropriation in the wake of Hurricane Sandy; the federal government will pay for 65 percent of the construction, and the state the remainder. The Montauk Historical Society will be responsible for maintenance and replacing the sea wall if it comes to that; its share has been estimated at about $59,000 annually.

The historical society took over the property from the Coast Guard in 1996. It is now a national landmark.

The Army Corps of Engineers considered other options for safeguarding the lighthouse, including moving it back from the edge and dumping sand to the seaward side, but concluded that an expanded stone sea wall was the best choice.

Stone and other construction materials will be trucked to the Point and delivered to the site from both the Turtle Cove and northern access roads. Mr. Verga said that every effort would be made to schedule the deliveries at low-traffic times of day, avoiding holidays and special events.

Though the project is on track for a December final approval, Sue McCormick, the chief of the D.E.C. Coastal Erosion Management Program, said that if her department received enough substantive comments by the Nov. 28 deadline, it could potentially withhold the final sign-off until the concerns had been addressed by the Army Corps of Engineers.

Under that scenario, the December timeline might not work, she said.

Written comments can be mailed to Kevin A. Kispert, NYSDEC, SUNY Stony Brook, 50 Circle Road, Stony Brook, 11790-3409.

Five months after the Journey East Hampton hotel opened on Pantigo Road, its owner is seeking permission from the East Hampton Town Planning Board to install a bar on the premises, contending that it will be used strictly by guests and not the general public. The application for a site plan modification, presented at the board’s Nov. 7 meeting, was met with skepticism by members including Job Potter, the board’s chairman, who said that the owner, Bridgeton Holdings, a Manhattan real estate development company, seemed to be surreptitiously trying to create a bar scene at the hotel. 

Marguerite Wolffsohn, the town’s planning director, presented the details of the application as well as the parameters of the “on-premises” liquor license the owner received from the State Liquor Authority. Ms. Wolffsohn said that Bridgeton Holdings, which intends to install a pool with a deck at the hotel, is seeking permission to use a pool house-type structure as a cafe and bar area; to provide 24 tables and a total of 63 seats (including seating around the pool), and to serve alcohol outdoors. There would also be music and dancing in this recreational area.  

“I’m having serious feelings of Hero Beach part two,” said Mr. Potter, referring to the Hero Beach Club, a Montauk resort owned by Jonathan Krasner and other investors, who are seeking to add a restaurant and bar to the premises despite objections from neighbors who fear the resurrection of a boisterous party scene in the hamlet. 

Representing Bridgeton Holdings at the meeting was Laurie Wiltshire, the president of Land Planning Services, a company that helps property owners navigate permit applications. She rejected the comparison between Journey East Hampton and Hero Beach Club, and said that the mission of Bridgeton Holdings was to provide a peaceful place to stay for families and couples. “My clients are not looking for a party that will chase away the clients they’re trying to attract,” she said. 

Mr. Potter asked Ms. Wiltshire if Journey East Hampton and Hero Beach Club were owned by the same people. She replied, “Absolutely not.” 

However, the connections between Bridgeton Holdings — which recently purchased the Atlantic Terrace hotel in Montauk — and Hero Beach Club are numerous. Bridgeton Holdings manages the day-to-day operations at Hero Beach Club and, according to a representative from the development company, also owns equity in the Montauk hotel. The liquor license that Hero Beach Club applied for last year lists Atit Jariwala, the Bridgeton Holdings C.E.O., as one of the hotel’s principals. 

Mr. Potter questioned why Bridgeton Holdings, in its previous site plan discussions with the department, had not divulged an intent to install a bar, or revealed that it had applied for a liquor license back in April. Ms. Wiltshire replied that she was unaware of such plans. “The only reason they applied for a liquor license is because they intend to have mass-gathering permits for weddings one to four times a season,” she said.

Ms. Wiltshire said that a five-foot-long bar, which has already been installed at Journey East Hampton, was currently being used as a counter for serving breakfast and for providing a drink to guests upon arrival. 

If a full-service bar were approved, Mr. Potter wondered, “What would prevent the public from coming in and buying a drink and having it on the property?” Ms. Wiltshire said the hotel would not allow it, because it would detract from its mission, and she argued that the relatively small size of the hotel’s lot and the lack of a view make it an uninviting destination for the general public.  

Ed Krug, a board member, wasn’t convinced by that reasoning. “Who would have thought the Memory Motel, frankly, would have been a place to hang out,” he said, referring to the popularity of the historic dive bar in Montauk.

Although the Journey East Hampton owner was seeking a site plan modification to include the bar, the board said that, instead, a special permit would be necessary. Town code allows a bar as an accessory to a resort on the following conditions: if the use is compatible with the neighborhood, if there is adequate parking, if there are appropriate setbacks from adjoining residences, and if the hotel has a minimum of 25 guest rooms. 

Ian Calder-Piedmonte, a board member, pointed out that Journey East Hampton contains exactly 25 units, three of which were added by the new owners. “Somebody seems to have known,” he said, implying that the owners were aware of the special permit provisions and had long planned to install a bar. 

Eric Bregman, a lawyer for the applicant, said that in order to alleviate the board’s concern about the hotel becoming a gathering spot, the owner would be willing to sign a covenant that stated that the property was not permitted to be a “general party venue” other than on those days when special-event permits had been issued. The covenant, he said, would apply to the current owner and any future owner. He suggested that he and John Jilnicki, the board’s attorney, convene to work out the language of the covenant and then return to the board at a later date.

The East Hampton Town Board is expected to adopt the town’s 2019 budget at its meeting tonight, which will also include a public hearing on the hamlet study focusing on Springs.

Len Bernard, the town’s budget officer, told the board at its Nov. 1 meeting that the state comptroller had found all revenue and expense projections in the $80.7 million budget to be reasonable. By law, the budget must be adopted by Nov. 20.

The preliminary budget represents a 3.8-percent increase over last year’s spending, though 25 percent of that increase goes to the fund for East Hampton Airport, to purchase aviation fuel. That expense is more than offset by revenue from selling the fuel to airport operators. “If you take out the airport, which is self-funding and does not levy a tax, that increase goes down by almost 1 percent, to 2.8,” Mr. Bernard told the board. 

Tax rates increase by 2.33 percent outside the incorporated village and 3.3 percent within it. 

Supervisor Peter Van Scoyoc will receive a salary of $111,265 in 2019. His colleagues on the board will each be paid $69,541. The town justices’ salary is $80,806, and the town clerk and superintendent of highways will each be compensated at $93,793. The chair of assessors’ salary will be $89,250, and the two town assessors will each be paid $80,591. The clerk of the town trustees’ salary will be $23,201, the two deputy clerks will each be paid $18,934, and the other six trustees will each be paid $8,060. 

Before closing the hearing, the board voted to add $5,000 to a grant to the East End Special Players, a theater group for the developmentally disabled. “As a result, all the rates will change, microscopically,” Mr. Bernard said. “That will be what we put up for adoption.” 

“I think we’re in very sound financial position,” Mr. Van Scoyoc said at the Nov. 1 meeting. “We are maintaining our AAA rating with Moody’s, which is probably a very strong indicator that we’re in good shape. It’s no surprise the state would follow through by giving thumbs-up approval.”

The public hearing for the Springs hamlet study will be the fourth of five on the studies. Public comment on the studies focusing on Wainscott and Amagansett was largely positive, but the East Hampton study’s hearing saw several Springs residents voicing worry that development and redevelopment on either side of Springs-Fireplace Road would overwhelm the already well-traveled corridors to their hamlet. 

Overall goals of the Springs study, to be incorporated into the comprehensive plan if approved, are to preserve and enhance the hamlet’s scenic, rural, and historical character; improve water quality and reduce pollution loading to its harbors; improve safety and connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists; provide alternative parking options for home-based contractor businesses, and protect and enhance the walkability, cohesiveness, attractiveness, and functionality of the head of Three Mile Harbor and the east end of Fort Pond Boulevard. 

Tonight’s meeting is at 6:30 at Town Hall.

New York State

D.E.C. Commissioner to Step Down

Basil Seggos, the commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, has announced that he will step down from that post. Mr. Seggos has not set a date for his departure but issued a statement confirming the move. 

“After nearly seven years of serving New Yorkers and implementing Governor Cuomo’s steadfast commitment to the environment, I made the difficult decision to leave the best job I’ve ever had,” he said. “I’m proud that we have re-established the state’s national leadership on environmental issues — and it couldn’t come at a better time, as we face an unprecedented attempt at the federal level to undermine our efforts to stave off climate change and safeguard clean air and water for future generations.” Mr. Seggos said that he would remain in his post into 2019.

His statement touted accomplishments including increasing and sustaining the state’s Environmental Protection Fund at $300 million for the last three years, finalizing the largest forest preserve addition in Adirondack Park’s history with the Boreas Ponds acquisition, shepherding the governor’s $65 million initiative to reduce the frequency of harmful algal blooms, advancing the $2.5 billion Clean Water Infrastructure Act and investing hundreds of millions of dollars to improve the state’s water infrastructure, action to investigate and clean up certain unregulated contaminants, and encouraging sustainable and responsible outdoor recreation.

- C.W.

Southampton Town

Opposing the T. J. Maxx Expansion

Several members of the Bridgehampton Citizens Advisory Committee, including Pamela Harwood, the chairwoman, spoke in opposition to a proposed 17,000-square-foot expansion of the T.J. Maxx store at Bridgehampton Commons at a Southampton Town Planning Board public hearing last Thursday. 

Ms. Harwood questioned the board’s finding that the expansion would have no negative environmental effect and would not lead to an increase in traffic. She said that none of Bridgehampton’s residents wanted the hamlet to become a destination for big box stores. “I love Bridgehampton Commons, and I love T.J. Maxx, but enough is enough,” she said. 

Since a representative of Kimco Realty, which owns the shopping center, was not present at the meeting, the hearing was held open and will reconvene on Dec. 13.

- J.B.

The South Fork Wind Farm, initially proposed as a 90-megawatt installation located approximately 35 miles off Montauk, is now expected to deliver up to 130 megawatts because of more advanced turbines than those originally planned for, according to officials of Orsted U.S. Offshore Wind, the Rhode Island company known as Deepwater Wind until its acquisition, completed this month, by the Danish energy company Orsted. 

A wind farm producing 130 megawatts could power around 70,000 Long Island residences, Clint Plummer, Orsted U.S. Offshore Wind’s head of market strategies and new projects, said on Tuesday. 

“Advances in the turbine technology mean the South Fork Wind Farm will use larger and more efficient turbines than initially envisioned,” Mr. Plummer told The Star in an email earlier this month. The initial proposal for the 15-turbine installation, made in 2015, was based on 6-megawatt turbines, he said, whereas 8, 10, and 12-megawatt turbines have since become available. 

The company has yet to select a turbine vendor, Mr. Plummer said, but included a range of sizes in the construction and operations plan it submitted to the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management in June, “to ensure we will have the opportunity to implement the best available technology.” 

On Tuesday, he said, “All of the science, engineering, and environmental analysis has taken this into account” in the company’s applications submitted to federal, state, and local permitting authorities. “We’re now pleased that B.O.E.M. and the New York State Public Service Commission are going through their reviews and taking public input.”

Before its acquisition by Orsted, Deepwater Wind, which built and operates the five-turbine Block Island Wind Farm, the nation’s first offshore wind farm, submitted an interconnection request to the New York Independent System Operator to assess the receiving capacity of the Long Island Power Authority substation off Cove Hollow Road in East Hampton, where the proposed wind farm would connect with the grid, Mr. Plummer said. “The resulting interconnection studies show that the substation can accommodate a maximum of approximately 130 megawatts, or approximately 40 megawatts more than the 90 megawatts already under contract with LIPA,” he said. 

“The footprint will not change,” David Gaier, PSEG Long Island’s director of communications, said of the South Fork Wind Farm. (PSEG Long Island manages the electrical grid on LIPA’s behalf.) “Nothing will really change as far as the viewscape.” The turbines, he said, will be “so far out in the ocean that they still won’t be visible” from the shore. 

LIPA will purchase all of the electricity produced by the wind farm, its board of directors having voted last week to accept a deal Orsted negotiated with PSEG Long Island to purchase the additional electricity, Mr. Plummer said on Tuesday. The additional power, he said, would be priced lower than the original 90-megawatt capacity. “In the case of this incremental capacity, the addition of up to 40 megawatts will be purchased by LIPA at a rate that is significantly less than the original contract.” 

“We’re in the middle of the process,” Mr. Plummer said, “but remain on schedule to have the South Fork Wind Farm in service by the end of 2022.”

Officials of the East Hampton Town Republican Committee are calling for the resignation of Amos Goodman, its chairman, in the wake of an investigation by the Public Integrity Bureau of the Suffolk County District Attorney’s office. 

The investigation is focused on the validity of nominating petitions submitted by Mr. Goodman for the Republican Party’s candidate in the special election for the town board seat to which David Lys was appointed in January, and follows allegations of fraudulent signatures by the chairwoman of the East Hampton Independence Party, against whom Mr. Goodman previously leveled the same accusation. Mr. Lys won the Nov. 6 election in a landslide, winning 69 percent of the vote to the 31 percent won by his Republican opponent, Manny Vilar.

“We sent a letter this morning to Amos requesting his resignation,” Kyle Ballou, the committee’s secretary, said on Tuesday. The letter, he said, was signed by himself along with Michael Jordan, the committee’s vice chairman, and Rich Gherardi, the treasurer. “We’ll be actively seeking a new chairman as soon as he agrees and resigns.” 

Mr. Goodman, who succeeded Reg Cornelia as chairman in February, said on Tuesday that he had no direct knowledge of an investigation and had only heard rumors of one. He has not been contacted by the district attorney’s office, he said. “I certainly welcome scrutiny and will cooperate any way I can.” He also said he was unaware of a call for his resignation from the committee’s chairmanship. 

The Public Integrity Bureau does not disclose information pertaining to its investigations, an official there said on Monday. But Mr. Ballou said that day that the bureau “is going around investigating all of Amos Goodman’s petitions.” Investigators had been to his house, he said, and those of others on the committee. “Basically, they’ve contacted everyone who signed those petitions to verify that it was our signature.” 

“I’ll speak for the committee,” Mr. Ballou said. “We’re not aware of any impropriety by Mr. Goodman. We certainly don’t condone it or endorse it in any way, shape, or form.” Mr. Vilar, he said, “obviously wasn’t aware of any of this.” 

“We hope that it’s not true,” Mr. Ballou said of allegations of fraudulent nominating petitions. “But at this point, Amos has really done the party no favors. He did Mr. Vilar no favors. He came in with all these promises and really hasn’t delivered on anything except for really large legal bills, and it’s time for him to go.” 

Mr. Vilar said on Tuesday that it would be inappropriate for him to comment on an investigation. “Personally, we would only hope that anybody acting on my behalf clearly abides by the law and rules of good governance,” he said. “I wouldn’t want it any other way, nor would I tolerate it.” 

The investigation followed repeated complaints by Elaine Jones, the Independence Party’s chairwoman, that the Republicans’ nominating petitions were riddled with fraudulent signatures. Though she did not meet a July 16 deadline to register a complaint with the Suffolk County Board of Elections, she was adamant about alerting the district attorney, telling The Star in August that, “All I know is that Amos Goodman has forged signatures, and I’m going to the D.A. I’m going to get affidavits from the people who said they didn’t sign Manny’s petitions, and go to the D.A.” 

Mr. Goodman, who vigorously denied Ms. Jones’s accusation, had previously leveled the same charge at the Independence Party, filing a challenge to its nominating petitions for David Gruber  with the board of elections. Its petitions included forged signatures and the name of a deceased person, the Republicans claimed in seeking to invalidate them. “We’re going to go to court to get him bounced,” Mr. Goodman told The Star in July, speaking of Mr. Gruber’s appearance on the Independence Party line on the Nov. 6 ballot.

That challenge, in turn, came in the wake of Republicans’ effort to force a primary challenge by Mr. Vilar for the Independence Party’s nomination.

The Republicans’ challenge was successful. Several signatures on the Independence Party’s petitions were invalidated, and Mr. Gruber, who lost a Democratic Party primary challenge to Mr. Lys in September, did not appear on the Independence Party’s ballot in the Nov. 6 election.  

Mr. Goodman runs a corporate advisory firm focused on the aerospace and defense industries. He assumed chairmanship of the Republican committee after a disappointing 2017 campaign, in which Mr. Vilar was defeated in his bid for supervisor, its two candidates for town board lost by similarly wide margins, and just two of its nine candidates for town trustee won 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 at the time described as “the increasingly rudderless single-party control of the town.” All five members of the town board are Democrats. 

On Tuesday, he appeared to distance himself from the Republican Committee. “If there are folks who think they can do it differently, that’s fine,” he said of leading the party. “If I’m not the right person to do it, so be it. I’m thinking about that myself. If people are wanting a change, that’s fine. I’m not aware of that in any concrete terms, and not clinging to something for the sake of clinging to it.”

He had assumed the chairmanship with reservations, he said, and cited lost professional opportunities as a consequence. “It was something people wanted me to do, and I thought there was a path to doing things differently that would have different results.” Chairmanship of the committee “is not without its sacrifices.” 

“I’ve always said that there were two things that I considered necessary for me to want to be involved and want to be leading the party,” he said. “A credible path to electoral victory” for Republicans in East Hampton was one, he said, and in light of this month’s election result, “the honest answer is I don’t know.” The second is, “Am I the person who can deliver that?” The first question is structural, he said, referring to the Republicans’ “registration deficit” and “the trend of ever-more out-of-town voters” registering in East Hampton. “The second is the personality piece. Am I the right person to maximize changes? The honest answer to both is I don’t know.” 

Intraparty infighting was a theme in East Hampton politics in 2018. A split among the East Hampton Democratic Committee burst into public view earlier this year when the party’s effort to elect a new leader was marked by accusations that officials had manipulated the process. Mr. Lys’s appointment, shortly after he changed his party affiliation from Republican to Democratic, also angered many members of the committee. 

Mr. Gruber led a splinter group called the East Hampton Reform Democrats, which he called a caucus within the Democratic Party and which fielded its own slate of candidates for the Democratic committee, along with his own candidacy for town board. He continues regular criticism of party officials, including Supervisor Peter Van Scoyoc and Councilwomen Sylvia Overby and Kathee Burke-Gonzalez. 

During his campaign and again on Tuesday, Mr. Vilar asked for civil discourse. “I prided myself on a campaign that remained above the fray,” he said. “We need to bring politics back to the local level. It should be more like East Hampton than national. The public discourse and partisanship, it’s not good for society, for the community, for people.”