Please sign this NEW petition to add your name to this letter asking the Town of East Hampton Planning Department and Planning Board to fully investigate the approvals for Este Restaurant, Offshore (formerly Sands Motel), and Sands Motel East — and to use every authority available under the Town Code and all other applicable laws to determine whether the Este Restaurant approval should be revoked, suspended, modified, or otherwise prevented from proceeding as currently approved.

On August 24, 2026, The Montauker submitted a detailed letter and supporting documentation to the Town identifying serious inconsistencies in the approval, permitting, occupancy, sanitary, and land-use records associated with these connected properties.

Among the issues documented in the August 24 letter:

Este was presented and approved as a low-key, 39-seat restaurant, yet the Town Fire Marshal subsequently calculated potential occupant loads dramatically greater than that representation — including an approximately 273-person occupant load under a later proposed configuration and 88 people on the second floor alone under the original approved layout.

The restaurant was originally presented with a basement, first floor, and roof deck at a height of 17".  Apparently, because of the high water table, the basement was later eliminated, and the building configuration was pushed upward to 3 stories, resulting in a height of over 28' towering over Montauk Highway at the very entrance of the Hamlet. This change significantly increased the occupancy potential of the structure. This change does not appear to have been clearly or adequately documented during the approval process.

State Liquor Authority applications checked boxes for live music, DJ, patron dancing, and security personnel, raising substantial questions about whether the contemplated operation remains consistent with the 39-seat restaurant use and intensity originally presented to and approved by the Town.
After the Planning Board raised concerns and began considering binding safety, operational, and noise protections for the community, the applicant announced its intention to withdraw its modification request and instead proceed under the original approval.

A 1963 Zoning Board determination required Lot 33 to remain a permanent open space and prohibited further structures from being erected on that lot. The present survey and approved plans raise a question as to whether the Este building or related improvements may occupy some portion of that protected lot.

At Sands Motel East, a Certificate of Occupancy was sought for eight units where the documented historical record reflects only seven lawful units, raising questions that should be resolved before the pending condominium conversion proceeds.

The existing sanitary and septic systems remain unresolved, including whether they are legally and adequately capable of serving the proposed uses at the proposed occupancy levels and associated wastewater flow.

The record also raises questions concerning the project's building area, occupancy, parking, traffic, sanitary demand, intensity of use, and whether additional environmental assessment or further environmental review is required under SEQRA.

What we are asking the Town to do

By signing this petition, you are asking the Town of East Hampton Planning Department, Planning Board, ZBA, and Building Inspector. Legal Department and Town Board to take every action within their authority to investigate these findings fully.

That means requiring the appropriate Town agencies to review the complete record and to resolve the outstanding factual and legal issues regarding all matters related to the former Sands Motel properties; requiring independent professional verification where necessary; and applying the Town Code, SEQRA, zoning requirements, building and fire codes, sanitary regulations, prior Zoning Board conditions, and all other applicable laws and regulations to the facts that are ultimately established.

The Town Code gives the Planning Board continuing jurisdiction over this Site Plan approval and, as lead agency, to the SEQRA declaration, and expressly provides authority, under specified circumstances, to modify, suspend, or REVOKE an approval and to impose additional conditions.

We are asking the Town to use that authority.

At a minimum, no further approvals should be allowed to proceed without resolution of the questions involving lawful occupancy and use, sanitary capacity, the Sands Motel East unit count, environmental review, and the substantial disparity between the 39-seat restaurant presented to the Town and the intensity of use now reflected in the record.

Please sign and ask the Town to act.

______________________________________

Letter Sent Below

August 24, 2026

To: East Hampton Town Board, Planning Department, Planning Board, ZBA, Building Department, Legal Department

Re: Este Restaurant (666 Montauk Highway and 3 South Emery Street; SCTM #300-50-1-13.1); Offshore (formerly Sands Motel) (71 South Emerson Avenue; SCTM #300-50-1-14); Sands Motel East (79 South Emerson Avenue; SCTM #300-50-1-15) — Site Plan (approved 11/5/25), the August 19, 2026 modification hearing and subsequent withdrawal, pending Condo Conversion application, and related Code compliance issues

This memorandum requests formal review of the approvals, permits, and related land-use issues concerning Este Restaurant and Offshore. A comparison of the current survey and approved Site Plan raises a substantial question as to whether the Este Restaurant structure or related improvements may occupy any portion of Lot 33, which remains subject to a 1963 Zoning Board of Appeals condition requiring that it remain permanent open space. That issue, together with the occupancy, use, sanitary system, and other inconsistencies documented below, warrants prompt review by the Town.

We respectfully request that the Town review the matters identified below on the existing record and make the appropriate factual and legal determinations.

Executive Summary
Since Enduring Hospitality Group and its affiliated entities (the "Sponsor") purchased the operation now known as Offshore (formerly Sands Motel) — four parcels operated as a single, integrated business — in March 2024, the record presents a series of documented inconsistencies concerning project phasing, sanitary-system review, occupancy, unit count, and the nature and intensity of the proposed restaurant use. Those inconsistencies have continued through August 2026. After the Planning Board raised serious concerns at the August 19, 2026 hearing about a modification application that would have reduced Este's stated occupancy and bound the use to protective conditions, the Sponsor announced to the media an intention to withdraw that modification and proceed under the original 11/5/25 approval. Most urgently, comparison of the current property survey to the approved Site Plan raises a substantial question whether some portion of the restaurant structure or related improvements occupies Lot 33 — a lot subject to a 1963 Zoning Board of Appeals condition requiring that it remain permanent open space. This letter documents the record, identifies the Town Code provisions that authorize continuing Planning Board jurisdiction, and requests the actions set out below.

• Requested Actions
  Exercise the Planning Board's continuing jurisdiction under Town Code §§ 255-6-100 and 255-9-25 and revoke, suspend, or modify the Site Plan approval granted 11/5/25 for the merged lots and the Este Restaurant structure. Section 255-6-100 gives the Planning Board continuing jurisdiction for three years following site plan approval, and § 255-9-25 expressly authorizes the Board during that period to modify, suspend, or revoke an approval, or impose new conditions, based on false statements, misrepresentation or mistake of material fact; noncompliance with permit conditions; activity beyond the scope described in the application; or willful or continuing noncompliance with directly related Town Code provisions. The record described below warrants formal review under those standards, including the 39-seat, 7-employee restaurant representation; the materially larger Fire Marshal calculated occupant loads associated with the approved and modified layouts; the SLA applications in which the boxes for live music, DJ, patron dancing, and security personnel were affirmatively checked; and the Sponsor's own June 2026 modification submission seeking standing drink service and an open floor plan. A second issue requiring review is the inconsistency between the Findings and Determination's stated 2,900 sq. ft. restaurant description and the area notations contained in the incorporated architectural plans. Any building permits dependent on the 11/5/25 Site Plan approval should be reviewed concurrently with whatever action the Planning Board takes under its continuing jurisdiction.
  
  
• In the alternative, decline to treat the Sponsor’s withdrawal of the pending modification as a basis to avoid Planning Board scrutiny. Formally impose, as binding conditions of the original approval before any further construction, occupancy, or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy: (a) the safeguards the Planning Department itself had already proposed at the August 19, 2026 hearing — takeout/coffee service only, with no alcohol, on the first floor; food and drink service on the second floor and rooftop limited to seated patrons at tables; and either a noise analysis for any rooftop sound system or a recorded covenant barring music on the rooftop in perpetuity — and (b) the additional, more protective conditions listed below under “ESTE Conditions,” particularly removal of the roof deck as occupiable space, given that it represents the largest share of proposed seating and the greatest source of concern to the Board and the community. Consistent with that condition, we ask that the Building Department modify the building permit to physically prevent patron access to the roof — removing or securing the stair and any elevator access above the second floor — rather than rely on a paper restriction the Sponsor’s record gives the Town no reason to trust.
  
  
• Direct the Town Attorney and lead agency to determine what additional SEQRA review is legally required in light of substantive new information and project-use issues that emerged after the August 13, 2025 negative declaration, including whether any subsequent modification, permit, approval, or materially different use constitutes an action requiring supplemental or new environmental review. The negative declaration was issued on a record describing a low-key, 39-seat restaurant, with parking, sanitary flow, and traffic impacts assessed on that basis. The later record includes a Fire Marshal calculated occupant load of approximately 273 persons for the June 2026 modification; an 88-person calculated occupant load for the second floor under the layout as originally approved; SLA applications in which live music, DJ, patron dancing, and security personnel were affirmatively selected; and the Sponsor's June 2026 modification seeking standing drink service and an open floor plan while retaining nearly all of the second floor's occupiable capacity. These facts warrant a formal determination of what further environmental review, if any, is required rather than an assumption that the 2025 negative declaration resolves all environmental issues associated with the use and intensity now reflected in the record.
  
  
• Issue a stop-work order for the Este Restaurant construction immediately, pending the Building Department's determination, on the record, whether any portion of the Este Restaurant structure, decks, or other improvements encroaches on Lot 33, Block 5A, Map No. 174 — part of the merged parcel — which remains subject to a May 16, 1963 Zoning Board of Appeals condition requiring that Lot 33 remain permanent open space with no further structures erected on it. The survey and approved Site Plan raise a substantial question of overlap, but we are not licensed surveyors and do not represent that the precise boundary has been established. The Building Department should verify the boundary before further construction proceeds. If an encroachment is confirmed, the Town Attorney should determine whether relief from or modification of the 1963 ZBA condition is required before work on Lot 33 may resume.
  
  
• Direct the Town to transmit its zoning, occupancy, site-plan, and enforcement determinations concerning Este to the New York State Liquor Authority and request that the SLA defer final action, to the extent permitted by law, until the outstanding local land-use issues described in this letter are resolved. Any liquor license ultimately issued should correspond to the use and conditions actually approved by the Town
  
  
• Require that no Special Event Permit be issued for Este unless the applicant demonstrates, for the requested attendance and event configuration, adequate sanitary capacity, parking, traffic management, Fire Marshal compliance, and consistency with the approved zoning and site-plan use.
  
  
• Direct the Building Department to produce its record establishing why a Certificate of Occupancy was applied for covering 8 units at Sands Motel East when 7 units legally exist, and to confirm whether any unit was reconfigured to add sleeping or cooking facilities during the 2024–25 renovation.
• Deny, or hold in abeyance, the pending Condo Conversion application for Sands Motel East until lot size, parking, unit size, septic capacity, screening, and drainage nonconformities are resolved.
  
  
• Require the Sponsor, before any further permits, certificates of occupancy, or approvals are issued for Offshore (formerly Sands Motel) or Sands Motel East, to provide certification by a qualified independent sanitary professional identifying the existing wastewater system, its components, design capacity, present legal status, and whether it constitutes a large-capacity cesspool under Town Code § 210-3-2(B)(4) requiring an upgrade to a low-nitrogen system. The present survey raises questions but is not, by itself, sufficient to establish the system's legal classification.
  
  
• Consider, as a longer-term Town-wide policy measure, requiring commercial applicants to provide sanitary-system certification before issuance of building permits for substantial renovations, which should be categorized as any renovation that exceeds 50% of the value of the structure, or $500K, whichever is less.
  
  
• Consider strengthening the Town Code's fine schedule for commercial occupancy and zoning violations, as discussed under "Longer-Term Policy Recommendations" below, so that penalties provide a meaningful deterrent for large commercial operations.

Factual Record

1. Este Restaurant — Scale, Occupancy, and the SLA Application
The Site Plan approved on 11/5/25 describes Este as a 2,900 square foot restaurant — the figure used throughout the Planning Board’s own Findings and Determination — on the representation that Este would be a low-key, 39-seat restaurant with 7 employees. The approved plans themselves, prepared by JM2 Architecture and last revised July 3, 2025, are inconsistent with that figure. Those plans give the per-floor area as 2,750 square feet — not 2,900 — repeated across the ground floor, second floor, and roof deck, for a cumulative total the plans themselves label “TOTAL = 8,250 SF.”This most plausibly traces to the project’s revision history: between the March 5, 2025, and June 4, 2025 Planning Board Meetings, the design changed on paper from an initial single-story, 17-foot concept with a roof deck to the two-story, approximately 28-foot structure with a roof deck now under construction. The discrepancy should be reconciled formally by the Planning and Building Departments so the record clearly states the enclosed building area, occupiable area at each level, and the area actually authorized by the 11/5/25 approval. The Findings and Determination's summary description does not appear to have been updated to explain the area discrepancy.

At the August 19, 2026 hearing, the Planning Department reported that the Fire Marshal calculated an occupant load of approximately 273 persons for the Sponsor's proposed modification — far beyond the 39-seat representation used in the original site-plan review. The Fire Marshal also separately calculated an 88-person occupant load for the second floor under the layout as originally approved, where the application had represented 16 seats. These are code-calculated occupant-load figures, not proof that 273 patrons are approved or will actually occupy the premises at once; their significance is that they reveal a potential intensity of use materially different from the 39-seat, 7-employee presentation on which parking, sanitary flow, and other impacts were evaluated.

The parking, traffic, and septic requirements approved for this Site Plan were calculated on the 39-seat, 7-employee representation. The SLA applications filed October 15, 2025 and November 24, 2025 affirmatively checked the boxes for live music, DJ, patron dancing, and security personnel. Those selections are directly relevant to the nature and intensity of the proposed use. East Hampton Town Code § 255-1-20 defines a restaurant as a use devoted to the preparation and serving of food within furnished dining areas, with alcoholic beverages accessory to meals, and expressly provides that removing or relocating tables and chairs to permit dancing, or establishing an area for dancing, constitutes nightclub use except where a qualifying special event or catered affair applies. The SLA selections, therefore, warrant direct reconciliation with the restaurant use represented and approved by the Planning Board. The Investor Memorandum with normalized revenue projections of over $7M annually for this modest 39-seat restaurant may provide additional context, but this letter does not rely on revenue alone as proof of the nature of the use.

2. The August 2026 Modification, the Planning Board’s Findings, and the Sponsor’s Withdrawal
In May 2026, one of the Sponsor’s principals, Marley Dominguez of Enduring Hospitality, appeared before the Planning Board in what was described as an unusual, do-over session to chart a path forward on Este’s use. In June 2026, Este submitted a modification request intended to “clarify the building’s use.” The Planning Board convened on August 19, 2026 to workshop that modification and was, in the Planning Department’s own account, not fully convinced by it; the Board was moving toward binding conditions on the modified plans.

At that hearing, the Planning Department disclosed that the Fire Marshal calculated an occupant load of approximately 273 persons for the proposed modification (82 on the first floor, 77 on the second floor, and 114 on the rooftop). On the second floor alone, the Fire Marshal had calculated an 88-person occupant load under the layout as originally approved, a figure the modification reduced only marginally, to 77, despite the Applicant's claim of a much larger cut to occupiable floor area. Planning Board members were openly skeptical: one member described the application as resembling "a Trojan horse," another observed that the modification "clearly" exceeded what the site could support given its parking and sanitary limitations, and the Vice Chair stated that the area "cannot take a 273-person restaurant-slash-nightclub." Again, these are Fire Marshal occupant-load calculations rather than proof of an approved patron count, but they are material to evaluating the intensity and configuration of the use.

The modification itself raised further concerns. The Applicant's June 10, 2026 submission represented that the second floor's occupiable dining area had been reduced by approximately 45%. After the Owner asserted at the June 4, 2026 meeting that the revised layout reduced occupancy, the Planning Department checked that claim directly with the Fire Marshal, who found the actual reduction in occupiable space to be only about 154 sq. ft. — roughly 12.5% — consistent with the modest drop in calculated occupant load from 88 to 77 persons. The revised plan also added a bar and an open floor plan. Those facts do not, by themselves, prove nightclub use, but they warrant scrutiny as to whether the modified layout and proposed service remain consistent with the restaurant use approved by the Town. Planning Department staff have stated that the modification added direct drink service to standing guests on the ground floor, a further fact that should be reconciled with the approved restaurant use and with the Town Code definition quoted above.

As a means of binding Este to the modification, the Planning Board was considering conditions that would have limited the first floor to coffee and takeout service, restricted food and drink service to seated guests, and explored a covenant barring music on the rooftop — conditions substantially similar to those we separately propose below under “ESTE Conditions.” Rather than accept Planning Board oversight on these terms, the Sponsor has announced he will withdraw the modification and build out the property under the original, unconditioned 11/5/25 approval — an approval that was never bound to the Fire Marshal’s occupancy findings or to any of the safeguards the Board was developing in response to them. As of this writing, the Planning Department has confirmed it has not yet received formal notice of that withdrawal. We ask the Board not to treat an informal withdrawal as a basis to let the Sponsor avoid the very safeguards the Board itself found necessary; if anything, the Sponsor’s choice to walk back from Planning Board oversight rather than accept binding conditions makes the need for those safeguards more urgent, not less.

3. Undisclosed Change in Building Height and Massing
The structure was initially proposed as a single-story building with a roof deck, at a total height of 17 feet. Between the March 5, 2025, and June 4, 2025, Planning Board meetings, the submitted building elevations changed to a two-story structure with roof deck at a height of approximately 28 feet — with no clear notation or citing of this material change in the record by the applicant, the applicant’s representatives, or the Planning Department, and no discussion of the change at any subsequent Planning Board meeting to our knowledge. Original and revised elevations are attached as Exhibit C for comparison.

The negative declaration issued for this project on August 13, 2025, does describe the project as a "two-story restaurant," so it postdates and appears to reflect the height and story change described above. It does not, however, state the structure's actual square footage or occupant load in its text, and its findings concerning parking, traffic, and wastewater were made on the record as it stood in mid-2025. The subsequent record includes the Fire Marshal's later occupant-load calculations, the SLA applications in which live music, DJ, patron dancing, and security personnel were affirmatively selected, and the Sponsor's later modification filing. Because the original Site Plan approval has already occurred, this letter does not assume that 6 NYCRR § 617.7(f) authorizes rescission of the 2025 negative declaration at this stage. Instead, as set out in Requested Action 3, we ask the Town Attorney and lead agency to determine what additional SEQRA review is legally required for any subsequent modification, permit, approval, or materially different use in light of the later information now in the record.

4. The 1963 Zoning Board of Appeals Condition Restricting Lot 33 to Open Space
The Este Restaurant parcel (SCTM #300-50-1-13.1) is a merger of Lots 31 and 32 (666 Montauk Highway) and Lots 33 through 36 (3 South Emery Street). On May 16, 1963, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted setback variances to Abraham and Julia Hausman, who then owned Lots 31 through 41, Block 5A, Map No. 174, as a single combined holding spanning both sides of a 20-foot alley. Those variances permitted construction of a two-story motel and one-story office — not on the parcel now occupied by Este, but on the adjacent parcel that today operates as Offshore (formerly Sands Motel) (SCTM #300-50-1-14): the determination itself refers to “the existing motel owned by the applicants on property across the alley,” and no certificate of occupancy on record for the Este parcel’s own lots has ever covered a motel building — only a cottage, sheds, a bocce court, and a swimming pool. As a condition of that 1963 approval, the Board required that Lot 33 — part of the same combined holding, and now merged into the Este Restaurant parcel — remain permanent open space: “That Lot 33, Block 5A, Map No. 174, is to remain as open space and no further structures are to be erected on that lot nor is that lot to be conveyed separately from Lots 34, 35 and 36.” This determination is attached as Exhibit G.

This condition has never, to our knowledge, been formally rescinded or superseded. The current property survey (George Walbridge Surveyors, P.C., revised October 10, 2023, prepared for and submitted as part of this Site Plan application) labels Lot 33 directly on the plot, positioned along the Montauk Highway-facing (western) portion of the merged parcel — attached as Exhibit I. Comparing that survey to the approved Site Plan (JM2 Architecture, Sheet C-1.0, revised July 3, 2025), the Este Restaurant structure and adjoining improvements are sited in that same western portion of the property, west of the existing pool. Based on that comparison, there is a substantial question whether the restaurant structure or related improvements occupy some portion of Lot 33. We are not licensed surveyors and cannot certify the precise boundary overlap from these documents alone. The Building Department should require a surveyor's determination before further construction proceeds. If an overlap is confirmed, the Town Attorney should determine the continuing legal effect of the 1963 condition and whether ZBA relief is required before construction on Lot 33 may continue.

5. Certificate of Occupancy Discrepancy — Sands Motel East
The Sponsor applied for a Certificate of Occupancy for 8 units at Sands Motel East, where only 7 units legally exist. We request that the Building Department produce its inspection record explaining this discrepancy and confirm, specifically, whether any room was reconfigured during the 2024–25 renovation to include sleeping or cooking facilities that would constitute an 8th dwelling or motel unit. We also ask why the Site Plan application for the Condo Conversion was not filed before the gut renovation took place, given that the completed renovation is now being used to support a claim of grandfathered status for units that would not be permitted if built today.

This discrepancy is corroborated by two of the Sponsor's own documents, which are themselves inconsistent: the Investor Memorandum ("The Sands Brief," Exhibit B) provided to prospective investors, and a separately obtained internal financial model (Exhibit H). The Sands Brief investor presentation describes converting "eight 1-bed units to hotel condos" for sale at an assumed $1.375 million per unit, for a total sell-out of $11,000,000. The internal model ("Offshore Montauk Analysis"), however, consistently underwrites the condo conversion at only seven units for a total of $10,528,000, and reduces the hotel's operating key count from 44 to 37 — a seven-unit reduction — once the condos are sold. These differing figures do not establish the reason for the discrepancy, but they make the 8-unit CO application and the legal unit count a matter that requires a clear documentary explanation from the Sponsor and the Building Department.

6. Investor Memorandum and the Sponsor’s Public Representations
The Sponsor has stated, on the record, that he is an owner who will never sell the property and intends to pass it on to his children. (See recording of the May 15, 2024 Planning Board hearing, minute 53:25–53:50.) The Investor Memorandum provided to prospective investors — "The Sands Brief," attached as Exhibit B — features the sale of eight condo units as a central component of the financing and describes a five-year investor exit strategy: its financial projections model an investor "exit in Year 5 at a 6.50% Exit Cap," while its Hold Period discussion anticipates refinancing in Year 4 and approximately 100% return of initial invested capital, with limited partners free to exit or remain thereafter. Those provisions do not necessarily establish a sale of the entire property, but they do contemplate monetization, condo sales, refinancing, and investor liquidity within a relatively short period, which is difficult to reconcile with the public representation of indefinite family retention and should be weighed in assessing credibility. The same document describes the project as involving "four separate legal parcels (so one does not delay the other)" and phased approvals. That language does not, by itself, establish unlawful SEQRA segmentation, but it raises a question whether the separate components should have been considered together for environmental-review purposes.

7. Sanitary System — Offshore (formerly Sands Motel) and Sands Motel East
The Planning Department's own record shows that the sanitary system at the property now operating as Offshore (formerly Sands Motel) was an open, unresolved issue before the property was renovated. The May 15, 2024, Site Plan Evaluation for the Sands Motel roof application (attached as Exhibit F) states that information on the existing and proposed sanitary system "has not been provided by the applicant," and directs the applicant to discuss whether IA systems are contemplated or currently in place. The applicant later withdrew the pending Site Plan, obtained a building permit for exterior renovations at the Sands and Sands North, and separately commenced an interior renovation that resulted in a stop-work order before work resumed. The submitted survey depicts cesspool structures and does not identify an intervening septic tank. That raises a substantial question about the existing wastewater system, but the survey alone is insufficient to establish whether the system meets the legal definition of a large-capacity cesspool, its design flow, or its present legal status. We therefore ask the Building Department to require certification by a qualified sanitary professional identifying the system's components, capacity, and compliance status, and to explain whether the sanitary-system question flagged by the Planning Department in May 2024 was ever formally resolved before permits were issued or the stop-work order was lifted.

The scope of the renovation should also be reviewed against the actual legal standards that trigger sanitary-system upgrades for substantial renovations, changes of use, increases in design flow, or other applicable thresholds. The determination should be based on the governing Town, Suffolk County, State, and federal requirements and on competent professional evidence.

 Had the Town required complete sanitary-system identification and certification before issuing the relevant permits or lifting the stop-work order, any required upgrade could have been identified before further approvals were granted. The restaurant parcel also appears to contain the only available land to support a more fully compliant sanitary upgrade for the integrated operation, but only a licensed sanitary professional and the appropriate reviewing agency can determine whether that location is technically feasible. We request that the sanitary certification and capacity review be completed before the Condo Conversion application proceeds further.

Timeline

3/21/24: Sands Motel operation (4 parcels) purchased by the Sponsor

5/15/24: Sponsor appears before Planning Board regarding Sands Motel only (roof raise); states on the record he will never sell and will pass the property to his children (minute 53:25–53:50); same TAM flags that sanitary system information “has not been provided”

8/29/24-10/18/24: Site Plan withdrawn; building permit obtained for exterior renovations; unpermitted interior gut renovation begins; stop-work order issued and later lifted

3/5/25: Initial Planning Board meeting with Este Restaurant elevations presented: single story, 17 ft, with roof deck

6/4/25:  2nd Planning Board Meeting-Revised elevations presented: two stories, ~28 ft, with a roof deck; the change is inadequately documented

6/13/25: CO application filed for 8 units at Sands Motel East (7 legally exist)

10/15/25: First SLA application filed; boxes for live music, DJ, patron dancing, and security personnel affirmatively checked

11/5/25: Site Plan approved: lot merger and Este Restaurant construction (~2,900 sq. ft. per Findings and Determination)

11/24/25: Second SLA application filed; boxes for live music, DJ, patron dancing, and security personnel affirmatively checked

11/2025: Sponsor raises additional LP investor capital, after the 11/5/25 Site Plan approval, per the Sponsor’s own financial model

04/2/2026: East Hampton Star Article alerts the public about potential issues with the application.

6/2026: Este submits a modification request to “clarify the building’s use”

8/19/26: Planning Board hearing: Fire Marshal calculates an occupant load of approximately 273 persons for the June 2026 modification (82 first floor, 77 second floor, 114 rooftop), and confirms an 88-person calculated occupant load for the second floor under the original approved layout; Board expresses skepticism and moves toward binding conditions

8/21/26: Reporting indicates Sponsor will withdraw the modification and proceed under the original, unconditioned 11/5/25 approval

Ongoing: Condo Conversion application for Sands Motel East is pending before the Planning Board
Ongoing

Petition organized by The Montauker gathers 655 signatures calling for revocation of the Site Plan approval and all building permits

Legal Basis for Continuing Jurisdiction and Potential Revocation

The Planning Board has expressed continuing jurisdiction under East Hampton Town Code §§ 255-6-100 and 255-9-25. Section 255-6-100 provides that, for three years from the date of site plan approval, the Planning Board retains jurisdiction and may modify, suspend, or revoke the approval in accordance with § 255-9-25. Section 255-9-25 identifies four grounds: (A) false statements, misrepresentation, or mistake of material fact in the application, supporting papers, or testimony; (B) failure to comply with conditions or terms of the approval; (C) activity exceeding the scope of the use or project as described in the application; and (D) willful or continuing noncompliance with directly related provisions of the Town Code or local agency regulations. The November 5, 2025, approval remains well within that three-year continuing-jurisdiction period. The documented discrepancies concerning the 39-seat, 7-employee presentation; later Fire Marshal occupant-load calculations; SLA applications affirmatively selecting live music, DJ, patron dancing, and security personnel; and the Sponsor's subsequent modification filing are therefore not merely matters of general equitable concern — they fall within a specific local-code framework the Planning Board is authorized to examine.

We ask the Town Attorney and Planning Board to determine, on the existing record and after providing whatever process § 255-9-25 requires, whether one or more of those statutory grounds has been established and whether revocation, suspension, modification, or additional binding conditions is the appropriate remedy. This approach avoids relying on broader common-law theories where the Town Code itself supplies express continuing jurisdiction.

A second issue is the approval's internal description of the project area. The Findings and Determination describes Este as a 2,900 sq. ft. restaurant, while the incorporated plans contain 2,750 sq. ft. area notations at the ground-floor, second-floor, and roof-deck levels and a plan notation stating "TOTAL = 8,250 SF." Because the roof-deck area is not necessarily equivalent to enclosed gross floor area, this letter does not characterize the building as an 8,250 sq. ft. enclosed structure. Instead, the Town should reconcile the Findings with the incorporated plans and identify the precise enclosed area, occupiable area, and level-by-level area authorized by the approval. A material error or mistake in the approval record may itself be relevant to the Planning Board's continuing-jurisdiction analysis under § 255-9-25(A). 

A third issue concerns the May 16, 1963 Zoning Board of Appeals condition restricting Lot 33 to permanent open space. The condition has not, to our knowledge, been formally rescinded. Comparison of the current survey and approved Site Plan raises a substantial question whether some portion of the restaurant structure or related improvements occupies Lot 33, but that overlap should be established by a licensed surveyor. If confirmed, the Town Attorney should determine the continuing legal effect of the 1963 condition and whether the 11/5/25 Site Plan approval could authorize construction on Lot 33 without prior ZBA relief. Pending that determination, the Building Department should halt any work that may be occurring within the restricted lot.

Longer-Term Policy Recommendations

The current fine schedule for zoning violations under Chapter 255, Article X of the Town Code generally provides a fine of up to $1,000 for a first offense, with escalating penalties for subsequent offenses. For large commercial hospitality operations, the Town Board should consider whether the present schedule provides a sufficient deterrent. The following are policy recommendations for future legislation, not assertions that current law already requires these measures:

Scaling fines for occupancy and zoning violations at hospitality venues to a percentage of gross receipts, rather than using flat dollar amounts;
Escalating daily fines for active, ongoing violations (e.g., continued operation above legal occupancy) rather than treating each day as a fixed, capped additional offense;
Mandatory suspension of music entertainment permits and mass gathering permits following a second violation within a defined period;
Extending the sanitary-system and occupancy certification requirements proposed above to periodic renewal of commercial hospitality permits, not solely to initial permitting.

ESTE Conditions in Lieu of Site Plan Revocation

Should the Town Board and Planning Board decline to revoke the Site Plan approval, we ask that the Board formally adopt, at minimum, the conditions the Planning Department itself was already developing at the August 19, 2026 hearing: no service of food or alcohol at a first-floor bar or lounge (takeout and coffee service only); food and drink service on the second floor and rooftop limited to seated patrons at tables; and either a noise analysis for any rooftop sound system or a recorded covenant barring music from the rooftop in perpetuity. In addition to those safeguards, we request that the following, more protective conditions be added to the approval, particularly the removal of the roof deck as occupiable space, given that the rooftop has consistently been the focal point of the community’s and the Board’s concerns:

Remove the roof deck as occupiable space entirely — converting it to a non-occupiable mechanical, green, or otherwise inaccessible roof, with the building permit modified to physically prevent patron access (stair and any elevator access above the second floor removed or secured) — given that the rooftop accounts for the largest share of the proposed seating (approximately 60% under the withdrawn modification) and has been the area of greatest concern to the Planning Board and the public.
In the alternative, if the roof deck is not removed as occupiable space, no music of any kind shall be permitted there.

No drinks permitted on any exterior deck, including the deck(s) with exterior fireplaces shown in the renderings.

The Town Attorney and lead agency determine what additional SEQRA review is legally required in light of the Fire Marshal occupant-load calculations, the SLA applications, the June 2026 modification, and any associated parking, sanitary, traffic, and noise impacts not previously considered, including whether any subsequent modification, permit, approval, or materially different use requires supplemental or new environmental review.

The Town transmit its final zoning, occupancy, site-plan, and enforcement determinations to the State Liquor Authority so that any liquor license issued is consistent with the use and conditions actually authorized locally.

Conclusion

The record documented above presents several concrete issues requiring Town action: an unresolved sanitary-system record; renovation work that proceeded after permitting disputes and a stop-work order; a Certificate of Occupancy application inconsistent with the documented seven-unit count at Sands Motel East; investor materials that differ from public representations and internal operating assumptions; a substantial, inadequately explained change in the restaurant building's height and massing during the approval process; SLA applications affirmatively selecting live music, DJ, patron dancing, and security personnel; and a Sponsor now seeking to proceed under the original approval rather than the modified plan that the Planning Board was preparing to condition. Most importantly, the Town Code expressly gives the Planning Board continuing jurisdiction for three years to modify, suspend, or revoke a site plan approval on specified grounds. We ask the Town to apply that authority to the documented record, resolve the Lot 33 and sanitary questions before further approvals are issued, and determine what additional SEQRA review, if any, is legally required in light of the subsequent information now before it. We appreciate the Board's time in reviewing this matter and ask that it act in a manner that protects the Montauk community and preserves the integrity of the Town's land-use review process.

Please confirm receipt.

Respectfully submitted,
The Montauker Board of Directors

_____________________________________________

Supporting Documentation to Download

Exhibits

Exhibit A: Septic Survey (Sands Motel / Sands Motel East) [attached]

Exhibit B: Investor Memorandum (“The Sands Brief v4.0”), investor presentation prepared by
 Enduring Hospitality Group (The Surfrider Montauk / Sands Hotel) [attached]

Exhibit C: Comparison of Este Restaurant elevations, 3/5/25 submission vs. 6/4/25 submission [attached]

Exhibit D: Planning Board Findings and Determination, Este Restaurant Site Plan, adopted 11/5/25 (SCTM #300-50-1-13.1) [attached — public record]

Exhibit E: “Este To Pull Tweaked Plans, Move Forward on Previous Approvals,” The East Hampton Press / 27east.com, Jack Motz, Aug. 21, 2026 [attached — public record]

Exhibit F: Planning Department Site Plan Evaluation, 71 South Emerson LLC Roof – Site Plan, dated May 15, 2024 (SCTM #300-50-1-14) [attached — public record]

Exhibit G: Zoning Board of Appeals Determination, In the Matter of the Application of Abraham Hausman and Julia Hausman, dated May 16, 1963 (Lot 33 open-space condition) [attached — public record]

Exhibit H: Sponsor's internal financial model (“Offshore Montauk Analysis”), Summary and P&L Forecast tabs, obtained separately from the Investor Memorandum [attached]

Exhibit I: Survey, “Map of Property, Lots 33-36, Block 5A, Montauk Beach Development Corporation,” George Walbridge Surveyors, P.C., filed November 22, 1926, revised October 10, 2023, showing the Lot 33 boundary within the merged parcel [attached]

Referenced recordings: Planning Board meeting of 5/15/24 (minute 53:25–53:50); Planning Board meeting of 8/19/26 [public record]