“Driving with my father through a wooded road leading from East Hampton to Amagansett,” wrote Dr. George Huntington, who was then 8 years old, “we suddenly came upon two women, mother and daughter, both tall, thin, almost cadaverous, both bowing, twisting, grimacing. I stared in wonderment, almost in fear. What could it mean? My father paused to speak with them, and we passed on.”

What it meant was that Huntington’s disease became officially recognized in 1872, after young Dr. Huntington included the above excerpt in a paper called “On Chorea,” which he presented before an audience of physicians in Ohio. In the paper, he highlighted his father’s and grandfather’s — both doctors who practiced in East Hampton — personal accounts of patients stricken with “that disorder,” as it was then called.

The condition was known at first as Huntington’s chorea, from the Latin and Greek words meaning “group of dances,” which described the involuntary muscle jerks and flailing limbs, the “twisting” and “bowing.” East Hampton became inextricably linked to it, as documented in books and several articles in this newspaper.

As for its true origins, Susan Gandolfo MacNeill, a descendant of one of the first settlers of the town, maintains that this debilitating hereditary disorder can be traced all the way back to Henry VIII.

Ms. MacNeill recently self-published a book titled “Grover and Elizabeth: An Amagansett Tragedy.” On Oct. 28, in a reading at the East Hampton Library, she explained the “tragedy” in the title. In the early 1900s, her maternal grandparents, Grover and Elizabeth Payne, were living in Amagansett when Grover was diagnosed with Huntington’s, an invariably fatal genetic condition that causes the slow death of brain cells, jerky body movements, and the eventual loss of speech, among other effects. Grover was institutionalized in a Central Islip asylum, where he remained for almost 20 years until his death in 1946 at 61. His wife was left not only to cope with the stigma of the disease, at the time considered more of a curse, but to care for seven young children, with no means to earn an income. 

While researching family archives, Ms. MacNeill writes, she was able to trace her lineage back to Lady Jane Grey, the grandniece of Henry VIII and a first cousin once removed of Queen Elizabeth I. She became fascinated by the Tudor king’s recorded medical history, which famously cites his mental decline from a jovial, charismatic, and athletic young man into an increasingly paranoid, brutal tyrant. 

Indeed, the monarch’s transformation has attracted many medical diagnoses and theories, leading a pair of American bio-archaeologists in 2011 to start a movement to exhume his remains. They believe that through genetic studies they can prove he suffered from McLeod’s syndrome, a progressive neurological disorder causing behavioral changes and peripheral neuropathy. The current Queen Elizabeth’s permission for an exhumation is necessary, which, according to published reports, seems unlikely. 

And that, said Ms. MacNeill, is a shame, because she believes the king suffered not from McLeod’s but from Huntington’s, which he passed on to subsequent generations until a descendant carrying the mutant gene arrived in East Hampton circa 1650.

Today it is known that individuals with a parent affected by Huntington’s have a 50-50 chance of inheriting the gene, which, when inherited, never skips a generation. Symptoms usually manifest in adulthood, somewhere between 35 and 55, with death occurring from 10 to 25 years later. With no cure, it is not surprising that Huntington’s patients often suffer from severe depression. About 30,000 Americans have Huntington’s, most famously the folk singer Woody Guthrie, who died of it in 1967.

Two hundred years ago, people afflicted by the yet-to-be-identified disease were believed to be possessed by devils, and were stigmatized. Although largely unsubstantiated, there are claims that at least one of the alleged witches executed in Salem in the 1690s had Huntington’s.

Which brings us back to Ms. MacNeill, who is convinced that skeletons in her family’s closet include those of witches. The author, who grew up in East Hampton and Queens and now lives in the Catskills, where she taught elementary school for 25 years, believes that two of her direct ancestors were stricken with Huntington’s and fled Massachusetts to avoid the witch hunt. 

“With whispers of witchcraft, there were two families who couldn’t afford to stay in Salem. Those were the Mulfords and the Paynes, from whom I’m descended. These families knew they’d be targeted if they began to have symptoms of HD. It made East Hampton a safer place to be,” she writes in “Grover and Elizabeth.”

Whether a respite from persecution or simply an isolated place to live with the dreaded disease, East Hampton soon became a Petri dish for Huntington’s, due to the prevalence of intermarriage among prominent families. Ms. MacNeill is not only related to the Mulfords, who are known to have had Huntington’s, but to the Paynes, Bennetts, Millers, and Hedgeses.

“Basically, everyone in the cemetery is related to me,” she said. Her mother’s brother Edmund was diagnosed with Huntington’s and she believes her mother had it too, although she only suffered from hand tremors and was never officially diagnosed. Her brother, she believes, was also a victim, although he was diagnosed a schizophrenic and refused to be tested for Huntington’s.

Advancements have been made in HD treatment. In 2016, researchers announced that a “gene-silencing” drug had been found. In May, a worldwide campaign called HDdennomore (pronounced “hidden no more”) was launched, recruiting Pope Francis to help lift the stigma, particularly in poor communities, that still shrouds the disease. In 2015, a Huntington’s-blighted family in the United Kingdom had a genetically engineered baby born without the mutant gene.

In her book, Ms. MacNeill, who is almost 80, writes that her aim is “to draw attention to eliminating the dread of Huntington’s chorea, for all my remaining family and others around the world who also have it.” Like her brother, she has refused testing. Huntington’s is too terrifying a fate, she said

Once the votes were counted Tuesday night, Jay Schneiderman had not only won another term as Southampton Town supervisor, but his party’s majority on the town board had gained strength.

Mr. Schneiderman’s Democratic running mates, Julie R. Lofstad and Thomas John Schiavoni, won two open town board seats, ousting Stan Glinka, the Republican incumbent. The victors will join Councilman John Bouvier, a Democrat, leaving Councilwoman Christine Scalera the lone Republican town board member.

“There has never been a Democratic supermajority on the town board,” Gordon Herr, the chairman of the South­ampton Town Democratic Committee, said yesterday morning. It was a historical win for Democrats, he said, not just because of the town board election, but also because Ann E. Welker became the first woman elected to the Southampton Town Trustees in the group’s 331-year history.

Ms. Lofstad, a Hampton Bays resident who was elected to fill the empty seat left by Councilman Brad Bender’s resignation almost two years ago, received 31 percent of the vote once the results from all 42 districts came in. Mr. Schiavoni, a North Haven resident and current member of the town’s zoning board, received 27 percent. They were both elected to full four-year terms.

Mr. Glinka, who lives in Hampton Bays and works in private banking, was seeking his second term on the town board. He received 23.8 percent of the vote. His running mate, Thea Dombrowski-Fry of Hampton Bays, came in last with 18 percent.

“It was the biggest shocker in Southampton that Stan Glinka wasn’t elected,” Mr. Schneiderman said yesterday. Mr. Glinka trailed Mr. Schiavoni by 800 votes. With only about 1,000 absentee ballots cast, split pretty evenly between G.O.P. and Democratic registered voters, the supervisor said he did not think they would move the final margin much.

The Independence Party also endorsed Ms. Lofstad and Mr. Schiavoni, and Ms. Lofstad had the advantage of an additional line with the Conservative Party, giving her about 1,000 votes, Mr. Schneiderman said. “A lot of people assumed Glinka, as the incumbent, was a shoe-in. I wasn’t so sure. I thought Tommy John was a very strong candidate. He understood the issues. He is very articulate. There is no better campaigner than Tommy John,” he said.

While he was happy with the results, Mr. Schneiderman had only complimentary things to say about Mr. Glinka. “I really have enjoyed working with Stan. He’s a super nice guy. He’s really committed to small business, the business community. I consider him a friend. . . . I will miss him on the board,” he said. “He has, I think, served the town honorably. I hope he stays involved.”

_____________

‘It was the biggest shocker in Southampton that Stan Glinka wasn’t elected.’ 

— Jay Schneiderman

_____________

Mr. Glinka said yesterday that he was saddened by the loss but moved by the support he had received. He pointed to Democratic victories elsewhere in the tristate area. “It was a landslide sweep of Democratic candidates that won,” he said. “I was not that far behind.”

“Everything happens for a reason, and that’s the way I’m looking at it. It was an honor and a privilege to serve as councilman for four years,” he said.

Mr. Schneiderman, a Southampton Village resident, won a second two-year term, with about 62 percent of the vote. His challenger, Ray Overton of Westhampton, received 37 percent. Mr. Overton said he was disappointed, but happy with his campaign. “I was also happy to see the overall voter turnout for the election. It shows that the community cared about the results,” he said. More than 13,000 votes were cast.

A former East Hampton Town supervisor and Suffolk County legislator, Mr. Schneiderman ran on the Democratic and Independence Party lines. He recently switched his party affiliation from Independence to Democratic, but has long aligned with Democrats. The move followed a near primary in September, when Fred Havemeyer, a Bridgehampton resident, tried to force one, but the Democratic Party challenged signatures on his petitions, cutting short his attempt.

Across Long Island — and across the country — the party came up big. “The pendulum has definitely swung back toward the Democrats,” Mr. Schneiderman said. “You have to remember it was only a year ago that Suffolk County voted for Trump.” Voter turnout was up — about 30 percent of Southampton Town voters came out, when usually only about 20 percent does in an off-year election, he said.

“I would not underestimate the constitutional convention issue,” he said of a proposition that was soundly defeated. “I think a lot of people who might not typically vote, not reliably vote, particularly in labor, came out strongly.” 

Other Results

To get back to the trustees, Ms. Welker, a Democrat, came in fourth at the polls, earning 6,463 votes, or nearly 11 percent. Scott M. Horowitz, a Republican incumbent, trailed her by two votes for the fifth spot.

Bill Pell IV and Bruce A. Stafford, both cross-endorsed incumbents, were easily elected, with 18.6 and 18.5 percent of the vote, respectively. Edward J. Warner Jr., a Republican incumbent, was also re-elected, with 11.52 percent.

Another Republican candidate, Donald T. Law, got 10.54 percent, with 6,197 votes, while Gary T. Glanz, a Democrat, got 9.87 percent, and Ronald A. Fisher, also a Democrat, took in 8.94 percent. 

Mr. Herr said he was not concerned that absentee ballots would change the results. 

In another races, Alex D. Gregor was elected to his third four-year term as highway superintendent on the Democratic ticket. He received about 57 percent of the vote over Lance Aldrich’s 43 percent. 

The town clerk and town justices ran unopposed. Sundy A. Schermeyer, a Republican first elected in 2006, was elected to a fourth four-year term as clerk, and Deborah E. Kooperstein, a Democrat, and Barbara L. Wilson, a Republican, were re-elected with no surprises.

A discussion on Nov. 1 of the proposed South Fork Wind Farm, hosted by the East Hampton Town Trustees’ harbor management committee, was blown off course. 

The three-hour meeting at Scoville Hall in Amagansett was largely devoted to a presentation by Michael McDonald of the East End Resilience Network. While Mr. McDonald praised Deepwater Wind, the Rhode Island company that hopes to build the 15-turbine wind farm approximately 30 miles off Montauk, he was harshly critical of the Long Island Power Authority and PSEG Long Island, which manages the grid for LIPA. 

Pointing to the devastation wrought by recent hurricanes in the Caribbean and southern United States, Mr. McDonald told the gathering that the South Fork must become more resilient. But while the Town of East Hampton’s policy goal of serving 100 percent of its electricity needs from renewable sources by 2020 is commendable, “the details have not allowed us to move forward with the kind of operational capacities we need.” (The town board has acknowledged its goal will not be met.)

The nation’s energy systems have historically existed within a monopoly environment, “where they have the ability to profiteer with very little restraint,” Mr. McDonald said, and this applies on Long Island. Utilities, he said, “have been centrally controlled and insensitive to local concerns,” best illustrated by the Long Island Lighting Company’s construction of a nuclear plant in Shoreham in the 1970s. 

This paradigm continues to be manifested in the LILCO-rebranded LIPA and its strategy on the South Fork, he said. “Look at what they’re trying to do: a substation and battery facility in a flood area,” he said, referencing a proposed installation near Fort Pond Bay in Montauk.

The process by which LIPA selected the South Fork Wind Farm was flawed, he said, and raises concerns about antitrust laws. “We’ve stated we want 100-percent renewable, yet they’re putting fossil fuel peaker plants in East Hampton,” he said of LIPA. “Over a half-billion dollars put toward transmission lines. Why . . . do we need transmission from the west?”

Instead of a plan determined by a monopoly, he asked, “what if we set up a South Fork grid and began to build the infrastructure based upon broad input from our communities . . . and East Hampton was able to state what they want as the ideal?” Immediate progress toward 100-percent renewable energy, he said, could be made with a rapid deployment of solar panels, the cost of which has fallen precipitously over the last 20 years, and battery storage, “and we need to do it in a way that’s going to be resilient, given the kinds of storms and cyberattacks we’re going to see.” 

Instead of a centralized grid and large electricity generators, Mr. McDonald said, the South Fork should focus on microgrids, small networks of users drawing from a community energy source that could function independent of a centralized grid, and nanogrids, smaller installations that could also function in isolation. “Build all these microgrids out across the South Fork,” he said, “so now you have a functional, distributed, collectively intelligent grid.” 

LIPA’s South Fork request for proposal (R.F.P.) should be canceled, he said. “It is not serving us. It is actually crippling us,” he said to applause. Instead, he advocated for legislation allowing community choice aggregation, under which municipalities and states aggregate electricity contracts to procure electricity as a group. New York State, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, is presently establishing aggregation to procure cost-effective, locally produced, renewable energy. 

In the wake of the lengthy presentation and a question-and-answer period, Clint Plummer, Deepwater Wind’s vice president of development, and Bonnie Brady, executive director of the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, were left to hurriedly make their respective cases for and against the wind farm. 

Mr. Plummer said that, while he agreed with several of Mr. McDonald’s remarks with respect to giving consumers greater choice, “those technologies and their systems are extraordinarily complicated to implement” and would take time and multiple levels of review and approval. Other of Mr. McDonald’s assertions, particularly with respect to the South Fork R.F.P., were factually inaccurate, he said, and he defended the process by which LIPA selected the South Fork Wind Farm as competitive and transparent. 

The installation has been sized so that during the off-season it would produce electricity commensurate with the South Fork’s energy use. In the summer months, the load increases, he said, but the wind farm would produce electricity at a relatively constant level, precluding the need for other new sources. “The fundamental issue is this,” he said. “Were it not for the South Fork Wind Farm coming online in 2022, LIPA would either be building new fossil-fuel generation or go to new transmission” from the west. 

Ms. Brady emphasized the commercial fishing industry’s opposition to the wind farm, and warned of destruction of habitat during construction, disruption of migratory patterns, harm to marine life caused by the noise of pile-driving the turbines’ foundations deep into the ocean floor, and the displacement of valuable harvests by invasive species. Commercial fishermen are particularly upset by the wind farm’s proposed location on historically important fishing grounds. 

“We are continuing to work with the commercial fishing community,” Mr. Plummer answered. “We’ve got a fisheries liaison based in Montauk listening to the community.” Deepwater Wind, he said, is also engaged in a two-year postconstruction survey around the Block Island Wind Farm, which it built and which began operation in December, to determine any impact on marine life. He pledged to present the company’s findings when the first year of the study is complete. 

Southampton Town officials are once again exploring the idea of putting the Bridgehampton business district on the National Register of Historic Places. The move would be a first for the unincorporated part of the town, which has shied away from federal and state recognition in the past. 

Supervisor Jay Schneiderman reached out to Zach Studenroth, a historic preservation consultant and the former town historian, about putting together a proposal to create a Bridgehampton Historic District along the main corridor and nominate it for the national register. Mr. Studenroth informally presented the idea to the Southampton Town Board during a work session last Thursday and has since been asked to rework it with an eye toward more local control.

The Bridgehampton Presbyterian Church, build in 1842, was recently listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and other buildings are listed individually as well, including the Beebe Windmill and the Bridge­hampton Museum’s William Corwith House and Nathaniel Rogers House.

But the hamlet is not. 

In fact, no hamlet, other than incorporated villages like Sag Harbor Village and Southampton Village, are designated historic districts at all. Bridgehampton, settled in the mid-1650s, is among six areas east of the Shinnecock Canal designated by the town as hamlet heritage areas. Unlike historic districts, hamlet heritage areas do not place restrictions on properties that fall within it. Instead, the designation simply acknowledges that the area has significant historic value; there is nothing to prevent property owners from tearing down a historically significant building. 

Mr. Schneiderman said he thinks the town should take it a step further to add another layer of protection for the town. He said he has watched as a number of modern buildings have been built along the Bridgehampton corridor. 

While he understands property owners have hesitation about possible restrictions, “research shows that property values universally go up within historic districts. They don’t go down, they go up, and they go up because they are protected. There is a sense of confidence that the historic character, which draws so many people to our area, will stay there.” 

Owning a property in an area on the National Register of Historic Places helps maintain a sense of character, Mr. Studenroth told the board. “It doesn’t discourage development, but it tends to guide it. It gives the town the framework to guide that effort.” 

State and federal tax credits and abatements could be available to owners of income-producing properties within the historic district, he said. While individual property owners can seek National Register status on their own, it can be a heavy lift, he said. 

In the past, commercial development was centered around what is now Montauk Highway, Ocean Road, and the Sag Harbor Turnpike. The colonial Bridgehampton Commons, near the crossroad, is now the village green. Julie Greene, the town historian who sat in on the meeting, said there is certainly enough historical character left in Bridgehampton. “With the coming of the rail road in 1870, having that be the end of the line for 25 years, until 1895, a lot of what was there has been taken away, but what’s there certainly shows an evolution. . . .” 

The hamlet-center plan, adopted in 2004, noted that while not all the buildings in the area were of landmark value, their collective context was of importance. “These structures and overall character they create are deserving of special recognition. The hamlet is one of the few remaining Long Island South Shore summer resorts with its period architecture and historic past well represented — few of the others remain so intact. . .  displaying the historic linkage among South Shore hamlets,” the report said.

Councilwoman Christine Scalera said putting areas of the town on the National Register of Historic Places has been explored before and was controversial. “It was not widely supported to do something like this,” she said, adding that some thought it would interfere with local control. Hamlet Heritage Areas, while merely symbolic, paved the way for more local control.

“We probably should have revisited that and just to have given it more teeth and impact. If we feel we haven’t come as far as we liked to, provide an incentive base to be able to encourage people to want to do more,” the councilwoman said. She would prefer to start with the town creating its own historic district in Bridgehampton. 

“It’s going about it backwards,” Mr. Studenroth said, countering that argument. While it may seem counterintuitive, he said, the National Register has standards already set in place. “You start by defining and defending what is widely believed to be of historical significance or importance, and not just locally, not just because we know our local history so well, but there is kind of a larger context for creating this and recognizing this historical area,” he said. “It takes the discussion and the reluctance out of a local, ‘What’s in it for me?’ into a larger picture.” 

(Neighborhoodwide preservation designations in East Hampton Village — including the Heart of East Hampton district and the Ocean Road district, among others — have followed this course, first being recognized on the National Register of Historic Places, before being established by the Village of East Hampton as official historic districts in the 1970s and 1980s.)

Councilman John Bouvier said he did not understand the process well enough yet and wanted to see more. “There are several pathways to accomplish this,” he said, adding that he wants to understand all of them. Councilwoman Julie Lofstad said she would like to understand the pros and cons of each process, as well. 

Mr. Schneiderman said he and Mr. Studenroth would also go to the Bridgehampton Citizens Advisory Committee to discuss the idea. Ms. Scalera asked that he make it clear to the community that “we understand the value and importance of Bridge­hampton amongst others designated. It’s the how we get to a more robust participation” that the board is questioning. 

Mr. Schneiderman asked Mr. Studenroth to retool his proposal to start with the creation of a local district first. 

“I do think that doing nothing is not the right course of action,” he said. “How we get there, I’m not sure.” 

“Much of Bridgehampton’s identity lies in its historic buildings, open space, and farmland,” he said. “Land-use decisions must be mindful of the importance of farmland preservation, open vistas, and open space. Areas in the hamlet with architectural and historic value should be protected using the comprehensive plan strategy of designated heritage areas.”

A new historic preservation program that would give landmark status to and impose restrictions on a handful of houses throughout East Hampton Town was the subject of discussion during public hearings at Town Hall last Thursday night. The houses under consideration are seen as well-preserved examples of their time periods. 

The proposed special historic landmark program is modeled after an existing one in East Hampton Village. In return for agreeing to comply with standards designed to protect the historical integrity of the houses and their settings, similar to those imposed on all properties in the town’s historic districts, individual homeowners would be allowed to build a second residence on their property, provided both structures do not exceed the maximum square footage allowed under zoning.

The houses that the town wants to designate as special historic landmarks include several on Old Stone Highway in Springs, among them the mid-19th-century Nathan Miller house, the Jonathan Darrow Miller house, circa 1815, and the David Miller house from the late 18th century. Others are in Amagansett, in East Hampton on Three Mile Harbor Road and Cedar Street, and in Wainscott. All of them are on properties of a size where, under current zoning, a much larger house could be built, said Robert Hefner, a historical consultant to the town.

The houses under consideration are on average, said Mr. Hefner, only about a quarter of the size of the ones that could legally replace them. “You can’t build an addition to a historic house three times larger than the historic house and have it retain its integrity,” he said, calling the proposed program “the only practical avenue to their preservation.”

The former Zadoc Bennett house on Three Mile Harbor Road is an example, Mr. Hefner said. It is 1,500 square feet, which is just 13 percent of the 11,600-square-foot residence that could be built in compliance with the zoning code on the 2.3-acre parcel. If unprotected, “it would without question be torn down” to make way for a larger house, he said. If given landmark status, he explained, it would “remain on the property as a guest house, with its own larger house on the property.”

The town board has a list of 13 houses proposed for special landmark designation, down from an original 15. According to Supervisor Larry Cantwell, two homeowners “decided they didn’t want to participate,” and their houses were taken off the list. David and Julie Talmage, owners of the circa 1845 Sineus Edwards house on Fireplace Road in Springs, and Shane Grant and Bianca Barnao, who own the 1892 Nathan Sanford house on Wainscott Main Street, were allowed to opt out.

Mr. Cantwell noted, however, that “the town has authority under zoning, under historic designation laws, to create historic districts and do things that are in the interest of the community as a whole.” Notices have been sent, he said, to the remaining homeowners, inviting them to Town Hall to discuss the proposed program, which, he said, has been “very successful” in the village. 

Only one of the homeowners was on hand at last week’s hearing. John Nealon, the owner of the circa-1697 Thomas Strong house in Wainscott, said that he had understood the program to be voluntary; that property owners would have the option whether to have their house landmarked or not. To have the new designation imposed by the town, he said, “sounds like this is a mandatory taking of property rights.” 

“I think it’s a substantial taking of my property rights,” he said. “I would be adamantly opposed and would seek to retain legal representation. This is not enriching the owners, it’s restricting them substantially.”

Mr. Nealon said he was “very happy in my 2,000-square-foot, 320-year-old house. I have no desire to build a 15,000-square-foot house to go with it, nor could I afford to.”

In his opinion, he said, the zoning change, while limiting what can happen on his property, is “only offering some advantage that’s meaningless to me.” The proposed law is “very well intentioned,” he said, “but as I currently understand it, I can’t support it if it’s mandatory.”

Town Councilwoman Sylvia Overby commented that Mr. Nealon had been “very careful” to preserve his site appropriately. But, she said, enacting historic landmark protections on selected properties is “for in perpetuity.  This is about the character of the community, and maintaining that character.”

“Part of what’s important here is the setting�” she said. “That’s what we’re trying to do here, make sure that the setting remains, so that you can understand the history of East Hampton as it occurred.” 

The village’s program has been successful in achieving that goal, Ms. Overby said. “We’re really trying to save the history and character of our town, and I think this is helpful in doing that.”

Mr. Nealon acknowledged that, according to what real estate brokers have told him, should he sell his house, “pretty much 100 percent, a buyer would tear down the house and build something new.” 

Two other speakers, both residents of Springs, objected to the proposed program on the grounds that it would dismantle zoning laws or unfairly provide special privileges to some. 

“Will these guesthouses be able to be rented as historic bed and breakfasts on the property?” Martin Drew asked. “You guys are unjustly enriching certain property owners in our community to have the ability to have a second home and potentially a second income,” he told the board. “It just seems unfair to the rest of us.”

Not many properties will likely be included in the special landmark program, Mr. Cantwell said. “Un­fortunately, in this community there aren’t that many 1700, 1800, homes left that are intact.”

David Buda called the program “wrongheaded. You do violence to the modern zoning principle of one primary residential structure per tax map lot,” he said, adding that the town board has been “steadfast in trying to remove development, not add development,” yet the proposed landmark designation would add an additional house on the lots involved.

The program as proposed “grants special zoning rights to a select group of historic-property owners�” to the exclusion of homeowners in existing historic districts, he said.

“Accessory structures should not be dwellings,” Mr. Buda contended. But, he said, “I fully support the ideal of preserving good examples of historic architecture and those homes that played a significant part in the farming history and fishing history of the town.”

“How would you do that?” Mr. Cantwell asked him. “The risk is that these homes are going to be torn down and they’re going to be destroyed, and they will never exist again.”

“Nonsense,” Mr. Buda retorted. Historic houses can be protected, he said, “by other means that are not destructive of zoning standards . . . many are owned by responsible owners,” who, he said, would continue to preserve them.

“You are in essence in one fell swoop granting 13 or 15 zoning variances without benefit of a single report from your Planning Department,” he told the board. He questioned Mr. Hefner’s calculations regarding what could legally be built on some of the targeted properties.

“I don’t want to call it a quid pro quo,” said Mr. Cantwell, “but there are two things going on here. One is that property owners are accepting, if you will, that their structure is a historic structure and that there are a set of guidelines that are established for improvements and changes to that particular structure on that property.” To make changes, the homeowner would have to apply to the architectural review board and refer to a set of guidelines. 

“That’s what property owners are obligated to do,” the supervisor said. “In return for that, if you will, those properties gain a benefit, which is that they can build two homes on one parcel that currently can only have one residence.”

Preparations are well underway to return the historical Dominy clock and woodworking shops, which date to the late 18th century, to their original location on North Main Street in East Hampton Village, where they are to be connected by a reconstruction of the timber frame Dominy house that also had been on the site and begin a new life as a museum and educational center. 

At the East Hampton Village Board’s work session last Thursday, Robert Hefner, the village director of historic services, and Richard Barons, the former executive director of the East Hampton Historical Society, briefed members on the project. Rebecca Hansen, the village administrator, said on Monday that it is hoped that the shops will be moved next summer or fall. 

The 1791 woodworking shop and 1798 clock shop stood on North Main Street until 1946. Several generations of the family, including Nathaniel Dominy IV, his son Nathaniel V, and his grandson Felix, were renowned for their woodworking and clock and watch-making skills. Their work is honored at the Winterthur Museum in Delaware, with a replica of one of the shops having been constructed and original tools and equipment on display. 

In 1946, the shops were in disrepair and about to be demolished when Dudley Roberts, a part-time East Hampton resident who was the founder and president of Cinerama Productions and the investment banking firm Roberts and Company, rescued them, moving them to his property at 62 Further Lane, and combining them into a single residential structure. The Dominy house was dismantled. 

In 2014, Barry Rosenstein, a hedge fund manager and founder of the multibillion-dollar Jana Partners, purchased the former Roberts property along with 60 and 64 Further Lane for a reported $147 million. He subsequently donated the combined structure to the village, and it was moved in the summer of 2016 to the Mulford Farm for safekeeping. 

“The concept is to put the two shops back to their exact, original locations,” on the grass border between North Main Street and the municipal parking lot, Mr. Hefner said. “The idea is to join them with a reconstruction of the timber frame and exterior of the Dominy house. That not only gives them their original context as being part of a house, rather than being two separate little buildings, but also it allows us to have, in the interior of the Dominy house part of it, an exhibit and educational center.” 

 Mr. Hefner told the board that it was fortunate that six years before the clock and woodworking shops were moved, the Historic American Buildings Survey, the nation’s first federal preservation program, did an extensive study of the Dominy house. More than 100 pages of sketches, dimensions, and field notes from the survey will allow an accurate reconstruction of the house, he said. “It was really quite a fancy house,” he said, adding that it had “expressed their skill, their aesthetic sense, and their standing in the community.” 

Scott Fithian, the village superintendent of public works, and members of his department “did an archaeology expedition to that site,” Mr. Hefner said, exposing a foundation wall of the house and clock shop, which will allow the structures’ precise placement. Two Norway maple trees and one eastern white pine will be removed to accommodate the structures and a chain-link fence will be removed and replaced with a picket fence.

Mr. Barons called the cottages’ present condition astonishing and extraordinary. “When they were transformed over the years into guest cottages, they were not altered,” he said. “The walls still have the nails on them where tools were held,” and remnants illustrating where shelves and ladders were situated also remain. “Most of the original color on the plank walls is still there,” he said.  

“But what makes this so important,” Mr. Barons said, “is it talks about the people who built the community.” This may be the nation’s last existing 18th-century furniture shop, he said, offering outstanding educational possibilities.

On Saturday, Charles F. Hummel, the pre-eminent expert on the Dominy woodworkers and curator emeritus at Winterthur, will be in East Hampton to give the keynote address at a fund-raising lunch for the Ladies Village Improvement Society. The event — titled “Unique: The Dominy Craftsmen and a Second Chance” — is sponsored by the L.V.I.S.’s landmarks committee and will be held at the Maidstone Club on Old Beach Lane, starting at 11:30 a.m. 

Mr. Hummel will speak about the Dominy clock shop and the re-creation of the workshop that can be seen at Winterthur, as well as the mysteries that antiques sleuths such as himself must unravel when attempting to authenticate furniture and tools. Charles Keller and Glenn Purcell, the foremost local experts on the Dominys, who organized an exhibition of new Dominy discoveries at Clinton Academy for the East Hampton Historical Society in 2010, will also be in attendance. More information on the lunch is available at (631) 324-1220.

The Dominy Shops were designated a historical landmark by the village board in 2013. Therefore, the village had to obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the design review board so that work could be done; that was obtained on Tuesday. With that in hand, Mr. Hefner said he and Drew Bennett, a consulting engineer, would prepare specifications so that the board can issue a request for proposals from contractors. 

“It’s all coming together,” Mr. Barons said. “It should be a glory for North Main Street.”

Nearly four out of five respondents to a questionnaire mailed to East Hampton Village residents in June would favor a lethal approach to deer management, according to the results of the survey announced at the village board’s work session last Thursday. 

Upon hearing the results of the 10-question survey, the board quickly reached a consensus that action to reduce the population is needed. 

The questionnaire was intended to gauge the level of interest in moving forward with some kind of deer-management program, said Becky Hansen, the village administrator. 

Two thousand and thirty-eight questionnaires were mailed in June, Ms. Hansen said, and 742 were returned. That 36.4-percent response rate, she said, made for a valid data set. 

Seventy-one percent of respondents said that another phase of the village’s deer-sterilization program, a controversial exercise for which it hired an out-of-state contractor, was very important, with 11 percent calling it somewhat important. Sixteen percent of respondents answered, “Do not continue this program.” 

Asked if the village should consider options other than sterilization to manage the deer population, 81 percent answered yes, and 13 percent said no, Ms. Hansen said. Of the 675 who responded to the question “Would you support culling,” 583 said yes, and 92 voted no. 

Eighty-three percent of respondents said that the village’s deer population is “very concerning,” while another 11 percent called it “somewhat concerning.” 

A few more questionnaires were recently returned, Ms. Hansen said, but were too late to be included in these results. 

White Buffalo, a nonprofit organization based in Connecticut and hired by the village, sterilized more than 200 deer in 2015, mostly does. The animals were captured and sedated, and then surgically sterilized in a village-owned building before being released. The village has spent approximately $190,000 on the program to date. 

Critics called the program both cruel and ineffective, pointing to several deaths as a consequence of the capture or surgery. Members of the East Hampton Group for Wildlife have denounced the program at several board meetings. Sportsmen have also criticized the board, arguing that they could cull the herd at no cost to the village while providing food for themselves and their families as well as food pantries. 

The questionnaire itself was also criticized as biased and leading. “It lists a lot of the problems that deer are blamed for, often wrongly,” Bill Crain of the Group for Wildlife complained last summer. The questionnaire, he said, “leads people to the question of a continuing sterilization, or the other option, a cull.”

Nonetheless, “We will move ahead, working with others, to come up with an amicable solution,” Mayor Paul F. Rickenbach Jr. said last Thursday. The bottom line, he said, is that “there is an overpopulation of deer within the footprint of the village and the surrounding environs. It’s a public health issue, a quality-of-life issue. . . . We want to get a handle on the overpopulation.” The issue is fraught with emotion, he said, and “we have to rise above the emotion and deal with it in an open-minded, fair way.” 

Board members agreed, some saying that there should be an examination of surrounding municipalities’ efforts. “I’m especially interested in the Village of North Haven program,” said Barbara Borsack. 

That program has two components, Ed Deyermond, that village’s clerk, said on Tuesday in an interview, a cull and the use of what are commonly known as 4-Poster bait stations, which apply a pesticide to the head and neck area of the animals as they feed on corn in the station’s center trough. Last year, hunters who were vetted and hired by a wildlife coordinator killed around 125 deer, Mr. Deyermond said. 

“Even our hunters say, when they harvest a deer here there are no ticks on it,” he said, “whereas in Noyac and East Hampton they’re loaded with ticks. Talking to residents, the tick count is way down here — attributable to the 4-Poster.” The village budgets $55,000 annually for the bait stations. “It’s an expensive program,” he said, “but it certainly has results.” 

Mr. Deyermond did note that, “Unlike East Hampton Village, we’re basically an island. We do get some deer that swim from Shelter Island and run in from Noyac, but for the most part we’re a self-contained unit.” 

Mayor Rickenbach said that the board is open to comments from the public, “but we will only deal with matters that are constructive and objective.”

“We’re taking it to the next level upward,” he concluded. “We will move ahead, hopefully dealing in an objective and responsible manner.”

Update, 4:40 p.m.: East Hampton Town police said that a man who fell from a bluff at Shadomoor State Park in Montauk on Thursday afternoon dropped 40 to 50 feet, at what police said is the highest part of the bluffs. 

The man, identified only as a 31-year-old from Port Jefferson, had traveled to Montauk with two friends, according to Sergeant Chelsea Tierney. They parked in the parking area at the state park and walked the trails. His friends told police they were looking at the ocean waves and did not see him fall, but by the time they turned back in his direction, he was tumbling down the bluff. 

Police received a 911 call at 2:34 p.m. Since it was received by the East Hampton Village Police Department, which takes calls for emergency medical services, Sergeant Tierney was not sure who had placed it, but she said the caller was not familiar with the area, and it was difficult to find him. Dispatchers were able to determine the mile marker, and responders approached from the east and west, eventually finding the man who had fallen at the bottom of the bluff. 

He had a head injury, but was conscious and able to walk. He was "a bit disoriented," Sergeant Tierney said. "He didn't know where he was or why he was with us." 

He was taken by helicopter to Stony Brook University Hospital. Police are not releasing his name until they can get in touch with his family.  

Originally, 3:50 p.m.: A man walking along the edge of a cliff on the west side of Shadmoor State Park in Montauk fell approximately 40 feet to the bottom on Thursday afternoon, according to Montauk Fire Chief Vinnie Franzone. Though conscious and able to walk, he was injured and was airlifted to Stony Brook University Hospital, a level-one trauma center, due to the height of the fall. 

It was unclear how the fall occurred. 

After they ascertained where the man had landed, the department's heavy rescue team went to assist him. However, "he immediately got up and started walking down the beach westbound," said the chief, who ended up guiding him up a staircase to the top of the cliff to meet emergency medical responders. 

The chief said the man, who was approximately 30 years old, experienced a head injury. The Montauk ambulance transported him to Amagansett Farm, where a Suffolk medevac helicopter landed and to take him to Stony Brook.  

Timothy D. Sini, a 37-year-old Democrat serving as the Suffolk County police commissioner, handily won the race for Suffolk District attorney Tuesday night. Mr. Sini received 62 percent of the vote over Raymond Perini, a Republican. Christopher Garvey, who ran on the Libertarian ticket, received 1 percent of the vote. 

The race for Suffolk sheriff was razor thin. With all 1,052 districts reporting at 11:30 p.m., just 1,354 votes separated Errol D. Toulon Jr., a Democrat, and Lawrence M. Zacarese, a Republican. Both candidates had about 49 percent of the vote, with Mr. Toulon holding a slight edge. If he were to win, he would be the first African-American elected to a countywide position in Suffolk. A third candidate, Peter J. Krauss, who ran as a Libertarian, earned 1.6 percent of the vote. 

The Suffolk County sheriff runs the county's two jails. Mr. Toulon is a former deputy commissioner for the New York City Department of Correction. Mr. Zacarese is the assistant chief of the Stony Brook University Police Department. 

In his victory speech around 10:30 p.m., Mr. Sini promised to restore trust in the district attorney's office, held by Thomas Spota, who is under federal indictment. "Together we have ushered in a new era in criminal justice in Suffolk County — an era of integrity, fairness, and doing the right thing," he said. He thanked voters for giving him "this awesome responsibility, this awesome privilege" and promised to "return the office to the honorable institution it once was."  

"Now is not the time to rest on our laurels," he told his supporters. "It's time to get to work. Those of us who stand for justice, morality, and doing the right thing need to do that work," he said, adding that he will start by assembling "a top-notch transition team" to do a full assessment of the district attorney's office. 

The Suffolk County Legislature will remain dominated by Democrats following Tuesday's vote.

Legislator Bridget Fleming, who represents the South Fork, was re-elected by a wide margin and will keep her seat in the 11-to-7 Democratic majority.

"Generally speaking, people wanted a positive message. It feels really good because that's how I've always tried to approach the job," Ms. Fleming said yesterday.

Suffolk Republicans picked up one Legislature post. Rudolph Sunderman took the Third District, beating Joshua Slaughter, a Democrat. In that district, Legislator Kate Browning, a Democrat, could not run again because of term limits.

"Although it's very hard to have the short two-year terms, I am glad to have had the opportunity to talk with constituents," Ms. Fleming said. Among their concerns, she said, were natural resources, public transportation, affordable housing, tick-borne illness, and opioid abuse.

"One other thing that is important to them is an economy that works for everyone," she said. "I am really pleased that my staff and I have been able to make progress on those issues, but there's a ton left to do."

East End Democrats in the Legislature have gained ground since the election two years ago. Ms. Fleming and Legislators Kara Hahn and Sarah S. Anker each had increases in their support in percentage terms. Ms. Fleming easily beat Heather Collins with 64 percent of all votes cast, up from 60 percent in 2015. Legislator Al Krupski, who represents the North Fork, won with 70 percent of the vote.

Thomas Muratore, a Republican legislator seeking re-election, was 10 points off his 2015 results, and Mr. Sunderman only managed to win 52 percent of the votes cast.

The enthusiasm divide could be an indicator in the 2018 contest for the seat in Congress now held by Representative Lee Zeldin, a Republican closely tied to President Trump. Mr. Zeldin's First Congressional District roughly encompasses Suffolk Districts 1 through 6, where Democrats hold a 4-2 edge in the Legislature.

Elsewhere in the First Congressional District, Democrats made gains as well. In Southampton Stan Glinka, an incumbent Republican town councilman, came in third after Julie Lofstad and Thomas John Schiavoni, a Democratic newcomer. East Hampton had a near-total Democratic sweep.

In Riverhead, the Republican town supervisor, Sean Walter, lost to Laura Jens-Smith, and another Democrat, Catherine Kent, took a seat on the town board.

Brookhaven, which makes up much of Mr. Zeldin's power base, re-elected its Republican supervisor, Edward P. Romaine, and will maintain a 5-to-1 Republican majority on the town council.