Suffolk’s 2014 living wage, which applies to all county contractors and subcontractors, as well as companies benefiting from tax subsidies, grants, and other county assistance, is $13.37 an hour. The hourly minimum wage for those who receive health benefits from their employer is $11.74.

This reflects a 1.9-percent increase in the Suffolk cost of living index, according to a statement from the County Department of Labor. Affected employers were required to notify their workers in writing and make appropriate adjustments as of yesterday. New York State’s minimum wage for 2014 is $8.

      A site plan that would legalize expansions at two of Morgan Neff’s seven cottages on Fort Pond Bay in Montauk is among the applications scheduled for hearings at the East Hampton Town Planning Board’s first meeting of the year on Wednesday at 7 p.m.

       Another hearing on the site plan for Crystal Mews, the former Crystal Room property on Pantigo Road in East Hampton, where six units are proposed in two buildings, was noticed incorrectly and will have to be rescheduled. The board will also hear comments Wednesday on a new septic system and interior improvements to the Animal Rescue Fund property on Daniel’s Hole Road in East Hampton, and the Town Lane Estates subdivision in Amagansett, on the east end of that road.

       The Neff site plan is now over four years in the making, and has generated some controversy along the way. The modest cottages were once facetiously labeled Millionaire’s Row, a name that stuck. Built as fishermen’s shacks before the zoning code was written, they are now summer rentals that go for between $30,000 and $55,000 for an extended season. The site plan before the planning board is for two of the cottages that were expanded without a building permit, one called the Crowley, which was increased from 122 square feet to 289 square feet, and the other called the Sharkey, to which Mr. Neff added a 480-square-foot deck.

       Mr. Neff applied for site plan approval for the Crowley and the Sharkey early in 2013, but had to first go before the zoning board of appeals — the Sharkey because its deck was 121 feet from the beach where 150 feet is required, the Crowley because a crawl space under it is considered a cellar under town code and cellars are forbidden in that zone.

       The Sharkey received the variances it needed from that board. The Z.B.A. approved some of the variances Mr. Neff requested for the Crowley, but it specifically denied the request to keep the basement beneath the building. However, the Z.B.A. did give Mr. Neff an out, according to the memo prepared for the Planning Board on the proposal by JoAnne Pahwul, the town’s assistant planning director. Mr. Neff could, she wrote, “excavate the exterior grade along the east foundation wall.” This would, Ms. Pahwul said, change the cellar into a crawl space according to town code.

       Mr. Neff’s attorney, Richard Whalen, told the board at its Dec. 11 meeting that his client would agree to the excavation. But there remained one more sticking point: the board voted to require Mr. Neff to submit a revised drawing of the building to reflect the change to the east side grade.

       “I’ve waited 300 days. I still don’t have a C. of O.,” Mr. Neff said from the audience.

       Patrick Schutte told Mr. Neff that the board was doing its best to move the process along.

       Mr. Whalen presented the revised plans to the board later that week.

       As for the Crystal Mews, the hearing notice placed in The Star incorrectly included a description of the Animal Rescue Fund property. The Crystal Mews property has a rare zoning status that allows multiple units on one parcel. Mr. Whalen, who represents the owner, the estate of Albert Trages, explained that the approximately 1.5-acre property is one of only four in the town where multiple residences are permitted. The board has been supportive of the plan, but the public will have to wait a few more weeks, until the hearing can be properly noticed, to comment on it.

       Members of one of East Hampton’s founding families made emotional pleas last week to the town board, seeking to have the zoning changed and agricultural protections removed on their 19 acres of farmland so that it could be subdivided into more house lots than currently allowed.

       Eleventh and 12th-generation siblings and cousins in the Talmage family argued that two upzonings of the land located between Cedar Street and Long Lane, designed to protect the farmland, were based on an erroneous classification of the soils there as “prime,” and that the land is actually virtually unfarmable.

       Town officials had scheduled the hearing on a request to rezone the site, now in a five-acre residential zone with an agricultural overlay, to one-acre zoning, without the agricultural zone, but the family had changed its application just before the hearing to request three-acre zoning. The land is held in a limited partnership known as Diamond T.

       Four adult siblings, their mother, and their children invoked generations of community involvement and ties to the land, and a desire to provide younger members of the family, who have been priced out of East Hampton, with an ability to stay here.

       Stephanie Talmage Forsberg, an East Hampton Town trustee, described how her ancestors accepted 12 acres from the King of England and gave additional land to the trustees. “My family has continuously given back to the town,” she said.

       “I may soon have to face the hard reality that I may not be able to live here,” said Sarah Talmage, a college student and 12th-generation member of the family. “Our beaches may be some of the best in the nation, but our close-knit sense of community is that times 10,” she said.

       All three of his children “want to live here and build homes,” said Tom Talmage. “Please approve the zone change to help my family provide for themselves.”

       Kayla Talmage, who, like her cousin, served as a trustee, for two terms, said she moved four years ago to Hampton Bays, which was more affordable, and that her brother, sister, and their families also moved there recently. Returning to the family property, “to be able to build on it, would be the only way I could return to live in East Hampton,” she said.

       Under the current zoning, four house lots could be created, with 70 percent of the agricultural land set aside. The family’s original request, a change to one-acre zoning with no agricultural protection, would have allowed 16 house lots. Under three-acre zoning, it is estimated that six house lots would be allowed, with one designated for affordable housing. Seventy percent of the farmland would remain untouched, if the agricultural zone also remains, or 50 percent if it is removed.

       Previous zoning changes to the property in 1984 and 2005 and the establishment of the agricultural overlay zone were based on the land’s classification as prime agricultural soil.

       The town code, in its description of farm soil categories, references the United States Department of Agriculture’s soil classifications, but, Laurie Wiltshire, a land planner for the Talmages, said those classifications have been revised, and an error acknowledged.

       However, JoAnn Pahwul of the Town Planning Department said that regardless of how the U.S.D.A. now classifies the “Plymouth loamy sand” soil on the property, that soil type is considered prime soil under East Hampton Town Code. The type of soil on the Talmage land, according to the U.S.D.A., is still considered of “statewide significance,” she said.

       Those driving by need only look at the row of cedar trees planted at the property’s edge along Cedar Street, Jane Talmage, the family matriarch, said. “They are the sorriest-looking trees I have ever seen — and on Cedar Street, no less.”

       “Keeping 70 percent of the land after the discovery of a mistake is just stealing, in my opinion,” she said.

       “This is the perfect place to do something for our youth for the future,” she said. “One by one we are running them out of town.”

       Christopher Talmage, whose two children are 13th-generation Talmages, said he lives in Hampton Bays but commutes to the family driveway business, D.L. Talmage, on the homestead land. “The history and heritage of East Hampton Town has always been based on the people who live here and their commitment to the quality of life in the town,” he said. The zoning restrictions on the family land, he said, have “cost the family substantially” and are “breaking the roots to our family ties in the town.” 

       Debra Foster, a former town councilwoman who participated in crafting the comprehensive plan, also choked up, like many of the Talmages. “You’re not going to find a better family than the Talmages,” she said. “They’re the epitome of the kind of family that this town can be proud of.”

       But, she said, overall community goals were applied objectively in adopting the comprehensive plan and enacting agricultural and other zones. “You have to decide what your goals are. One of our goals was to preserve farmland.”

       A change to the way farm soils are categorized is of concern, Ms. Pahwul said, because it could set a precedent that could be applied to other farmland in the town, allowing increased development.

       Ms. Wiltshire said her own review of other parcels that could be affected by a change to the town code regarding soil designations resulted in a much smaller list. Even if the owners of all three sites that she determined could be recategorized also successfully made that request to the town, she said, the result would be a potential for 10 more new house lots, with one required to be earmarked for affordable housing.

       Ms. Wiltshire argued that the goals of the town comprehensive plan also include meeting the housing needs of current East Hampton residents and their family members.

       “You could end this thing by Dec. 31,” Ms. Wiltshire told the board. She suggested board members have the required environmental review completed by the Planning Department and vote for the zone change at a special meeting before the end of the year. “I would kindly ask you to do that,” she said.

       Because the County Planning Commission voted against the original zone change request, four out of five town board members would have to approve it to override that agency’s vote.

       “You have my vote,” said Town Supervisor Bill Wilkinson. Councilman Dominick Stanzione agreed. But Councilwoman Sylvia Overby and Councilman Peter Van Scoyoc, who will remain on the board next year, said it would be premature to make a decision without having the Town Planning Department and planning board, as well as the County Planning Commission, weigh in on the revised zone change request.

       “I think it’s really important that there be a process followed from start to finish, and it’s fair and it’s the same for everybody,” Mr. Van Scoyoc said.

       “I’m being pressured to make a vote on something without really having all the information, and that’s not really fair,” Mr. Van Scoyoc said.

       Ms. Overby said she could sympathize with the Talmage family members, but, she said, “the town expects a level playing field” regardless of how many generations a family has been in East Hampton.

       The hearing is being held open while comments are sought from the other agencies and an environmental assessment is done on the new three-acre zoning request.

       The East Hampton Village Board approved a plan on Friday to bring in sharpshooters to reduce the deer herd, over the objections of many members of the audience and the announcement by a New York City attorney that he had filed suit against the village, the town, and the town trustees in an effort to prevent the plan from going forward.

       “Sometimes we have to seize the moment as a legislative body and do the right thing for the people we represent,” said Mayor Paul F. Rickenbach Jr. The board then voted unanimously to sign a contract with the Long Island Farm Bureau and spend up to $15,000 for a program that would bring in sharpshooters from the United States Department of Agriculture to bait and shoot deer within village limits.

       Mayor Rickenbach called the culling a “necessary first step” in what he said would be a multiyear plan to reduce the deer herd, whose size, he said, has created a public health crisis, a nuisance, and a quality-of-life and economic problem.

       He stressed that the village would be willing to consider a contraceptive program, as many in the audience requested, at some point in the future. “This is a multiyear scenario, and we’ll use whatever disciplines are available to us,” he said. “Please give us credit for that.”

       Richard Lawler, a board member, took a moment to explain why he was voting for the culling. He said the issue had been “thoroughly vetted” at a public forum in the fall, and that “I heard nothing today that would change my mind and make me vote otherwise. We are just taking one step in a process that is probably going to involve several steps along the way to accomplish our goals.”

       The board acted even as Edward Lebeaux of the law firm Devereaux, Baumgarten said he had filed two lawsuits the day before in State Supreme Court seeking to halt the plan and challenging its validity on behalf of the East Hampton Group for Wildlife, the Evelyn Alexander Wildlife Center in Hampton Bays, and 15 individuals, including Bill Crain, Annie Noonan, and Carol Buda, all of whom implored the village board, just before it voted, to abandon the culling program.

       Mr. Crain said the cull would create a nightmare for the deer population, which would be “lured, baited into an area, and then — pow! — killed.” It would also be “devastating to children” who love animals, and “a betrayal of their faith in us as protectors of life,” he said.

       Larry Penny, former director of the East Hampton Town Natural Resources Department, also spoke against culling, calling it a “regressive, primitive” approach that flies in the face of the community’s reputation as progressive. Deer, he said, are often erroneously blamed for the increase in Lyme disease, which, said Mr. Penny, is in fact spread by white-footed mice.

       Mr. Penny, who writes a nature column for The Star, added that claims that deer are devastating the forest understory were unfounded. “I did an extensive survey of the undergrowth” in local woods, he said. “The undergrowth has never been more healthy than it is now.”

       Bill Doherty, an Amagansett resident with a background in statistics, said that perhaps the village was looking for bad news where none existed. He pointed to a recent aerial infrared-imaging study conducted by the town, which showed a population of about 877 deer, as compared to a study in 2006 that estimated the size of the herd at 3,300.

       He suggested that perhaps the number of deer had actually declined, and that the reported increase in car-deer collisions had more to do with the number of drivers on the roads, and the rise in Lyme disease cases more to do with an increase in the human population.

       “It’s fairly commonly known in scientific circles that reducing the size of the herd will not drastically reduce the incidence of Lyme disease,” said John Broderick, also of Amagansett. As to car-deer collisions, he suggested the problem was that “people don’t want to slow down.” He also cited the “bounceback” theory, which holds that when deer are hunted, it leaves more land and food for the survivors, who then have more offspring, negating the hunt.

       Wendy Chamberlin of Bridgehampton presented the board with a petition circulated by the Wildlife Preservation Coalition that she said contained 10,000 signatures, many collected via the Internet, opposing the hunt. She said at least 60 percent of the signatures came from Suffolk County residents, and some from as far away as Australia.

       “East Hampton Village has a big deer population. They are a nuisance to some people, who have loud voices,” she told the board. Of the hunt, “Forget about how revolting and unethical it is, it won’t work.” She said she recognized that some culling may be necessary at some point, but asked the board to try a contraception program first.

       Kathleen Kocher of Brookhaven branded the culling program “the largest mass killing of deer in New York State history” and said humans were to blame for the situation. “We are encroaching on their land. We have moved them farther and farther,” she said. “All they are looking for is something to eat and to be safe.”

       Larry Cantwell, the East Hampton Town supervisor-elect, has announced that he will appoint three new members of the town attorney’s staff after taking office in the new year.

       Elizabeth Vail will replace John Jilnicki as town attorney. Mr. Jilnicki, a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law, has served for 20 years as both East Hampton town attorney and assistant town attorney. He will stay on as an assistant town attorney.

       Ms. Vail is also a St. John’s graduate. She served as an assistant town attorney for Southampton Town and worked in the Suffolk County district attorney’s office for three years. In a press release, Mr. Cantwell said Ms. Vail “has the broad municipal experience to manage the legal affairs of the Town of East Hampton and leadership skills to guide the town attorney’s office with integrity and independent judgment.”

       Returning to work for East Hampton Town as an assistant town attorney will be Elizabeth Baldwin, who held that post for five years. A graduate of the Syracuse University College of Law, Ms. Baldwin has been a practicing attorney for 10 years, and for the last two was associate director and counsel to the North Shore Land Alliance. According to Mr. Cantwell, she has “strong experience in planning, zoning, and housing and land acquisitions.”

       Also to be appointed as an assistant town attorney is Michael Sendlenski, who served as chief of staff for the Massachusetts House of Representatives committee on public safety. Mr. Cantwell wrote that he has “specific experience in drafting and enforcing quality of life, environmental and conservation law, obtaining search warrants, and prosecuting zoning and code violations in town and state supreme courts, and has litigated and argued appeals on municipal matters in the Second Department Appellate Division.”

       He is a graduate of Harvard University and the Suffolk University Law School and has been an assistant town attorney in Southampton since 2007.

       Mr. Jilnicki, Mr. Cantwell wrote, with a “comprehensive knowledge of town government and the legal affairs of the town,” has been a dedicated public servant, and “will be an integral part of the town attorney’s office.”

       The new team, the incoming supervisor said in the press release, “will bring experienced legal advice to the town board in many key areas of concern including planning and zoning, litigation, and effective enforcement of town codes

       An application to split a 15-acre property on the west side of Town Lane in Amagansett into two lots will be the focus of a Jan. 8 public hearing before the East Hampton Town Planning Board. The owner, Randy Lerner, has agreed, in accordance with town code,that over half the land be held in reserve, never to be developed.

       Over 12 acres of the property, which is in an agricultural overlay district and was formerly farmland, is designated “prime soils.” According to the application, the land would be divided into two buildable lots of 40,182 square feet and 122,033 square feet. The reserve would consist of 8.62 acres, which include 70 percent of the “prime soils,” as required under town code.

       Mr. Lerner envisions three houses on the two lots, plus an existing artist’s studio. Under the zoning code, only one house is permitted on each buildable lot, but because the land is zoned for five-acre lots, he is allowed  three houses on the two properties – one house per five acres.

       Aerial photographs, on file at the Town Planning Department, show the land to have been farmed through the 1960s, before the current parcel, at 149 Town Lane, was created as part of a larger subdivision. It was turned into a horse farm during the 1970s.

       There is one house on the property now, with a 2,695-square-foot first floor, a 2,975-square-foot second floor, a 3,495-square-foot lower-level recreation room, two patios, a swimming pool, and a tennis court, plus a 720-square-foot artist’s studio. Almost all of it would end up on the larger parcel being created by the subdivision. A second house would be built there as well. The studio, though, would be on the smaller lot, where another residence would be built.

  This article has been updated from the version that originally appeared online and in print.

    Opponents to the proposed 555 development plan in Amagansett received an early Christmas present on Dec. 11 when East Hampton Town Planning Board’s chairman, Reed Jones, announced that the application had been withdrawn by the owners of the former Principi farmland on Montauk Highway.

       Mr. Jones began the meeting with that announcement. The call, he said, had come an hour before the scheduled meeting, which began at 6:30 p.m. In fact, an application to the East Hampton Town Board to rezone the property had not been withdrawn, although representatives for the developer, Putnam Bridge, had requested that Dec. 19 hearings on the creation of a new senior housing zone and on rezoning the 555 property be adjourned until after the new year. 

       On Dec. 4, the Suffolk County Planning Commission voted to recommend against the creation of a new senior citizens housing zone for the project. Without the commission’s approval, the town board would need a majority-plus-one vote to create the new zone, and only three of the five board members were in support of it.

       The agenda for the planning board’s penultimate meeting was a busy one and the session went well over two and a half hours, but even after receiving the news they had been hoping for, opponents of the 555 plan did not leave until the proposed zoning change needed to make it possible was discussed.

       The board had been asked by the town board to weigh in on whether a new senior citizens housing zone should be created, which would have allowed up to 100 units on the 23.5-acre property, currently mostly vacant. The land is now divided into three parcels, which would be merged into one. The 555 proposal was to build 79 condominium units on a single merged property.

       The zoning change is still on the town board agenda for next Thursday. The seven-member board was basically unanimous in saying that the town needs to explore a senior citizens zone, but that this proposed zoning change was not the way to go. Diana Weir pointed out that the proposed new zone would reduce the required setbacks from Montauk Highway.

       “What jumped out at me were the other properties that could be merged,” Patrick Schutte said, concerned that the change would serve as a precedent for other large parcels of land in the town.

       “If this is a real need, how big does it need to be?” Ian Calder-Piedmonte asked. Mr. Calder-Piedmonte has been skeptical of the proposed zoning change. “If the town board is asking me about my opinion on this, I am opposed,” he said.

       Bob Schaeffer ran off a list of concerns that the zoning change raised for him: “The density issue. What does it do to our taxes? Setbacks. There has been no study of what our seniors need.” J.P. Foster, a member of the planning board,  echoed the need for a study.

       Mr. Schaeffer also pointed out what he sees as a flaw in the town code. Because the 555 proposal was brought forth as a condominium plan, as opposed to a normal subdivision, it was not held to the same land-use standard. In a normal subdivision, he pointed out, 70 percent of the land would have had to be preserved as open space.

       Mr. Schaeffer pointed out that politically, the measure now has almost no chance of passing.

       Nancy Keeshan said she believed the topic of affordable housing for all East Hampton residents needs to be explored. “We won’t have any seniors if we don’t have any young people,” she said.

       In the end, the board voted 7-0 to recommend against adoption of the zoning change.

       A hearing on an application to install 12 AT&T antennas on the face of a 180,000-gallon oil tank at P.C. Schenck and Sons at 60 Newtown Lane drew alarm from neighboring property owners after a lengthy presentation at Friday’s meeting of the East Hampton Zoning Board of Appeals.

       The antennas as well as six cabinets housing telecommunications equipment on a concrete pad on the ground require setback variances from the village code. They are intended to increase coverage for AT&T’s cellphone subscribers. It is proposed to locate them 23 feet from one property line, where the required setback is 100 feet, and between 20 and 33 feet from the easterly line, where setbacks range from 40 to 44 feet. Though they would extend no higher than the oil tank itself, a variance is also required for their height.

       Along with John Huber, an attorney for the applicant, a team of consultants provided detailed testimony about the project. As a public utility, Mr. Huber said, the applicant is entitled to bypass some of the criteria for variances. He said the facility would be installed in the least visually obtrusive manner.

       The proposed antennas, in four groups of three, would be painted to blend with the fuel tank, Erin Echevarria of Hauppauge-based VHB Engineering told the board. She displayed photographic simulations and asserted there would be no significant impact. The facility would be unmanned and remotely monitored, she said, so there would be no sewage generated and minimal traffic.

       Frank Newbold, the board’s chairman, asked Mike Patel, of Tectonic Engineering in Newburgh, N.Y., if the installation would make noise. Mr. Patel said the equipment generates heat, as personal computers do, but added that the cabinets’ manufacturer measures 65 decibels at five feet, which he likened to the conversation he and Mr. Newbold were having.

       One criterion for a special permit, Mr. Newbold said, “is whether the proposed use will cause disturbing emissions or electrical discharges,” mentioning the proximate businesses, residences, and the East Hampton Middle School. “I know if I were a resident nearby I’d want more information about that,” he said.

       Mr. Huber also summarized language in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which he said “pre-empts state and local government regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of wireless service facilities on the basis of environmental effects of radio frequency emission, so long as the facility complies with the Federal Communications Commission regulations. This site will comply.”

       With that, he introduced Stephane Guillabert, a radio frequency engineer representing AT&T, David Collins of the Pinnacle Telecom Group in Cedar Knolls, N.J., who testified that the radio frequency energy fields at the site would be only 3.1 percent of what the F.C.C. allows, or the equivalent of that produced by a refrigerator, and Michael Lynch of Lynch Appraisal of Huntington, who said the installation would not have “any deleterious effect on surrounding properties” or their value.

       Christopher Minardi, a board member, asked if there would be a need for additional sites for such equipment, and was told by Mr. Guillabert that “there is always a need for a new site due to the growing demands of the customers.” 

       Mr. Huber noted that cellphone service here is limited by the lack of tall structures. A lattice tower near East Hampton Town Hall and the steeple of the East Hampton Presbyterian Church are used for antennas. “There is indeed a need for enhanced coverage in the community,” he said. “The primary goal is always to find the most architecturally consistent way to do it.”

       Some took a different view. Arthur Purcell of Barns Lane told board members they should consider that the proposed site is near residential properties both on his street and on Huntting Avenue, as well as near the middle school.

“There are still some questions about the possibility that there could be some radiation coming forth from this structure,” Mr. Purcell said. “We already live on the site with the oil tank there, and that’s a major concern for some people. . . . I think an oil tank and a cell tower adjacent to the Long Island Rail Road raise some questions.”

       Toni Ann Warren, representing the owners of 66 Newtown Lane, a complex of shops and offices, asked if AT&T would  sell some of its antenna space to Verizon or T-Mobile, and if that would increase the emanation of radio frequencies and the consequent need for more cooling fans. “Is this an opening for an increase in the size of antennas once you give this variance?” she asked. Noise from the fans is a concern for the businesses and offices at 66 Newtown Lane, she said.

       The proposed antennas, she said, would be at the same height as 66 Newtown Lane’s second-floor windows, which are operable. “There are a lot of studies that claim health issues and carcinogens. . . . We have second-floor offices; we have a second-floor middle school. What’s that going to do to our kids?”

       Finally, Joseph Lambiase, who recently purchased the property at 19 Barns Lane, said, “I’m going to be the lucky one that’s going to hear these fans go on and off.” The applicant, he said, “must meet minimal setback of 100 feet. . . . If this was very important to them, they could . . . make other arrangements. They don’t need to jam it right on a property line.”

       Mr. Lambiase also asked if the oil tank was triple-walled. The answer was that it is believed to be a single-wall tank, and Mr. Guillabert said the antennas would be welded to it. During installation, Mr. Lambiase argued that “if they were able to break that tank, which is possible when you’re welding . . . that area would be completely wiped out. It would be worthless. I don’t know why the community needs to take this risk.” If the need is legitimate, he said, “Put a triple-wall tank in and a fire-extinguisher system built into it. I am completely opposed.”

       Mr. Newbold asked Mr. Huber to return to the Z.B.A. on Jan. 24 to answer the concerns expressed. He also ssaid the Z.B.A. would have its engineering expert review the testimony.

       The East Hampton Town Republican Committee looked to a familiar face for its new leader when it elected Tom Knobel as its chairman on Dec. 11.

       Mr. Knobel, a former town councilman and trustee, was the committee’s vice chairman. He will replace Kurt Kappel, who stepped down after a two-year term. Mr. Knobel previously served eight years as the G.O.P. chairman before giving up the post in 2005.

       The committee will elect a vice chairman in the coming weeks, Mr. Knobel said.

       “I’m stepping up to provide both continuity and consistency,” said Mr. Knobel. Although the next town election will not be until 2015, Mr. Knobel said “the big Congressional race will certainly draw a lot of attention.”

       The First Congressional District seat is now held by Representative Tim Bishop, a Democrat. State Republican Senator Lee Zeldin has already announced that he will challenge the six-term incumbent in 2014. Mr. Zeldin ran against Mr. Bishop in 2008.

       “We have to attempt to turn people out and alert folks to the way things should be run in Washington,” Mr. Knobel said.

       Although Republicans lost their majority on the East Hampton Town Board, saw their majority shrink on the trustees, and lost the only other two contested elections, for town justice and assessor, Mr. Knobel refused to categorize the 2013 election, in which the party failed to field a supervisor candidate, as a failure.

       “Our clerk candidate and highway superintendent candidate flat-out won, and we split the council race,” Mr. Knobel said, referring to Carole Brennan and Steve Lynch, Republican candidates who ran unopposed and were cross-endorsed by Democrats and the Independence Party for town clerk and highway superintendent, and Town Clerk Fred Overton, who won one of two seats on the town board.

       The Republican cause was hurt when County Legislator Jay Schneiderman, a former supervisor, expressed interest in running for his old job again, but then changed his mind last spring.

       “He waffled about his interest in being supervisor. He indicated he wanted it and then he didn’t,” Mr. Knobel said. “We would have loved to have a supervisor candidate. That colors the whole thing.”

       The race for supervisor was further complicated when the Democratic candidate, Larry Cantwell, declined a last-minute Republican effort to cross endorse him.

       “That part was interesting. I have not seen a whole lot of political candidates who refuse cross endorsements,” said Mr. Knobel.

       The Sag Harbor Village Zoning Board of Appeals, which has spent the better part of the past three years reviewing an application to expand the Harbor Heights gas station on Route 114, announced at a work session on Monday that it needs a little more time before making a decision.

       After a 90-minute review of the plan, which seeks variances for the reconstruction of the existing building there into a 718-square-foot convenience store, the addition of gas pumps, and landscaping along neighboring property lines, the board agreed to schedule another work session, tentatively set for Jan. 10 at 2 p.m., at which it expects to hammer out a decision. It is to be formally adopted at the board’s Jan. 21 meeting.

       “It’s difficult because there so many weird, esoteric considerations,” the board’s chairman, Anthony Hagen, said yesterday. “We have had so much material thrown at us, some of which is not relevant.”

       Over the years, the project, proposed by the property’s owner, John Leonard, has been scaled back considerably. It now requires only three variances, but opposition has remained fierce, with neighbors and other Sag Harbor residents arguing that the expansion would over-commercialize a residential neighborhood and mar a gateway to the village.

       Mr.  Hagen said the Z.B.A. had yet to take a straw vote on whether it will come down in favor of or against the application, or somewhere down the middle. “We’re still jelling,” he said.